Jump to content

Help with AT-6 Texan color scheme needed


warhawk

Recommended Posts

Hello, 

 

While searching for an interesting early US WWII-era color scheme for my future Texan project, I came across pics of this interesting bird:

 

spacer.png

img source: The American air power museum

 

spacer.png

img source: TVL1970 via Flickr

 

Is this color scheme historically authentic?

I am sure the inscription behind the wheels is not, but what about the black undersides, nose-art and serials?

 

Thanks,

Aleksandar

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you anything certain about this particular aircraft, but I am extremely skeptical of its authenticity. As a rule I never rely on restored military aircraft as a reference.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flew in this one, in California, in 2004. I also got to take the controls for about half of the 1 hour flight.

 

28542719458_d4a66de3e2_b.jpg

 

28542719468_5d7c10581a_b.jpg

 

49871540782_685203a465_b.jpg

 

49871540807_3b9df5df4f_b.jpg

 

 

 

 

Chris

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that it might be based on a real one, but that wouldn't have been light gray.  It would be natural metal.  I doubt the black underside, particularly as it seems to being used as an advertising backdrop.  I doubt the witch on a broomstick emblem, not impossible but unlikely.  Beyond that the markings seem plausible if somewhat odd to my eyes - why the 143 and the JMC on the tail?  I'd go with one or the other.  Both wing gun positions were very rarely used, and even one would normally only be on a gunnery trainer.   Obviously the aerials are modern.

 

In short, not without a period photo.  There were a lot a variations around, but perhaps not so many on one airframe.  It might be worth digging around in some of the books by the likes of Dan Hagedorn and the USAAC photo collections to see if it does pop up somewhere - or something similar enough to justify what appear to me to be oddities.  

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the others that the photo doesn't portray an actual T-6. You might try the link below to the T-6 owners website- there might be some information on an actual scheme similar to the one in the posted photo. (Bear in mind these are all restored Texan/Harvards, so the standard disclaimer is in effect.) I would also concur that Dan Hagedorn's T-6 book would be worth adding to your reference library.

Mike

 

https://flynata.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a perfectly valid scheme so long as you want to do the warbird.  Colourful, clean and documented. 

 

Another example is a P-51D flying registered as NL51JB and finished as 'Bald Eagle'.  The scheme is based on a B or C model from 1944.  Not only that, it is highly polished and the upper surfaces are in a very rich blue, not the green that has been the subject of much angst.  A real aeroplane and as a model completely valid if you are depicting a warbird.  All that shiny paint and metal could be something of a challenge.

 

If it matters to you, you can drive the purists nuts with this sort of thing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dogsbody said:

I flew in this one, in California, in 2004. I also got to take the controls for about half of the 1 hour flight.

 

28542719458_d4a66de3e2_b.jpg

 

28542719468_5d7c10581a_b.jpg

 

49871540782_685203a465_b.jpg

I can tell you that this is definitely not an authentic scheme for an SNJ (US Navy designation for AT-6) of any era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dogsbody said:

I flew in this one, in California, in 2004. I also got to take the controls for about half of the 1 hour flight.

 

28542719458_d4a66de3e2_b.jpgris

 

 

Thank You for the suggestion, Chris, but I have already set my mind on a NMF Army Bird with "meatball-stars" and striped rudders.

 

Mike, I'll look the book up and see if it has some WWII period photos matching my query.

 

Regards,

Aleksandar

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Space Ranger said:

I can tell you that this is definitely not an authentic scheme for an SNJ (US Navy designation for AT-6) of any era.

 

I don't care! I got to pilot that baby over the Pacific Ocean. The pilot even did a few combat type maneuvers with it. An immelman turn and we also did a full loop! 

 

 

 

 

Chris

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only authentic marking is the tail stripes. Early war T-6s were mostly very plainly marked:-

Overall natural metal, Tail stripes , code no. only on fuselage and one star above and below wings.

Dan Hagedorn’s book is indeed a splendid reference.

 

Wulfman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dogsbody said:

 

I don't care! I got to pilot that baby over the Pacific Ocean. The pilot even did a few combat type maneuvers with it. An immelman turn and we also did a full loop! 

 

 

 

 

Chris

Cool! I'd be thrilled to get a ride in it myself, the inaccurate color scheme notwithstanding. I'd be pretending I was about to bomb Akagi in my SBD!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2020 at 7:10 PM, Space Ranger said:

I can't tell you anything certain about this particular aircraft, but I am extremely skeptical of its authenticity. As a rule I never rely on restored military aircraft as a reference.

 

A trifle unfair. A lot of warbird owners go to a lot of effort to ensure their aircraft are as authentic as possible. A lot don't, for sure, and there are certainly some wince-inducing paint schemes out there, but you can't tar everybody with the same brush.

 

As always, do your research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said:

A lot of warbird owners go to a lot of effort to ensure their aircraft are as authentic as possible.

Maybe in the UK, but not here. I am appreciative of the warbird community for keeping those old crates in the air. I've even flown on one. But let's face it: It is impossible for a warbird owner to achieve 100% authenticity due to modern certification and airworthiness requirements. Most OEM replacement parts are impossible to find. Avionics must be compatible with modern air traffic control systems. Maintenance issues also are a consideration; it's much easier for an aircraft owner to maintain a glossy epoxy or polyurethane finish than period-authentic flat paint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Space Ranger, and would add such things as exhausts, propellers, brakes etc. but that doesn't mean that the scheme cannot be authentic within those constraints, and many owners do try.   I do get the impression, which is certainly influenced by published photos rather than any survey, that UK owners seem proportionally to care rather more about authenticity than their US equivalents, but both approaches apply on both sides of the Pond.   And in the end it is their aircraft to do with what they like.  Of course if you wish to model one particular aircraft then it doesn't matter whether it is a historic subject or a warbird - they are all appropriate subjects in their own right.  But I do feel that the modeller really should be aware of which is which.

 

I must admit seeing little if any difference between "never rely on restored aircraft as a reference" and "always check your references".  You both seem to be saying the same thing.  There certainly are restored aircraft which are completely reliable as references, but these are sometimes difficult to determine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the main reason for the lack of care towards authenticity in some war-birds is that those owners bought them with specific intent to fly them and have fun with them, not keep them in museum conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, warhawk said:

I suppose the main reason for the lack of care towards authenticity in some war-birds is that those owners bought them with specific intent to fly them and have fun with them, not keep them in museum conditions.

It's that the whole concept of "authenticity" is entirely spurious for full size aircraft except in the case where they are museum exhibits claiming to represent a specific moment of history. 

 

The aeroplane is the aeroplane is the aeroplane. MH434 has been flying for 77 years, and has been on the display circuit for 50 years. To what should it be "authentic"? To its primer coat? To the scheme in which it rolled out of Castle Bromwich? To one of several variations in colour scheme it wore during the short and unrepresentative period of its life between 1943 and 1945 when there happened to be a war going on? And if so, which of those variations and why? Or to some other part of its much longer past?

 

Models are by definition representations of something else.

MH434 or any other full size aeroplane is not a model. It is not a representation of something else. It is itself, an aeroplane, and its life is not over, it is not frozen in time. There is absolutely no moral reason why any owner should care about whether it wears the same colours that it did at some arbitrary point in its past line, though obviously some do, and they are welcome to do so.

 

As the owner of an old aeroplane your only moral obligations are:

1. not to destroy it accidentally, and to continue to preserve and extend its life

2. not to modify it irrevocably, always reversibly

3. not to describe something as representing a specific historic livery if it's provably wrong, because that's misleading. If you want to paint it like this that's absolutely fine, it was fine then and it would be fine now 

Rats6ulXy33mD5kTPuSrPOUr75zv4uK0-vLevJAP

 

Owners of historic aircraft have a moral duty to preseve and maintain the aircraft itself, not any specific past colour scheme.  It has to be repainted every so often anyway. When that comes  around, painting it in a scheme it's had at some earlier time in its life is great if that's what you want to do, but there's no great virtue in choosing one chapter of a lengthy past life over another.

 

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.  Being authentic means being right for whatever period in its history that you choose to represent any subject.  If you wanted to paint Juliet Victor in her 1970 colours, then it is authentic if you use the same colours but not if you don't.  If you want to have it in D-Day markings then the stripes should be the right sizes.  If you paint your T-6 in whatever WW2 scheme you fancy but don't make it right for the variant, colours or markings, then that aircraft isn't authentically painted.  Someone making a model of your aircraft at that particular time would produce an authentic replica.

 

I agree that the problem arises where someone without enough knowledge takes the approximation as being authentic, and starts applying it elsewhere.  I think we can see enough parallels for this without producing a list.  As such I think that there is a moral obligation not to mess up the future understanding of the past.  But then history is bunk - why should it be allowed to interfere with my right to do what I like?  Who cares what future people may think?  It's only toys, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

If you wanted to paint Juliet Victor in her 1970 colours, then it is authentic if you use the same colours but not if you don't. 

If you do this and, let's say instead of the blue used in 1970 you use a different blue, or, you use red, then it's only inauthentic IF you tell people it's a reproduction of the 1970 scheme. 

If you say nothing, then it's just a new colour scheme which is a legitimate new part of the aircraft's history. In eaxctly the same way that all the others were in their time, from 1943 onwards.

 

From a modelling perspective you can make a totally authentic model of a Battle of Britain movie Buchon, even though it is a long way from being an authentic model of a Spanish air force scheme, or indeed a 1940 109E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

If you do this and, let's say instead of the blue used in 1970 you use a different blue, or, you use red, then it's only inauthentic IF you tell people it's a reproduction of the 1970 scheme. 

 

The point where I agree with You is that, regardless of authenticity of a paint for a certain period, the warbird owner is free to pick whatever colors/insignia he wants and not go into discussion whether they are accurate or not.

However my question was "is it historically authentic (for my model trying to depict a particular trainer during WWII)?", regardless of what the owner of the bird flying now wanted or achieved.

 

Also, this reasoning behind treating every current livery as a completely new paint-job (regardless of its historical context) reminds me of those 'If You see "X" then you have a dirty mind' images.

spacer.png

 

Those images are clearly arranged/cropped to evoke a sexual connotation at a first glance,

same as Texan from my first post was clearly made to evoke a USAAF pre-war trainer at a first glance.

 

Regards,

Aleksandar

 

 

 

 

Edited by warhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

And let's not mention the Tora-Tora-Tora At-6 harvard-Zeros! Although there are actually models on here of those exactly. Are they Authentic?!🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...