Aircraft XB-SIJ Data
1
aircraft record found
XB-SIJ
Douglas A-26C Invader, c/n 29278
Latest photos of XB-SIJ
Peter Nicholson
@ SAT
Peter Nicholson
@ SAT
Airframe Info
| Manufacturer | Douglas |
| Model | A-26C Invader Search all Douglas A-26C Invader |
| Construction Number (C/N) | 29278 |
| Aircraft Type | Fixed wing multi engine |
| Number of Seats | 6 |
| Number of Engines | 2 |
| Engine Type | Reciprocating |
Aircraft
| Registration Number | XB-SIJ |
| Current Status | De-registered |
Owner
| Owner | |
| Address |
, Mexico |
User Comments
Richard E. Fulwiler, 2009-12-14 05:00:00
I believe this to be the only LAS Super 26 built. The Super 26 used the wings and tail of a Douglas A-26 Invader, lengthening, increasing the height, and pressurizing the stock fuselage.
The remains (fuselage only) are reported to be with Air Spray in Canada as a parts source for their fleet, with the "XB-SIJ" registration still visible on the vertical stabilizer.
http://napoleon130.tripod.com/id156.html has conflicting information for the LAS Super 26, as does http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1944_3.html for the aircraft S/N and C/N.
IF this is all the same aircraft, s/n 44-35994, c/n 29273, N5052N would be the base aircraft for the LAS Super 26; -or- s/n 44-35999, c/n 29278, N5052, N52NM, XB-SIJ used as a parts source for Air Spray #67 as CG-QPZ.
I would suspect that s/n xxxx94 , c/n xxxx73 is valid and that s/n xxxx99 and c/n xxxx78 were derived from miss-read type.
Your thoughts ?
Sincerely,
Rick
The remains (fuselage only) are reported to be with Air Spray in Canada as a parts source for their fleet, with the "XB-SIJ" registration still visible on the vertical stabilizer.
http://napoleon130.tripod.com/id156.html has conflicting information for the LAS Super 26, as does http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1944_3.html for the aircraft S/N and C/N.
IF this is all the same aircraft, s/n 44-35994, c/n 29273, N5052N would be the base aircraft for the LAS Super 26; -or- s/n 44-35999, c/n 29278, N5052, N52NM, XB-SIJ used as a parts source for Air Spray #67 as CG-QPZ.
I would suspect that s/n xxxx94 , c/n xxxx73 is valid and that s/n xxxx99 and c/n xxxx78 were derived from miss-read type.
Your thoughts ?
Sincerely,
Rick