900528

Admin Team: Ken, Chris, Walt, Malcolm

There are trwo further photographs of this aircraft on the database under the title 90-0528:

AC71559 and AC71560.

Suggest they be added to the profile 900528.

Peter

Malcom, I'm the dumb one. I didn't look closely because I have seen many posts in the past without the dash for Army or Air Force designations. Peter N. just told me this was a Navy bird. So I just gave you more work to do - get rid of that dash!

Glenn

Oh dear Glenn! I was going to say join the club but me thinks I have a few years on you.

Well spotted Peter - will be re-instated almost immediately!

Malcolm.

Further info as to the confusion. I thought 900528 was quite odd for BuNo because current ones always start with 1. I guess it orginally was 90-0528 but since it went to the Navy they dropped the dash to make it conform to their style. This is not without precedent; I have seen Army/AF numbers in the past being converted to Navy format, but the numbers were such that they fit - no examples off the top of my head. I've also seen the reverse when the AF takes a Navy bird, and a good example of that is the A-1 Skyraider at the Air Force Museum. It's BuNo. is 132649, but the Air Force added a FY number at the front to become 52-132649.

Speaking of that Skyraider, the links added an extra profile under 132649 because fthe profile for 52-132649 uses the BuNo for the c/n. If you were to correct the c/n on that one to match the one on 132649 - i.e., 9506 - then you would be able to get rid of that extra profile. You could also put the year built - 1952 - on the 132649 profile.

Glenn.

I'm just a tad confused.

I assume that you would wish to retain the link. Therefore should I not move your images to the lower profile and then remove the first profile?

Malcolm.

Definitely retain the link! The aircraft, in my opinion, should only be listed by its BuNo, but since others used the obscure AF serial, it would be best to leave both.

At the well known dutch spotter site "scramble" it is listed as 900528, at Joe Baughers home page as 90-0528. To have both profiles might be a good solution on that issue :?

Fritz

Joe Baugher shows it as originally 90-0528, but then he shows it going to the Navy who gave it a BuNo of 900528.