|
Post by Peter Lewis on Dec 8, 2008 22:39:31 GMT 12
Does anyone know the real reason that these three aircraft were re-serialed from NZ7923/NZ7924/NZ7925 to NZ7940/NZ7941/NZ7942 some months after their arrival in 1981?
Both adfserials and kiwiaircraftimages gloss over this event.
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Dec 9, 2008 9:16:25 GMT 12
No idea, but as a random stab in the dark, the 40, 41 and 42 may have some relation to the numbers of the (then) transport squadrons?
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Dec 9, 2008 20:40:22 GMT 12
I suppose that's a possible explanation Joe, but I'd like something a bit more definite from someone involved at the time (Paul?). Most RNZAF re-serialling (which was not common) was the result of an extensive rebuild (eg Oxfords rebuilt as Consuls) or where there had been an inadvertent reuse of a serial previously issued (eg Beaver). In the case of the Cessnas, the early serials were certainly painted on the aircraft when they arrived in 1981, but seem to have been changed later that same year: NZ7923 became NZ7940 NZ7924 became NZ7941 NZ7925 became NZ7942 I guess somebody out there knows the answer!
|
|
|
Post by Radialicious on Dec 9, 2008 21:02:38 GMT 12
I have a lot of good memories of the RNZAF C421's. I cut my teeth on them immediately after aircraft mechanic training until our disbandment in 1990. Often maligned for their reliability, they weren't suited to the short sectors that we tended to do especially when mistreated by pilots used to operating turbines.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 9, 2008 22:14:30 GMT 12
An interesting anomally with the serials, one I had not heard before.
I always thought the Golden Eagles looked fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by timmo on Dec 10, 2008 10:07:05 GMT 12
Im not even sure if this is possible with a/c serial number system, but just a thought: Perhaps past RNZAF aircraft had already used these serial numbers and were causing problems for some sort of past equipment register? (i.e. Serial numbers are unique at one point in time: there cannot be two NZ7923s flying at the same time, but are they totally unique temporally?) Could a NZ7923 exist in say a Harvard, de-registered after being scrapped/sold and then later used on a new aircraft later?...if that is the case then any IT/asset management system which uses that as the unique ID may run into problems if a complete history is kept)
Could well be very wide of the mark haha
|
|
|
Post by timmo on Dec 10, 2008 10:12:53 GMT 12
I do agree though- I always liked the Golden Eagle.....There were withdrawn from service before I ever saw one flying though
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Dec 10, 2008 10:21:48 GMT 12
The reason for the reserialling would have been to avoid confusion between the C421s and the Andovers last two digits i.e Andover NZ7623 v's NZ7923 C421. When we rewrote the serial policy in the mid 1980s this situation was incorporated in that the general guidelines were that there should be no overlapping of the last two digits for aircraft operating at the same base etc. Didn't quite work out though as when the King Air's were repositioned from Whenuapai to Ohakea there was an overlap with the CT4Es!
Paul
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Dec 11, 2008 10:00:40 GMT 12
Interesting to hear why the serials were changed, and I guess it does make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Dec 12, 2008 9:58:43 GMT 12
Thanks for the clarification Paul. At least we now have a reasoning behind the change. Not sure how that fits in with the Hercs and the Orions, both at Whenuapai and both in the sequence 01 - 05/06 but what the hell.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Feb 11, 2009 12:10:52 GMT 12
Just looking at this issue again, and from my recollection, the paintshop were only given the block allocation (IE NZ79..) and used the last two of the manufacturers serial numbers (1023, 24 and 25) to complete the job. As Paul states, this conflicted with the policy and was corrected.
|
|