2005 membership directory + original N numbers

[N170BP]

So I got the 170 news and membership directory
in the mail today and decided to look myself up
in the directory to make sure I was there....

My entry says the original N number of N170BP (serial 26299)
was N2755C. Is this accurate, and if so, where did the
association get the information?

I have the original delivery documents for my 170 and
it states it was sold to some outfit in Canada and went
out the factory door in 1954 with a Canadian registration #
(same one it had on it when I bought it in Canada a
few years ago).

Inquiring minds would like to know....

[flyguy]

I was visiting at Ron Massicot's house a couple of nights ago. We got out the new directory to look up different "N" numbers and "S" numbers to find out why one of our new members has a 1952 "B" that is about 70 or so numbers newer than my old '93D. His carries N5---V! Several "N"s and "S"s are out of sync.

Bella's knowledge of where his plane went at its first sale and the number it carried may be a clue to several anomalies in the sequence of "N" numbers versus "S" numbers shown in our directory. Early in its life Ron's 1953 B went to Mexico on a large cattle ranch operation. When it came back to the US it was saddled with "N74887".

We didn't pick up on your situation Bella. Where they got the info for the directory could only come from Velvet. Where are you - - Gal?

[zero.one.victor]

Bela, I glance thru the Washington member's listing, I saw the "original" number shown for yours & assumed that you had provided that info.

Eric

[Velvet]

This is one way to get the correct information! I have had the original number info for some time and thought I would include it in this year's Directory. I can't remember where I first got each individual information, but I'm assuming from previous owners of the aircraft. It's hard to believe I could make a mistake, but I'm happy to make corrections.

Velvet

[N170BP]

That's OK. I'm OK with stuff "fallilng through the cracks", but I'm
more interested in how you came up with that N number in the
1st place!

I belong to another aircraft type discussion group, and we're always
trying to reconcile various serial numbers / identities (vs military serial
numbers) and in the end, the only common conclusion that keeps rearing
it's head is that there was a war going on, and they had airplanes to build,
and weren't overly concerned about assigning serials / identities in an
orderly fashion.

[zero.one.victor]

Looking thru some of the membership directories in the past, I've seen some ragwings that were s/n'd higher than mine but tailnumbered lower (or vice-versa, I can't recall now). I've also noticed that while most years/models of 170's are generally all the same last letter, they seem to all have exceptions. For example, most 52's end in A, but I've also seen some D's. Ditto for most A models. The one exception seems to be the 48 model, seems like they're all V. I have seen a couple (presumably) early 49 A models with a V tailnumber also.
FWIW, I really enjoy seeing 170's and other classics sporting the original tailnumber, and dislike seeing them with "personalized" numbers. Unless the original is unavailable for some reason, or (like Bela's) they were exported right from the factory. Especially cuz the personalized number doesn't ever make any sense when it passes along to the next owner-- like Density Dog's "1-8-0- Fat Boy".

Eric

[GAHorn]

When I first saw my own listing showing my airplane's original registration number as N3069A (incorrect) I mentioned this to Velvet, and she of course wanted to correct the info. (N3069A actually belonged to a ....P-tooie.... Piper.)
In my aircraft's case, SN 25713, 1953 model B, left the factory in Nov. 52, with the registration number of YS-146 and went directly to an El Salvador Cessna Distributor (Aviones Centro Americanos, Ltd., Aeropurerto Nacional Ilopango, San Salvador, El Salvador, Agent:David Lowsley)
When the airplane first re-entered the US in 1970, it underwent it's first inspection for conformity and was issued it's first U.S. Airworthiness certificate and for the first time obtained a U.S. registration number N4922. It never had any other N-number until it was restored, at which time it received the near-obverse of it's original number: N146YS.
(This info was passed to me by the restorer who had researched it.)

[3958v]

On the subject of tail numbers I wonder how many 170s left the factory with NC numbers I have an old photo of NC2549V but when I restored N3958V I found no evidence of a C on the tail. Bill K

[zero.one.victor]

I have the original factory "Pre Delivery Flight Test Report" for mine, and it shows an N number, NOT an NC.

Eric

[C170BDan]

Eric,

On your flight test report is it dated and signed by the pilot? I have my report... it lists my N number but then no date or test pilot signiture! Really wish I could find out when mine was test flown. First 100 hr. inspection was done in Nov/Dec of 1955.

I'll dig it up tonight but I have a list that shows the serial numbers and what model 170s were which serial number. Maybe I can post it on my site for viewing.

[zero.one.victor]

It is signed ( but not dated) by the pilot, but I can't make out the name-- it's an undecipherable scrawl. The entries are all typewritten, & it shows a :45 test flight. Looks like it was probably all made out ahead of time by the factory office girl, and just signed off by the pilot later when test flown (if it even was!).
I also have the original factory W&B Data sheet as well as the Equipment List, both dated 9-13-48. I suspect that the airplane was never really weighed, because it doesn't show the actual scale readings for each wheel. I suspect they weighed the first 170 off the line, and just used that same data for all the rest.
It shows an empty weight of 1210#, plus 18# for unusable fuel & 15# for oil, totalling 1243# (CG @ 36.9") ready to gas,load, & go. For contrast, today in a similar condition it weighs 1310# with CG @ 38.4". Paint job, radio's, 180 gear legs, etc can sure add up.

Eric

[C170BDan]

No date, huh? Interesting... wonder why even from 1948 to 1955 they would have similar "errors" on the flight test reports. Date of test flight, you would think, is an important piece of information!