RS Models NA-64 Yale / Harvard II Conversion?

[fightersweep]

Hi All;

 

Just a quick question. I've just picked up a couple of the new RS Models NA-64 Yale. I was wondering if the kit would make a good candidate for conversion to a Harvard II. I'm no Harvard expert, but it kind of looks do-able to me. I'm not afraid of a good kit bash, but was wondering what the thoughts of the Harvard experts was.

 

Thanks in advance;

Steve

[Work In Progress]

Obviously you know you would have to change the engine and find a Harvard retracting undercarriage and some wheel wells and doors.

I believe also that the wing itself is also different in some ways, though I am not enough of a type expert to give you definitive  chapter and verse on all the visual differences. The wingtip is certainly different and looks like a half-way house between the original rounded type and the late T-6 type. The pic here will show you clearly

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8440672

Edited May 19, 2017 by Work In Progress

[fightersweep]

Thanks for the reply.

 

Good call on the wingtips. I hadn't noticed that, but then again, I haven't received the Yale kits through the post yet. I was thinking about the possibility of using parts from either the Airfix or Heller kits to get a halfway decent Harvard II, and I think it might be possible. I might be wrong, but the ailerons on the Yale image look slightly different too. All in all, I think it could be done....well, I hope so anyway!

 

Best regards;

Steve 

[gingerbob]

Why not start with a Harvard/Texan?

[fightersweep]

Good question!

 

Maybe I thought that as the Yale kit was new, that it would be a better start. I think also that the all important canopy looks correct and there's some nice paint masks coming from Peewit....and I was hoping it would make life easier. I probably should just scrub up the Airfix kit I suppose.

 

I think I'm just affeared of Harvard canopies in 1/72 scale! 

 

Best regards;
Steve

[Lawzer]

54 minutes ago, fightersweep said:

Good question!

 

Maybe I thought that as the Yale kit was new, that it would be a better start. I think also that the all important canopy looks correct and there's some nice paint masks coming from Peewit....and I was hoping it would make life easier. I probably should just scrub up the Airfix kit I suppose.

 

I think I'm just affeared of Harvard canopies in 1/72 scale! 

 

Best regards;
Steve

 

I'm affeared of anything in 1/72 scale

[RJP]

It's easy to see the allure of the Harvard canopy but if I had the yen for a Harvard II I'd probably start with a Heller or maybe Academy kit and use a Falcon canopy:

 

http://www.falconmodels.co.nz/clearvax/set30.html

 

Nearly everything else needs significant modification:

 

The Yale had a Wright engine with a different cowling and forward fuselage.  

 

The wing was not only shorter in span but also different in plan view, more like a Harvard I with its straight trailing edge but without the rounded tips.  Not that you could tell in 1/72 but it also had a different section.

 

The main undercarriage needs wells extending forward of the wing.

 

If it were me, there's be a nice Yale wireless trainer on my shelf to go with a whole whack of Harvards.

Edited May 19, 2017 by RJP

[fightersweep]

Thanks RJP!

 

Certainly sounds like the Heller or Academy kit would be a better start, and I have them anyway. I haven't used Falcon canopies....but I think I may have to invest!

 

I shall therefore build the Yale as a Yale!

 

Thanks for the replies chaps!

 

Best regards;

Steve

[G.E.SAUNDERS]

    hi ,

 

               your yankin' us  !

              we have waited for a N.A. Yale for years and you want to convert it to a Harvard II .....   g.g.m.s !

 

                                                                                             Geoff

                                                                                                 F.T.G. 3156

[Mike Starmer]

Having last year built a Yale from an Academy T-6,  I can assure you that you cannot build a Harvard II from the Yale.  Use a Heller or Academy T-6 as is.   I found a lot out when building a BC-1 using a

combination of the Azure N.A. 57 and the Heller AT-6, part Heller mainplanes, undercarriage and tail surfaces combined with the Azure outer wings, fabric fuselage, cowling and new rudder.

The wings are the major drawback on all of these trainer types.  The fixed undercarriage versions all had a straight trailing edge to the mainplane whilst  the Harvard II has forward rake besides the retractable undercarriage.  I considered building a Harvard I from Azure/ Heller or Academy kits but won't  bother.  It could be done but probably not worth the effort at present .  The Azure NA.57 isn't 1/72 to start with and certain major components are not even the same scale either.   The wing span varies between versions and the tip shapes come in three different styles too. There are three different rudders to consider, in addition to exhausts and intakes.  There is a Squadron Signal book about these aircraft but be warned; all the drawings in that show a raked foreword mainplane  for every version, which is wrong.  I am hoping that  RS may do a BT-14 which is very similar to the Yale, followed by some decent fabric fuselage versions as the early NJ and SNJ US models.  

[viscount806x]

CMR told me recently that there is an new injection Harvard II coming soon from someone unnamed and for that reason they have binned their own planned new resin Harvards II. Nobody seems to know anything more. Bit frustrating actually.

[e8n2]

Maybe just a bit off topic here, but as I am currently building the Special Hobby BT-9, which will be done as the Swedish Sk 14, I noticed that the canopy on the AT-6 is about 12 -18 scale inches SHORTER than the canopy on the BT-9.  doing a search on some photos of the BT-9 and AT-6 to compare actual canopy lengths, it does appear that the BT-9 did in fact have a longer canopy than the AT-6.  I have also thought about getting an older, cheaper kit of the AT-6 and putting it's fin and rudder on the BT-9 to make a BT-14, but not sure about that now. 

Later,

Dave

[RJP]

Another can of worms!

 

I've just had a look through my collection of downloaded photographs and think you are on to something.  Where do you believe the length difference occurs?  

The canopy discussions on the family always seem to focus on the extreme aft section, T-6 vs Harvard, but I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.  It has always seemed that the SNJ shared the Harvard's aft section but some were single piece - were they the same shape?

 

Then there are the windscreen differences.  The earlier BT-9 (as an example) seems to have had a flat centre panel with a squared off top, replaced with a curved panel with a curved top by the time of the T-6.  If the early variants were squared off, were they also shorter?

 

And what about height of the various canopies?  I have always thought the Wirraway had a shorter (height) canopy than others but if this was a holdover from the NA-16 or an Australian variation (or my own imagination) I can not say.

 

It leaves me wondering why the designers needed to evolve the canopy anyway.  Apart from the need to open the aft section for gun use . . . ?

 

 

[e8n2]

Comparing the canopy from the Heller kit with the BT-9 canopy, the extra length of about 10 - 12 scale inches (I measured it out this morning) is in the aft section.  On the AT-6 there are three side panels, with two rounded panels for each side panel.  The rear fixed section of the canopy goes directly into it's curve downwards.  On the BT-9, there are side panels to match each of the top rounded panels.  Whereas the AT-6 has three side panels, there are six on the BT-9, but the overall length is the same.  However there is an extra side panel that is part of the rear fixed section of the canopy.  I am considering buying the Pavla resin AT-6 cockpit for the rest of my Special Hobby/Azur BT-9/NA-57 kits and maybe use some sheet plastic to lengthen the rear part of the cockpit.  The existing parts have been a nightmare to use in that the floorboard is too thin with where they have you install it and there are no locating ledges to fit the rear section up to.  I will just have to put up with it on this one but not on the others.

Later,

Dave

[Graham Boak]

On the AT-6, the short rear section is designed to be able to rotate back into the canopy, to cope with a gunner in the rear position.   This was specifically seen on the AT-6B, so I suspect it was fixed on other variants, but can be seen on all armed versions of the NA-16 family earlier than the AT-6.  The longer (earlier) rear to the canopy has a different shape to that of the AT-6, so a simple extension won't work.  The AZ/Azur kit captures this shape quite well.  Falcon does two different Harvard/Texan canopies, one short AT-6 and one longer earlier/Canadian style.  Be careful of earlier versions than the NA.57 (eg BT-9 family) as they had a lower canopy with a more squared-off top and a flat windscreen with flat triangular quarterlights, unlike the familiar curved AT-6/Harvard windscreen.  I don't know offhand whether the Azur kit has captured this variation.  There are a lot of differences between variants once you look back before the AT-6 itself.   However my Azur examples all have yellowed canopies anyway, and I'm still awaiting my RS Yale...

[e8n2]

The canopy with the SH BT-9 kit has a flat windshield and the triangular quarter panels.  My NA-57 kits are not available at the moment, but they also have vac canopies and I would expect that they are the same as in the BT-9 kit.

Later,

Dave

[G.E.SAUNDERS]

            hi All.

 

                         I was'nt sure if I should beam a selection of restored Yales photos from an  Osprey AEROSPACE Book I have in my Aircraft Library

                 so until there any requests to committ Copyright breaches 

                 " T-6 TEXAN "The Immortal Pilot Trainer " William JESSE  isbn 1-85532-154-8

                There is a chapter titled "Variations on a Theme " in which are some great photo's of restored Yales for all to ogle

 

                                                                                                                  cheery "modellin' " mumbas !

 

                                                                                                                                 Geoff SAUNDERS

                                                                                                                     Melbin , 'Strailya 3156

[Graham Boak]

2 hours ago, e8n2 said:

The canopy with the SH BT-9 kit has a flat windshield and the triangular quarter panels.  My NA-57 kits are not available at the moment, but they also have vac canopies and I would expect that they are the same as in the BT-9 kit.

Later,

Dave

 

Thanks for that information, but the NA57 kits correctly have the higher roofline of the AT-6 and the rear of the later Canadian-built Harvards.  Had they remained transparent they would have been fine for a Harvard Mk.II

[fightersweep]

I feel a bit better about my initial (stupid) question now. The amount of differences is quite something to take in if your a bit uninitiated on all things Harvard etc. I've tried taking it all in, but for some reason, I just get all dyslexic when it comes to the differences on these aircraft. Funny really, as I don't have that problem with any other type!

 

Anyway, I've bagged some Airfix/Academy/Heller kits to play with. My Yales will be built as Yales!

 

Best regards;
Steve

[RJP]

Nothing stupid about it.  The Harvard family is like Rabbit's friends and relations, far too numerous to get a handle on.  Researching them all - AT, BT, T-6, SNJ and all the assorted cousins - can keep a man fully occupied just about forever.  

 

Besides, it allows the experts (and us wannabes) to get some exercise.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RJP

[e8n2]

I was looking through one of my references this afternoon just before heading off for work and it turns out that the early SNJs had the same fin and rudder as the BT-9 and NJ-1, at least up through the SNJ-2.  May be worth cutting off the fin and rudder from one of the AT-6s that I have to make an early SNJ.  The extra length on the BT-9 canopy versus the AT-6 canopy seems to because by the front cockpit of the BT-9 being further forward than that of the AT-6.  On the AT-6 the front of the cockpit starts at about mid chord on the wing while it is further forward on the BT-9.  Probably had to do with CG adjustments since the AT-6 had a longer fuselage and heavier engine than the BT-9/NA-57 family.

Later,

Dave

 

Found a couple of pictures of a SNJ-1 to show about the fin and rudder.  I also noticed a further conundrum.  It looks to have the longer canopy of a BT-9!

 

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=snj-1&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.academic.ru%2Fpictures%2Fenwiki%2F83%2FSNJ-1_at_NAS_Pensacola_c1940.jpeg&action=click

 

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=snj-1&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001#id=4&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F20%2FFirst_SNJ-1_in_flight_near_Anacostia_c1940.jpeg&action=click

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by e8n2
Added photos

[Graham Boak]

The longer canopy is all in the rear fixed part.  It has nothing to do with the changes making the AT-6 but is the standard canopy shape for the pilot trainer versions up until then, whereas the AT-6 was also intended as a gunnery trainer so has the shorter shape of the shorter pivoted gunner's position.   I don't believe that the position of the wing changed relative to the cockpit, nor that there was any change in the cockpit size throughout the NA.16 range.

 

The rudder is a modified form of the BT-9 with a wider chord at the bottom, rather than the curve, and yes it was on the SNJ-2 as well.  Despite its metal skinning, the SNJ-1 was another close relative of the Harvard Mk.I/Wirraway.  As such it has the curved windscreen and taller canopy of the later AT-6 rather than the angular windscreen and slightly lower canopy of the BT-9.  (However, the SNJ-2 was basically an AT-6, though it did have an extra six inches in the centresection for a fuel pump, shown by a ventral bulge.  RJP has it right about NA.16 variants.)

[e8n2]

I did another search for photos.  The upper linked photo is from my previous post.  The lower one is of an AT-6C.  Comparing the two pictures it does appear that the cockpit starts at the same place, about 40% of mean chord, the nose forward of the cockpit is definitely longer.

 

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=snj-1&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.academic.ru%2Fpictures%2Fenwiki%2F83%2FSNJ-1_at_NAS_Pensacola_c1940.jpeg&action=click

 

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=at-6+aircraft&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001#id=153&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdanielrychcik.com%2Fferte10%2Fnorth_american_at-6c_harvard_1.jpg&action=click

 

Graham, if you need an NA-57 canopy for the Azur kit, send me a PM and I can send you one.

Later,

Dave

 

[72modeler]

Pulling up a chair, as they say! I had this saved and thought it might be helpful in sorting out all the derivatives of the BT-9/BT-14/SNJ/T-6 family. Enjoy!

Mike

 

http://www.skytamer.com/North_American_Harvard_II.html

[Graham Boak]

A nice list, a good starter for looking into the smaller differences.  Don Hagedorn's Warbird Tech on the T-6 series is probably the most convenient source, although his larger book is better - better photos.

 

Thanks to E8N2 for pointing out that the Azur NA-57 kit has the early angular windscreen rather than the correct taller curved one.  My comments on the rearmost part stand.