Jump to content

Harvard III questions - access hatches (06th Aug)


RidgeRunner

Recommended Posts

Hi all, 

 

As a T-6  novice I need a little help, please!

 

Did this variant and the AT-6D have the under-fuselage lights? Or was it only the Texan?

 

Thanks a million!

 

Martin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand the question given the Texan was the T-6 / AT-6 / SNJ / Harvard but assuming Texan means AT-6D.

 

Air Arsenal North America notes 512 RAF Harvard III were built between AT-6D construction numbers 14383 and 17013, so 512 RAF, 2,119 US.  Which would indicate the Harvard III was a standard AT-6D.  Another 20 for the RN were construction numbers 14732 to 14751.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please Geoffrey - not all Harvards were Texans.  Lots of them were, including the Mk.III, but apart from the Mk.I which predated the T-6, the Mk.IIB were Noorduyn-built with the original longer fixed rear canopy and were known to the USAF as the T-16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

 

According to the references and photos I have, the AT-6D was also delivered to the RAF as the Harvard III; the T-6G's were all re-manufactured AT-6D's and all G's I have seen photos and drawings of show the three ID lights, so I would think the D's would have them, as well. In  addition, the two photos I have seen of the underside of Harvard III's show the lights; since the III's were lend-lease D's. I would think they were equipped with the same nav/position/landing/ ID lights as their USAAF/USN counterparts- maybe Dan Hagedorn's outstanding monograph on the Texan might confirm my uneducated guess?  BTW- hoping you and yours are OK!

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Please Geoffrey - not all Harvards were Texans.  Lots of them were, including the Mk.III, but apart from the Mk.I which predated the T-6, the Mk.IIB were Noorduyn-built with the original longer fixed rear canopy and were known to the USAF as the T-16.

No problems, I did not think the question required the full family tree as the design was tweaked over the years.


The BT-9, 9A, 9B, 9C and NJ-1 from 1936 to 1938, along with the one NJ-1 converted to NJ-2.

The BC-1 in 1938 and BC-2 in 1939, along with the Harvard I, Wirraway and SNJ-1
The BC-1A for Chile in 1940 (and 1941), the Harvard II, AT-6 (slightly modified BC-1A), SNJ-2, AT-6A/SNJ-3, BT-14/Yale (The USAAF production reports count the final 12 BC-1A as Harvard II)
1941 onwards, AT-6B, AT-6C/SNJ-4/Harvard IIA, the AT-6D/SNJ-5/Harvard III, AT-6F/SNJ-6.  The AT-6E was a conversion to an inline engine.

The post war T-6G/SNJ-7 remanufactures, LT-6G, T-6J, the cancelled SNJ-8.  The Harvard IV

 

Wartime Noorduyn were the AT-16/Harvard IIB.  I do not think the T-16 designation was used.

 

Not to mention the A-27 and P-64 (and Boomerang or is that a tweak too far?) or the way the Texan name is associated with the Dallas plant, which did not start manufacture until 1941, not sure when the name was officially adopted so probably no Texans until quite a while after AT-6 production began.


Space after this line left intentionally blank and very very long for others to add even more to the family tree. Given various one offs like 3 NA-71 for Venezuela and 1 NA-26 for Canada in 1940.  Really it is all just one big happy family, honest, just please ignore all the machines guns being carried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

Not to mention the A-27 and P-64 (and Boomerang or is that a tweak too far?)

Not for me!

 

This is all useful stuff for the propose of my proposed Texan/Harvard, predecessors and derivatives STGB, I want it to include everything from the BT-9 through to the CA-28 Ceres, your breakdown of the various types is brilliant and the most succinct description of the types heritage I've seen, thank you!

 

Can I blatantly steal it to help prospective STGB joiners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it required a full family tree (which could be extended further) but didn't suggest anything near it.  I just felt that equating the Texan with the Harvard would perpetuate the common fallacy that any Harvard can be produced from a kit of a Texan, and that should be clarified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

No problems, I did not think the question required the full family tree as the design was tweaked over the years.


The BT-9, 9A, 9B, 9C and NJ-1 from 1936 to 1938, along with the one NJ-1 converted to NJ-2.

The BC-1 in 1938 and BC-2 in 1939, along with the Harvard I, Wirraway and SNJ-1
The BC-1A for Chile in 1940 (and 1941), the Harvard II, AT-6 (slightly modified BC-1A), SNJ-2, AT-6A/SNJ-3, BT-14/Yale (The USAAF production reports count the final 12 BC-1A as Harvard II)
1941 onwards, AT-6B, AT-6C/SNJ-4/Harvard IIA, the AT-6D/SNJ-5/Harvard III, AT-6F/SNJ-6.  The AT-6E was a conversion to an inline engine.

The post war T-6G/SNJ-7 remanufactures, LT-6G, T-6J, the cancelled SNJ-8.  The Harvard IV

 

Wartime Noorduyn were the AT-16/Harvard IIB.  I do not think the T-16 designation was used.

 

Not to mention the A-27 and P-64 (and Boomerang or is that a tweak too far?) or the way the Texan name is associated with the Dallas plant, which did not start manufacture until 1941, not sure when the name was officially adopted so probably no Texans until quite a while after AT-6 production began.


Space after this line left intentionally blank and very very long for others to add even more to the family tree. Given various one offs like 3 NA-71 for Venezuela and 1 NA-26 for Canada in 1940.  Really it is all just one big happy family, honest, just please ignore all the machines guns being carried.

Thanks Geoff but I can’t see any reference to the light question. 
 

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

Space after this line left intentionally blank and very very long for others to add even more to the family tree.

See if these links are of use:

 

https://www.skytamer.com/North_American_AT-6.html

 

https://www.airvectors.net/avtexan.html

 

North American's T-6: A Definitive History of the World's Most Famous Trainer, by Dan Hagedorn

 

Mike

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

See if these links are of use:

 

https://www.skytamer.com/North_American_AT-6.html

 

https://www.airvectors.net/avtexan.html

 

North American's T-6: A Definitive History of the World's Most Famous Trainer, by Dan Hagedorn

 

Mike

 

 

Thanks Mike. I have Dan Hagerdorn’s book but I can’t find in underside view of an AT-6D In either the book or the websites you sent.:(. I will keep digging ;)

 

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@72modeler @Wez @Graham Boak @Geoffrey Sinclair I have searched and searched but haven't had a definitive answer. So I have asked Fred Borne who has access to the Line Engineer that maintained the aircraft. Finges crossed!

 

Martin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Graham Boak said:

That seems like the best idea, as a postwar aircraft may not have the same light fittings as either a T-6D or Harvard, and the South Africans had both.  If there was a difference, they could have been standardised.

Thanks Graham. I've also dropped a line to Geoff Timms at the T-6 team in South Africa to see if he has any ideas. :)

 

Martin

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Wez said:

This is all useful stuff for the propose of my proposed Texan/Harvard, predecessors and derivatives STGB, I want it to include everything from the BT-9 through to the CA-28 Ceres, your breakdown of the various types is brilliant and the most succinct description of the types heritage I've seen, thank you!  Can I blatantly steal it to help prospective STGB joiners?

Thanks, I have no problems with it being reproduced, as long as the information is accurate.

16 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 I just felt that equating the Texan with the Harvard would perpetuate the common fallacy that any Harvard can be produced from a kit of a Texan, and that should be clarified.

Interesting given the obvious visual clues like canopy changes, rear fuselage skinning and wing tips, plus when the aircraft were produced, it does show how related the designs were despite all the designations.

16 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

Thanks Geoff but I can’t see any reference to the light question.

Agreed, hence the one line about names in my original message.  You probably do not want to read further.

15 hours ago, 72modeler said:

See if these links are of use:  https://www.skytamer.com/North_American_AT-6.html  https://www.airvectors.net/avtexan.html

North American's T-6: A Definitive History of the World's Most Famous Trainer, by Dan Hagedorn

They are of use, a much better summary of the changes between versions than I have or could put together.

 

For what it is worth I am taking the opportunity to for a comparison to the web pages, data from the production reports, unfortunately the US does not track production for export until 1940, and officially counted such production when the aircraft was exported.  Quite a few differences.

 

NA-16-1, 6 for Brazil in May 1939, NA-16-4, 1 for Argentina in March 1939

BT-9, 42 July to December 1936
BT-9A, 40 August to September 1936
BT-9B, 117 June to December 1936
BT-9C, 66 June 1936 to May 1937 (but no production July and August)
Y1BT-10, 1 in June 1937 (Not in my original list)
NJ-1, 39 October 1937 to February 1938 and 1 in July 1938.
 
BC-1, 177 May to December 1938
BC-2, 3 in April and May 1939


Harvard I, 400 for RAF, 30 for RCAF in 1938 and 1939.  First arrival in Britain in December 1938, another 310 arrived January to November 1939.  As far as I know the RCAF were the final ones built, delivered from July to December 1939 but there was an embargo for a time after war was declared.

Wirraway I, 40 July 1939 to February 1940
Wirraway II, 580 February 1940 to June 1942
Wirraway III, 135 November 1943 to July 1946.


CAC's idea, with the note it was a private company, not a government one (airvectors web site)
Wirraway GP, CA-1, CAC Serial 1 to 40, RAAF A20-3 to 42, Mark I
Wirraway GP, CA-3, CAC Serial 41 to 100, RAAF A20-43 to 102, Mark II
Wirraway GP, CA-5, CAC Serial 103 to 134, RAAF A20-103 to 134, Mark II
Wirraway GP, CA-7, CAC Serial 135 to 234, RAAF A20-153 to 234, Mark II
Wirraway GP/Trainer, CA-8, CAC Serial 436 to 635, RAAF A20-235 to 434, Mark II
Wirraway Dive Bomber, CA-9, CAC Serial 636 to 823, RAAF A20-435 to 622, Mark II
Wirraway GP, CA-10 & 10A, Cancelled
Wirraway Dive Bomber, CA-16, CAC Serial 1075 to 1224, RAAF A20-623 to 722, Mark III
Wirraway Dive Bomber, CA-20 Cancelled

 

SNJ-1, 1 in June 1939, 15 in November

BC-1A, 83 January to March 1940
BC-1A, 12 for Chile probably in February 1941, counted as Harvard II in production reports, scrub previous remarks about final 12, I confused myself over the production reports confusion of whether they were built in 1940 or 1941.

Harvard II, 1,275 June 1940 to January 1942
AT-6, 94 February to June 1940
NA-71, 3 in June 1940
NA-26, 1 in July 1940
SNJ-2, 36 April to July 1940 and 25 December 1940 to May 1941.  The order for 36 was the last ordered direct by the USN, from then on they are reported under "Army for Navy".

 

BT-14/Yale
230 for France in 1939, 226 exported that year, probably starting in February
251 January to October 1940 for US
50 April to September 1940 for China
230 February to August 1940 for France

 

Up until now all US production at Inglewood


AT-6A 517 at Inglewood September 1940 to August 1941, 1,032 at Dallas April 1941 to June 1942
SNJ-3 120 at Inglewood February to July 1941
AT-6A 1,032 at Dallas April 1941 to June 1942
SNJ-3 448 at Dallas July 1941 to June 1942


From now on all US wartime production at Dallas


AT-6B, 400 January to May 1942
AT-6C/Harvard IIA, 2,970 February 1942 to July 1943
SNJ-4, 2,400 May 1942 to July 1943
AT-6D/Harvard III, 3,193 July 1943 to February 1945
SNJ-5, 1,568 July 1943 to January 1945
AT-6F, 545 February to August 1945
SNJ-6, 411 April to August 1945.


The post war T-6G/SNJ-7 remanufactures, for USAF unless stated.  No information in the 1951 FY USAF Statistical Digest
The 1952 FY USAF Statistical digest, table 4 page 161 has 5 T-6G orders, all from North American,
824 from Cols., acceptances November 1951 to October 1952.
11 from Fresno, accepted August to October 1951
641 from Downey, 540 accepted prior to 1 July 1951, the remainder July to October 1951.
107 from Downey for MDAP, accepted September to December 1951
50 from Downey for ANG, 40 accepted prior to 1 July 1951, the remainder in July and August 1951

The 1953 FY Digest, table 107, page 186 onwards includes remainder of Cols. order plus,
11 From Fresno, accepted August to October 1952
110 from Fresno for ANG, 50 accepted December 1952 to April 1953.  No information in the 1954 or 1955 digests.

The above covers 1,754 aircraft, 1,704 acceptances, versus 1,743 serials reported issued.

 

LT-6G, 59 from Downey, accepted October 1951 to January 1952.

T6-J/Harvard IV from Can. Car, 285 accepted January 1953 to May 1954
(USAF Statistical Digest FY 1954, table 27, page 72 for FY 1954 production) No information on dates of RCAF production.

 

Noorduyn, called AT-16 if the US paid for the aircraft, otherwise Harvard, total 2,800 built.
Harvard IIB, 210 January 1941 to April 1942.
AT-16, 1,500 April 1942 to January 1944
Harvard IIB, 990 January 1944 to October 1945
Harvard IIB TT, 100, 97 November and December 1944, 3 February and March 1945.
 

A-27, 10 in August 1940
NA-44, 1 for Canada in July 1940, 20 for Brazil August to October 1940, 10 more in February 1941
P-64, 6 in November 1940

Boomerang 250 built September 1942 to January 1945 (CA-12 to June 1943, CA-13 June 1943 to May 1944, CA-19 June 1944 on)

 

CAC's idea,
Boomerang CA-12, serials 824 to 928, RAAF A46-1 to 105
Boomerang CA-13, serials 929 to 1023, RAAF A46-106 to 200
Boomerang (supercharger), CA-14/14A Serial 1073, RAAF A46-1001 (first flown in January 1943, to RAF in 16 April 1943, back to CAC for conversion to CA-14 in June, flying again in July)
Boomerang CA-19, serials 1024 to 1072, RAAF A46-201 to 249
The final 49 Boomerangs were called CA-19 by the maker but only the last 31 are classified as mark II in the RAAF aircraft cards.  The final 39 were built with F.24 cameras to be fighter reconnaissance.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Geoffrey. Useful background stuff.

 

Regarding my build I now have definitive clarification that the ex-SAAF machines that went to Gabon had one light under the rear fuselage, the forward of the three provided by the (Academy) kit.

 

Martin

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of production aircraft, mainly of exported early aircraft, missing from that list.  For example, China was a multiple buyer of the continually-developed variants.  The NA-50 fighter was sold to Peru.  The NA-64 for France is present in the list but not the NA-57 (a BT-9 variant) also for France.  I suspect the NA-57s were the first order for 230 listed, the second being the NA-64s with their modified wings and fuselages.  The NA-64 was the Yale but not the BT-14, despite their close relationship.  In wartime British parlance all the fixed-undercarriage variants became Yales, thus the reference to ex-Chinese Yales in Malaya in 1941.  As these were described as being well-used these are unlikely to have been diverted new deliveries.  These three types require a bit more clarity as to their individual production.

 

The fullest listing of the multifarious developments of the NA-16 family can be seen in Dan Hagedorns' books, with the Warbird Tech being perhaps the most readily available.  However even he discounts the Japanese Oak, which I would include, and there is a Chinese fighter showing a strong family relationship which may or may not be related to a similar project that only receives passing mention.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham, could you please define a lot?  My first sentence noted where the data was weakest, the pre war exports, things like the State Department reports tend to give monetary amounts, rather than aircraft numbers, so date information is needed.  Sorting out Peru ($1.1 million category III (military aircraft) export licences November 1935 to December 1939) is a lot simpler than Argentina ($12.2 million) or China ($12.7million)


The airvectors page has a list of which I did not have good enough production information on plus any others the web page has omitted,
"NA-20", one evaluated by Honduras.
"NA-27", one evaluated by the Netherlands.
"NA-34", 29 obtained by Argentina.
"NA-37", one evaluated by the Imperial Japanese Navy. (reported delivered in September 1937, which would relate to the $45,000 export licence for August, probably)
"NA-41", 35 obtained by the Republic of China.
"NA-42", two obtained by Honduras.
"NA-44", one evaluated by the RCAF. Reported as company demonstrator, and so would be considered a US Civil not military aircraft for official production counts. The RCAF NA-26 is in the USAAF production report, accepted, delivered and exported in July 1940.  The RCAF records NA-44 ex NX18981, RCAF 3344 arriving 6 August 1940 and NA-26 ex NX18990 (C/n 18990), RCAF 3345 arriving on 23 July 1940.
"NA-45", 3 obtained by Honduras.
"NA-46", 12 obtained by the Brazilian Navy.
"NA-47", one evaluated by the Imperial Japanese Navy. (reported delivered in December 1937, which would relate to the $49,100 export licence for October, probably)
"NA-48", 15 obtained by the Republic of China.

 

Correct about the 7 NA-50 for Peru, in May 1939, my omission.

 

The joys of such a closely related family means some references rate the NA-57 as the export version of the BT-9B for France, the NA-64 the export version BT-14.  What do you mean by a bit more clarity in their production?  I have a USAAF production repot for 1940 that includes acceptance, delivery and exports by order by month, which totally covers the 50 NA-16-4 for China and the 230 NA-64 for France (111 actually, rest to Britain) plus notes the final 4 exports of the NA-57 to France in January.  The embargo in September 1939 stopped exports, which when the US was counting aircraft as built for export, so NA-57 were undoubtedly sitting in the US awaiting export but not officially counted.

 

Unfortunately I do not have easy access to the Hagedorn book at the moment, interesting about the Kyushu K10W "Oak", given reports it had a very different internal structure.  Japan did obtain manufacturing rights but the K10W did not appear until 1941, hence conclusions the North American aircraft were part of the design study and had influence, but the K10W was not part of the North American family.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

the K10W did not appear until 1941, hence conclusions the North American aircraft were part of the design study and had influence, but the K10W was not part of the North American family.

Absolutely. There are good reasons for considering the K10W to have been generally inspired by the large and diverse T-6 family tree, but it is not part of it. Much the same way that a Nanchang CJ-6 isn't part of the Yak family tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again everyone, 

 

Does anyone out there have a definite 3view drawing that shows the access hatches on the AT-6D/Harvard III please? As most kits represent the T-6G I see that these might be different and I'd like to be sure. Thanks a lot.

 

Martin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Stefan, but it is a general question. Dan Hagerdorn’s book shows theT-6G access hatches over the whole aircraft and I wanted to see if they differed greatly from the AT-6D/Harvard III.

 

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the Hagedom book has lots of information the 3 views are pretty useless being copies of the crude early WW2 recognition type.  A lot of information useful like lamps etc. for modellers is non existent.  The plan view for the Harvard I has the wrong mainplanes and engine.  Although It states that the metal fuselaged versions, BT-14 onwards, were 14 inches longer than the fabric types, it doesn't tell you where that extension is.  A model magazine years ago had a build where the fuselage behind the cockpit had a section removed.  In fact the rudder post, rudder and fin are moved back, the tailplanes remain the same location.  I discovered this when I built a BC-1, BT-14 and NJ-1 from bits of Azure/Special Hobby, RS, Heller and Academy kits.  So beware if you contemplate making a Harvard I.

  • Like 1
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...