Israeli T-6G Texan question

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I'm building the Academy 1/72 T-6G Texan and I suspect the Israeli camouflage scheme in the instructions, could well be fictitious. It says Sand, Light Green and Dark Green but given they were only in service until 1963, I would have thought the Blue and Dark Brown camouflage would have been more likely. I know some were also painted Dark Green and Dark Brown when they first got them but I can't find any concrete evidence of anything else. Any ideas anyone?

 

thanks

Mike

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Sorry, this was supposed to be in the Cold War section. If the admins can move it, that would be great.

 

thanks

Mike

[Seahawk]

It is not fictitious: there is a port side photo of this aircraft on p.126 of Ohlrich and Ethell's The Incredible T-6 Pilotmaker.

 

But it may well be erroneous. 

• Firstly the aircraft has additional canopy framing indicating it is not a T-6G.: I suspect it is a Harvard IIb.  
• The fuselage band is too narrow: it should take up the full width of the observer's canopy.
• The fuselage national marking is amateurishly painted: star irregular in proportions.
• When photographed, the top diagonal of the "3" of the tail "13" has flaked away.
• As to the main camouflage scheme: hard to tell.  Probably 2 colour but not to my eyes as high contrast as the blue/dark brown scheme.  What is certain is that a lot of the pain has worn away: worthy of a late-war Japanese aircraft!

HTH.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Seahawk

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Nothing concrete, I am afraid, still ... In his book Colors & markings of the Israeli air force (IsraDecal) Yoav Efrati published two photos of early Texans, 1103 (with 1102 obscured by her apart from the tail) and 1107. He claims aircraft had been obtained in the USA but, as Seahawk pointed out, their canopies have Harvard IIb framing. Their colour scheme consisted of non-specified green and brown. As the unit operated from the same base as Noorduyn Norseman aircraft, Efrati speculates Texans/Harvards may have been painted with the same paints (BS381c/450, FS20095 Dark Brown; BS381c/641, FS34086 Dark Green; BS381c/637, FS36270 Sea Grey Medium). He also notes that this improvised dive bombers had no national markings on upper wing surfaces. Instead, the last digit of the individual aircraft number had been painted there in white. National markings were certainly added after the Palestinian war/War of independence but judging by worn appearance of White 13 Seahawk mentioned, colour scheme may have remained the same. Cheers

Jure

[politicni komisar]

 

Academy is completely out of the question 

wrong .

 

 

Isra decal & knemida magazine says SNJ Harvard from first delivery

in RAF, Dark erth,Dark Green & sky . 

on some of the pictures of this airplane is well visible in various books

 

Kne mida :

 

P.k

 

[Graham Boak]

It is however worth adding that RAF Dark Green is distinctly olive, and some manufacturer's paints faded towards a dark brown, whereas Dark Earth faded severely towards Light Earth in a tropical environment.  So a well-used aircraft may well have appeared to be in two shades of brown.

 

The diagram does show the canopy appropriate to a US-built T-6/Harvard, as opposed to a Canadian-built T-16/Harvard in the lower three profiles.  But an SNJ in RAF colours would be rare indeed.  There were a few, but arguably in FAA colours.

 

Differences between wartime examples and the postwar T-6G include the tailwheel (off a P-51, IIRC) and the various aerials, but obviously these could be altered in Israeli service.  With the additional framing, of course.  The ones with the US-style rear canopy could be rigged for a rear gunner, but this might imply additional work for the Canadian-built examples.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Graham Boak
Expansion of discussion

[Seahawk]

The depiction of 1113 in post 5's artwork is pretty accurate to the photo I cited.  The fuselage star is a bit too regular, the tail numeral is perhaps a bit small, it is depicted much more complete than in the photo and a light panel under the leading edge of the tailplane has not picked up by the artwork.  Nevertheless it gets the severely distressed condition of camouflage and the proportions and location of the fuselage band correct.  It also accurately reflects the rear canopy shape, suggesting a T-6 (even if not T-6G) or SNJ rather than Harvard II.  In the photo the occupant of the rear cockpit appears to be rearward facing, which may indeed point towards an SNJ (I'm unsure whether any T-6s also had the swivelling rear seat permitting use as gunnery trainers).

 

The caption to the photo in the Ethell book says 2 T-6s were purchased in the US and used in the War of Independence as ground attack aircraft with up to 400lb of bombs or 8 rockets or 2 0.50" calibre machine guns mounted under the wings plus a flexible 0.30" in the rear cockpit.  [NB SNJs had provision for a 0.30" calibre machine gun in the upper engine cowling so would they have needed the underwing guns?]  It also notes that "numerous T-6s and Harvards" were later bought for training and some were pressed into combat in 1956.  It is therefore not entirely clear (from Ethell at least) whether 1113 was one of the first 2 aircraft or not. 

 

Peter C Smith's Crowood title on the T-6, SNJ, Harvard and Wirraway doesn't add much.

[Graham Boak]

Quite a lot of T-6s had a rear gun position: specifically but not only the T-6Bs which were bought as gunnery trainers.  This was the reason for the modified rear section to the canopy, which was designed to rotate upward to clear the opening for the gunner.  It was seen on some variants of the BT-9, but was standardised on the T-6 regardless of role.  The longer rearmost canopy variant was fixed for pilot training, but only retained on Canadian production.  The forward firing nose gun, and a port wing gun, were potentially there for all T-6 variants, not just the SNJs, and the basic design actually coped with two guns in the nose and one in each wing, although this was very rarely seen, if only for weight reasons.  These would normally be 0.3 guns, so fitting 0.5s may well require underwing attachments of some kind.

 

Once you get past the SNJ-2 then SNJs and T-6s are effectively identical anyway.  If not exactly so.  But a generic reference to T-6 (or SNJ) can cover a variety of different aircraft, in terms of modellers' details.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Thanks for all the input. I had a feeling it might have been painted in RAF colours. The Academy kit's decals are for the with the no 13 on the tail. It has some kind of dome like thing behind the cockpit, does anyone know what it is? It's not the same as the one on the illustration (4th down) in post 5.

 

thanks

Mike

[Graham Boak]

No.13 has a direction finding  loop inside an aerodynamic teardrop fairing.  Most if not all T-6G had a short squat radio aerial, with a dark dielectric top.  Could this be what is in the photo?  Presumably it could be retro-fitted to any airframe.

[Seahawk]

Graham's right: it's a later style DF housing applicable to the T-6G (and hence the other marking options in the Academy kit) but NOT to whatever variant of the T-6 "13" is.  It does not appear in the photo: the artwork of "13" in post 5 is correct.

 

Postscript: Squadron Signal 94 calls it an ADF fairing.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Seahawk