NR695 and N2290F

GlennE.Chatfield

Hello Admin guys,

This profile is linked of of N2290F and had differing information. I e-mailed Daniel to move his photo and I moved mine. The profile linking way back when generated extra profiles for both.

The FAA-generated profile has no information as to the engine, which can be transferred to it from NR695 profile. Also, the FAA profile shows one engine and there are two. Otherwise NR695 should be deleted. (NR695 is the RAF serial).

Glenn

MalcolmClarke

Glenn.

I have deleted the second N profile.

However, I think that a profile for NR695 should appear in the database but I have temporarily deleted it to break the link as alterations to N numbers are not permitted due to the FAA auto update.

Out of interest, the aircraft was built for the RAF in 1944, sold to the Indian government in 1946 and then into private hands. Transferred to the US, it was modified to the civil variant and flown as N2290F.

As the database images show, it is now in the National Museum of the Air Force, painted as X7454, representing one of 6 DH-89 Dominie's flown by the USAAF in WWII, and carrying RAF serials, USAAF serials not having been allocated.

The cn is 6794.

Malcolm.

GlennE.Chatfield

I built the profile for NR695 because that's its RAF serial - before I learned it had an FAA registration, but, as you noted, it messed up the N-number thing. I went to look for it based on my personal inventory sheet of all photos I have, and I couldn't find it. SO I actually went to my gallery and clicked on the photo. I posted photos on both NR695 and N2290F originally because of link, but yesterday I moved my photo as did Daniel to N2290F.

I was familiar with its history because I have the history - as much as they give - for all the NMUSAF planes. It's my favorite museum, having visited it about 75 or so times.

MalcolmClarke

Two nations divided by a common language - not seriously!.

The last line of your original request does seem to suggest deletion of the RAF profile. Even if you mean the deletion from the FAA listing this is not acceptable due to auto update.

Regarding the history, I was merely accentuating my belief in the retention of the profile, not suggesting that you were unaware of these details. There was no data available on the site regarding the location of the airframe which I have now added.

Malcolm.

GlennE.Chatfield

Well, I was suggesting the deletion of the original NR695 because of the confusion and difficulty linking. But it is also beneficial to keep if the profile can not be messed up with the FAA system.

Oh, and my comment about the history was just one of those, "Oh yeah, I know that too!" One of those English/American things.