Civilian Pilot Training Program (1938-44) question.

[JackL-3J]

My 1940 Aeronca 60TF / 65TC was apparently initially sold to the Civilian Pilot Training Program and delivered to a school in Fort Wayne or Logansport Indiana. Then, six years later, it was sold by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (at Kelly Field, San Antonio Texas) as a surplus L-3J.

After reading a couple books about the CPTC, I am wondering if that entity underwrote or financed sales to flight schools or supplied some of the smaller ones with aircraft.

Much of what I gave read is obviously incorrect. The CAA would not have created paragraphs and sub paragraphs for a single 65TC impressed as a L-3J. I'm wondering if aircraft purchased by the CPTP were routinely transfered or sold to the USAAF (especially if the school they were initially assigned to folded).

I am also wondering what color scheme my 65' wore. All the photos that I have seen have the aircraft in civilian colors, Lock Haven Yellow for Pipers, and Aeronca Orange If impressed or sold to the Army would it have received O.D. as a primary trainer?

The Army swapped the 60 Franklin for a 170-3, but there was also a contemporary CAA Maintenance Note and Air-Cooled Circular that would have required an engine tear-down.

 

[Bell206]

Then, six years later, it was sold by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (at Kelly Field, San Antonio Texas) as a surplus L-3J. After reading a couple books about the CPTC, I am wondering if that entity underwrote or financed sales to flight schools or supplied some of the smaller ones with aircraft.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a government backed lending institution that loaned money via the US Treasury to fund programs like the CPTP and goes back to the Depression Era. I never researched any Aeroncas but have chased a number of old Piper J3s that were also involved in the CPTP. The FAA Historical Office also has a couple good articles on the CPTP as does the AIr Force Museum archives.

I'm wondering if aircraft purchased by the CPTP were routinely transfered or sold to the USAAF

The best I could figure out, the CPTP was managed by the CAA who contracted 3rd party institutions to provide the training which in turn borrowed money through the RFC to hire instructors and buy aircraft. After Pearl Harbor, when the CPTP name was changed and the military basically took over the records get a bit blurred. A couple of the J3s appeared to cross over to Army Air Corp control but never were modified to an L-4 and the best I could tell never lost their yellow paint.

I am also wondering what color scheme my 65' wore.

My guess since the Aeronca 60 is a pre-CAR aircraft it would have had its civilian colors. Especially if your records indicate it kept a civilian registration through that period from '40 to '46.

 

[JackL-3J]

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a government backed lending institution that loaned money via the US Treasury to fund programs like the CPTP and goes back to the Depression Era. I never researched any Aeroncas but have chased a number of old Piper J3s that were also involved in the CPTP. The FAA Historical Office also has a couple good articles on the CPTP as does the AIr Force Museum archives.

The best I could figure out, the CPTP was managed by the CAA who contracted 3rd party institutions to provide the training which in turn borrowed money through the RFC to hire instructors and buy aircraft. After Pearl Harbor, when the CPTP name was changed and the military basically took over the records get a bit blurred. A couple of the J3s appeared to cross over to Army Air Corp control but never were modified to an L-4 and the best I could tell never lost their yellow paint.

My guess since the Aeronca 60 is a pre-CAR aircraft it would have had its civilian colors. Especially if your records indicate it kept a civilian registration through that period from '40 to '46.

Thanks,

If RFC was the lender / guarantor of the loan for the flight school in Indiana, that would explain the aircraft being assigned to the AAF and later being sold as surplus. It may also explain why it was converted to a 65TC rather than sidelined since it was a listed asset.

L-3s were a diverse bunch. My example was built as a 60TF uunder CAA Certificate A-728-I (along with 50TCs and 50TLs). I have not ffound definitive evidence that any -Is were designated as O-58s or L-3s.

65TCs, either built under A-728-Ii, or converted to -II standards such as my aircraft, were used as trainers and designated L-3J, while those built as observation / liason aircraft were O-58s then L-3s. As far as I can tell, none were built with greenhouse glazing.

L-3As and B's were observation aircraft, built under A-751, with TA fuselages, balanced rudders, and greenhouses.

L-3C's were built under A-751 as trainers. I am uncertain if they had greenhouses. Perhaps some did and some did not based on stated empty weights.

I think that the following is correct.

L-3Ds were 65TFs built under 728-III, L-3Es were TAC's built under 728-V, L-3Fs were 65TAFs built under 728-VI, L-3Gs were 65TALs built under 728-VII, L-3Hs were 65TLs, built under 728-, and L-3Ls were 65TLs built under 728-IV.

The empty weights that I have seen infer that none of these had greenhouses.

I have read some sources who state that CAs and CLs were designated as L-3?s. Perhaps, but Wilipedia, for instance, directly contradicts the CAA Certificate and Maintenance Notes.

 

[RyanShort1]

Chances are it may have worn more than one coat of paint, and saw a recover or two during the war, too.

 

[Craig]

Jack: Do you have both the military history card and the FAA file on your aircraft? According to Al Adcock's book, there was only 1 J model in the system, which should be your airframe.

 

[JackL-3J]

It is a bit confusing with conflicting information being provided by various sources. I personally know of three L-3Js and doubt that the CAA would have created a paragraph of A-728 (-II) for three airframes, especially when the three that I am aware of were already covered by A-728-I.

Speaking of CAA Type Certificates, or thier later iterations and translations, there are conflicts there as well.

A-675-IV lists a side-by-side Chief 65CA as the same as a L-3F, and A-702-III, lists a 65LB as the same as a L-3G.

 

[JackL-3J]

Jack: Do you have both the military history card and the FAA file on your aircraft? According to Al Adcock's book, there was only 1 J model in the system, which should be your airframe.

I have a CD of the aircraft's FAA file which includes the RFC bill of sale. That document indicates the aircraft was an Army L-3J, and provides the frame (serial) number and engine serial number indicating that the aircraft was converted from a 60TF to a 65TC prior to sale by the RFC.

This information was also overstamped on the Aeronca builder's plate, but I don't know when that action occurred.

 

[JackL-3J]

Chances are it may have worn more than one coat of paint, and saw a recover or two during the war, too.

A CAF chapter (Tulsa OK IIRC) did a gorgeous frame-up restoration of a L-3J years ago. They painted it in O.D. with black stenciling. The cowl, rudder, wingtips and small registration number were in bright yellow. Required placarding was white on an O.D. panel. There was no national insignia.

 

[Craig]

Jack: You need to order the history card from Maxwell AFB or NASM on the airframe. It should have additional data along with the impression information.

 

[Bell206]

Speaking of CAA Type Certificates, or thier later iterations and translations, there are conflicts there as well.

True, but you need to put things in context. If an aircraft was certified under the Air Commerce Regulations (ACR)/Aeronautic Bulletin 7a it was given a Approved Type Certificate (ATC) number, eg., “ATC 691.”

However, there were regional differences in how the ACRs/Bulletin 7a were used and even written, so when the CAA/CAR 4a system was introduced, there were some “creative” measures taken to grandfather in the ACR certifications and “ATC” numbers into the new system.

And while the CAA/CAR 4a rules maintained the numerical sequencing from the ACR/7a system, the nomenclature and prefix changed to “Aircraft Specifications” with a single “A” prefix.

Same happened when the FAA/FAR 23 system was issued where these same documents were renamed Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS), but this time they adopted a new numbering format for any new aircraft or applicable TC revisions. As I recall the original ACR/CAA TC tracking numbers ended in A-800s.

Unfortunately, recording keeping and regulatory priorities changed through the years so the current TCDS database may not reflect the actual aircraft configuration that existed in the ACR/7a years (pre-1937) or the CAA/CAR 4a years (1938-1960).

However, there are historical archives and references that have those old records where an enterprising individual could research those original configurations in more detail.

A-675-IV lists a side-by-side Chief 65CA as the same as a L-3F, and A-702-III, lists a 65LB as the same as a L-3G.

One key to reading the current “TCDS” records is to pay attention to the eligible serial numbers between the different variants (I, II, IV, etc) listed on the TCDS. During the system changes mentioned above, some aircraft variants were retained under a single TCDS and some variants were given separate TCDS (certifications.)

Researching records for pre-1940 civil aircraft can be an interesting rabbit hole to fall in on occasion. When I get a chance, I’ll knock the dust off some of my reference material and see what it has about your 60TF.

 

[Bell206]

It is a bit confusing with conflicting information being provided by various sources.

Here's some scans from an old reference book series I have. Looks like it should connect a few dots for you.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Here's some scans from an old reference book series I have. Looks like it should connect a few dots for you.

View attachment 134683
View attachment 134684
View attachment 134685
View attachment 134686

Interesting that they didn't want side-by-side seating. I wonder what the reasoning was?

 

[geezer]

Probably none of the advanced trainers were side by side.

Once they were sidetracked to bomber or transport, side by side prevailed.

Prime students continued in tandem and fighter planes.

 

[Bell206]

Probably none of the advanced trainers were side by side.

As I recall, initially the military wanted nothing to do with this civilian program. So I would suspect it was something else. My bet theres something in the CPTP history that will explain it as there were several other OEMs who built tandem versions of existing side by side models to bid on this program.

 

[JackL-3J]

Interesting that they didn't want side-by-side seating. I wonder what the reasoning was?

Left hand throttle, right hand stick, and sitting on the centerline would be more similar to fighters I guess. I learned to fly in a J-3C-85, and then flew a BC12D-85:for years before acquirng the Aeronca. I think it is easier to go from a tandem to a side-by-side, but maybe it's just that experience of any kind makes anything easier.

One solos a T from the back just like a J-3.3

 

[JackL-3J]

As I recall, initially the military wanted nothing to do with this civilian program. So I would suspect it was something else. My bet theres something in the CPTP history that will explain it as there were several other OEMs who built tandem versions of existing side by side models to bid on this program.

From what I read it is even more complicated. Hap Arnold was one of those FDR consulted with before setting up the CPTP. Aviators did not hold the positions of power in the Army, and they likely approved of the plan both because it matched what Nazi Germany was doing, and because as a centralized government program it could later be absorbed into the Army under thier command (just as the Costal Patrol and Women's Service Pilots were).

Interstate and Porterfied bid, and the Army bought a few hundred Cadets, but nothing like the thousands of T-craft, Aeronca's, and Pipers.

 

[JackL-3J]

Here's some scans from an old reference book series I have. Looks like it should connect a few dots for you.

View attachment 134683
View attachment 134684
View attachment 134685
View attachment 134686

Thanks for the article. I wonder how many T's left Cincinatti with Franklin's. There were a few Mandatory Inspections and Notes issued about the 60HP that would have required a teardown and remediation. I guess it is possible that aircraft ordered with 60F's were delivered with 65C's instead to maintain a schedule. But those would have been single ignition -7s not military O-170-3 (which IIRC is a-8).

Curious.

Saying that two L-3Js were built is not the same as saying others were not converted into J's. For whatever reason, few Franklins have remained in these aircraft over the years.

And your source confirms that aircraft were being built at Lunken into 1940 . . . something others question or deny. (My data plate says it, so it must be true.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Left hand throttle, right hand stick, and sitting on the centerline would be more similar to fighters I guess. I learned to fly in a J-3C-85, and then flew a BC12D-85:for years before acquirng the Aeronca. I think it is easier to go from a tandem to a side-by-side, but maybe it's just that experience of any kind makes anything easier.

Ah, that could be... I wonder if they had any thoughts as to how many fighter pilots vs. bomber, transport, and other side-by-side pilots they'd need.

FWIW, I think your last line is right on, that experience of any kind makes things easier. I had a few hundred hours before I first flew a J-3, and I had no issues whatsoever with jumping in and having left hand throttle and right hand stick.

 

[Bell206]

For whatever reason, few Franklins have remained in these aircraft over the years.

Or remained in other aircraft as well. Was told years ago the small Franklins, and small Lycomings, couldnt compete against the Continental A and C engines on a number of levels.

Thanks for the article.

The "article" is actually part of a 9 volume set called US Civil Aircraft Series by Joseph Juptner. Its to goto reference on older aircraft and has info found no where else. It was originally published in 1962 with several reprints. You can find used volumes online.