1/48 and/or 1/72 ? - North American T-6 Texan/Harvard surprise kit by Airfix in 2025 or later? Rumour.

[Homebee]

From the Airfix Facebook: 

https://www.facebook.com/officialairfix/posts/pfbid036crwUkiDkSkqkNHh5pz2S56BiERpbrbp5w9AiNFCu3RxGUicvMhq9XmhvuHx2NPdl

 

 

It's a picture from the front cockpit from C&CF Harvard Mk.IV with British civil registration G-BJST - https://www.t6harvard.com/uk-harvards/aj-841-wacky-wabbit/

A teaser for future North American T-6 Texan/Harvard kits ? 

A type that could perfectly fit in the Airfix range of aircraft kits... In 1/48th as in 1/72nd scales.

Wait and see.

 

V.P.

 

 

Edited March 12 by Homebee

[cmatthewbacon]

…and there are probably many more people who’ve had a flight in one of those than a two seat Spitfire!

best,

M.

[JamesP]

They’ve done a lots of “what cockpit is this?” Social media posts.  I wouldn’t read too much into it though I’m sure people will lap a kit up if it does appear. 

[wellsprop]

20 minutes ago, JamesP said:

They’ve done a lots of “what cockpit is this?” Social media posts.  I wouldn’t read too much into it though I’m sure people will lap a kit up if it does appear. 

 

Agreed with this. In the last few weeks Airfix's social media has shared posts showing the following aircraft;

 

FW-190

Beech Staggerwing

F9F

Mosquito

Apache

P-51

Bf-109

 

If it was a hint, there'd be a new topic every week for a new Airfix aircraft!

 

Albeit, that doesn't mean it's not a hint, it's just not a giveaway based on the amount of content Airfix share. That said, I haven't yet been able to find this photo posted elsewhere online...

[vppelt68]

That's all just a smoke screen for their anticipated Ju 88 A-5 release, which will take place before the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Britain this summer. The silence around that project is so obvious, but they can't fool ME. It'll be the first time they release a new tool kit as part of a three four kit bundle, consisting also of the Do 17 Z and He 111 P, and the all-new Luftwaffe bomber supply set. V-P

 

P.S.

[352nd Fighter Group]

It could be a Hint for a Future Release I am Following Airfix on Instagram Thay have posted a Lot of Warbirds Reels and vids here in the UK and amerika  of Rod Lewis Lewis Air Legends It does not mean that thay will do that Aircraft I could be wrong 

Edited March 12 by 352nd Fighter Group
Edit

[Graham Boak]

Assuming there was anything in this matter (which I doubt), it would be good to have a non-T-6 Harvard, which would match a Mk.IV.  Not all Harvards were Texans, the rear canopy is significantly different (apart from other minor details - except of course for the Mk.I which had different outer wings, rear fuselage, and rudder.)  With a Mk.,IV, the main canopy has less frames.  But this is idle chatter: the way the market is nowadays a non-T-6 Harvard is unlikely to be considered as profitable except perhaps by a short-run company.

[TEXANTOMCAT]

Well thats the understatement of the year   plus the MK1 had fabric covered side panels and rear fuse! It was basically a BC-1!

 

I was part of a team restoring several for nearly 20 years - a Harvard IIB a IV and a T-6G (former T-6D which was MDAP'd to the French and saw combat in Algeria - helpfully Italeri reboxed the 1/48 Occidental kit in her markings - indeed my Avatar is a nose art design I did for her - Texan Tomcat - because the French called their T-6s le Tomcat - all done in the 'Anytime Baby' F-14 patch pose - note this one has a single tail - the F-14 cartoon has two - and the character is Tom Cat from Tom and Jerry - the six gun from the patch as he's a Texan..). Some T-6/Harvard parts are interchangeable (or can be made to fit with percussive assistance) but an awful lot aren't.

 

One of the biggest changes being in the rear fuselage monocoque  - the 45 degree cutout in the baggage door is there for a reason, as it shows the internal mod which enables the rear seat to swivel rearwards (so the trainee gunner has somewhere for his knees -without it you better be an amputee). Plus different top cowling configs, some with cowl gun, some with wing gun  (but rarely both) and gun camera, different Mae Wests, (the leading edge wheel covers) the Harvard and Texan had slightly different centre sections too. 

 

then you have different instrument panels (they are TOTALLY different - I have several at home) , control sticks (spade grip, B-5 or just a wooden stick for the rear pit some of which were removable - ditto) then additional weapons panels if appropriate eg for French Tomcats or USAF Mosquitoes.  Then different radio fit, different types of tyres, aerial fit, exhaust pipes (long one with heater for Harvard use )etc etc etc 

 

The canopy configs are barred sides (with or without breakout panels), barred tops, or single panels or a combination of both, fixed longer turtledeck (Harvard), fixed shorter turtledeck (T-6) or openable turtle deck canopy or even an all perspex fixed version on the J. My favourite factoid about those is the good folk at the Italian Air Force worked out that the side windows from a Fiat Panda could be made to fit and were safer (Triplex)! 

 

then add 10-15 years service mix em all up in the hangar so each one is different....

 

The NA-16 lineage runs all the way up to NA-197 over 20 years. Its an absolute minefield and is enough to drive anyone completely, utterly, fur-lined surround-sound ocean-going mental.

 

Ask me how I know.

 

Wanders off mumbling...

 

TT

 

Edited March 12 by TEXANTOMCAT

[Graham Boak]

I can only agree.   Harvard Mk.I = BC-1 = Wirraway.  Almost.  The wide variation is what makes them such a wonderfully varied modelling subject.  However I did once ask a French modeller what they called their T-6s in the Algerian War, and he said "Tay Sees" is as close a representative of his accent as I can achieve.  He'd never heard of "Tomcat".  Maybe someone did call them that... 

[modelling minion]

I thought,  and hoped, that Airfix might be working on a T-6 of some description as they spent a lot of time at Rolls Royce's hangar at East Midlands Airport last year where they have one and its the only aircraft there not currently kitted by Airfix. 

[TEXANTOMCAT]

19 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I can only agree.   Harvard Mk.I = BC-1 = Wirraway.  Almost.  The wide variation is what makes them such a wonderfully varied modelling subject.  However I did once ask a French modeller what they called their T-6s in the Algerian War, and he said "Tay Sees" is as close a representative of his accent as I can achieve.  He'd never heard of "Tomcat".  Maybe someone did call them that... 

they did.  See- Le T-6 dans la guerre D’Algerie , Les canons du ciel or T-6 Sur L’AFN, or have a chat with the foremost T-6 historians worldwide- Benno Goethals or Martin Pengelly.

 

I have a small piece of ‘desert rose’ - a crystalline formation made from sand, given to me by a former Algerian War veteran in France- he picked it up over there.  They were called Tomcats because of their growl he said. 

quite an unpleasant conflict by all accounts - he was a nice bloke but as he said, he never got over it. 

 

TT

 

 

 

Edited March 13 by TEXANTOMCAT

[Graham Boak]

OK: I do have other French books on the T-6 in Algeria and they never mention it.  

[TEXANTOMCAT]

Glad to have helped 🙂

[GiampieroSilvestri]

5 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Assuming there was anything in this matter (which I doubt), it would be good to have a non-T-6 Harvard, which would match a Mk.IV.  Not all Harvards were Texans, the rear canopy is significantly different (apart from other minor details - except of course for the Mk.I which had different outer wings, rear fuselage, and rudder.)  With a Mk.,IV, the main canopy has less frames.  But this is idle chatter: the way the market is nowadays a non-T-6 Harvard is unlikely to be considered as profitable except perhaps by a short-run company.

Please take a look here.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

 

[Graham Boak]

Yes, but this doesn't show the differences in the central canopy between the T-6G and the Mk.IV, nor even begin to look at the differences in earlier variants of the massive NA-16 family.

[TheyJammedKenny!]

I had no idea this was such a minefield!

[Graham Boak]

There's no such thing as a simple aircraft, especially successful ones built over a long period of time for multiple customers at a time of rapid changes in technology.  Even so, the NA-16 family is extreme. The best guide through is Don Hagedorn's work, but even then I think he missed a couple of the more extreme variations.

 

That said, the great majority of them were basically T-6/T-16 with fairly minor variations, it's just a shame that recent good models have been T-6Gs, often masquerading as others.

[TEXANTOMCAT]

15 hours ago, GiampieroSilvestri said:

Please take a look here.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

 

 

13 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Yes, but this doesn't show the differences in the central canopy between the T-6G and the Mk.IV, nor even begin to look at the differences in earlier variants of the massive NA-16 family.

Thanks for the post Giampiero- I think this was from the Squadron Signal in Action book - it’s helpful but doesn’t tell the whole story 🙂

 

As discussed above there’s an awful lot of differences- the one that people fail to pick up on is the differences in the ‘birdcage’.

The T-6 series is very cleverly designed- a Mr Kindelberger had a hand in it and if you look at a DC-3 in plan form you will see the similarities in wing and centre section shape. He was involved in the DC-1 and -2 before he moved to NAA.

 

he was, no doubt, a genius.

the centre section holds the undercarriage which retracts inwards, then a fuel tank each side aft of the gear. The fuel gauges are in the floor of the cockpit which is the top of the C/S with footboards like a Hurricane.  Two large stress panels bolt underneath to enclose the tanks.
 

the birdcage is a tubular structure welded and pumped full of lanolin to stop corrosion. The Harvard and T-6 had  different birdcage bracing so at a distance even if it is the bare frame you can tell them apart. Also some have the welded support for the swivel rear seat mount and some do not depending on the variant. No kit manufacturer has even made this distinction. Floorboards/footboards are bolted to it- a torque tube links the sticks and the pedals (same as on the P-51 and B-25) are on hangers.

 

the birdcage simply bolts to the C/S. the rear fuse monocoque bolts to the bird cage. The fin then bolts on to that and the tail planes (which are not handed and are identical as are the elevators) to that too.

 

the clever part is that all the ancillaries hang off the birdcage. Down one side runs all the electrics, the other side is the hydraulics on a hydraulic shelf- there sits the throttle quads, trim wheels flap/ gear selector etc. each side is covered by a dzused side panel which runs the full length of both cockpits and is easily removable for access. Very cleverly designed.

 

then forward of the birdcage sits a large engine mount behind which is the firewall, oil tank and ancillaries. People don’t appreciate the large distance from the firewall to the R1340 which is cowled in three parts.

 

another clever bit is that there are no wing spars. The outer wings attach to a wing attach angle/ flange which runs round the edge of the C/S with a matched angle on the wing and they bolt together with no through spar. 
 

this is the same as the DC-3/C-47 and means that in essence it is set up for mass production in that the wings can be the last things to bolt on before being pushed out of the assembly line.

 

the aircraft has C/S central flap and a flap on each wing. 
 

The wings are handed as are the wing flaps - but I can’t remember whether the ailerons are - I think they were.

 

to fair in all the big bits there is a huge amount of filletery- round the tail feathers, wing fillets and panels round the area in front of the firewall behind the cowlings. A detail often missed is the small hole containing a circular tube with a ring on it. You pull this out as a footstep to work on it but also to hand crank the engine (the crank is stowed in the baggage compartment)

 

The flap area is pretty large and has a significant impact on airspeed. 
 

I have a fair bit of time in the Six and they are big pussycats and quite responsive but have a poor reputation at low speed with everything dangling down- their dirty stalls are a real attention getter and they love to ground loop. They’re also a massive greenhouse in the summer and can get very hot inside.

 

the forward canopy (inside roller bearings) slides over the fixed centre canopy the rear one (outside roller bearings) slides underneath the middle one. So all three canopies are differently sized. The rear turtleneck if a moveable one swings over the head of the rear pilot and slides forward under the rear canopy which itself is pushed under the central one. With a swivel seat you have a very clear if draughty field of view/fire .

if Airfix do kit this 😉😉 then getting those canopies thin enough will be tricky- unless they do what they did with their Stuka and mould a set stowed/open

 

there are 600 horses up front with a socking great 12D40 prop and there’s an awful lot of inertia there which will swap ends if you let it get away from you.

 

they are delightful and charismatic aeroplanes and their reputation as the Pilot Maker is well known. You’ll struggle to find any non-WarPac country which hasn’t used a T-6 in its military at one stage. 
 

the Six I used to crew on was ex Haitian AF under the thoroughly unpleasant Papa Doc Duvalier - his airforce consisted of two Sixes and a P-51.

Sorry about all this- it’s one of my pet subjects having researched it for years and still not got my head around it all- primary and secondary sources and turning spanner’s on em is my education rather than the bloke down the pub 🙂! 

 

TT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 13 by TEXANTOMCAT

[TEXANTOMCAT]

P.S. I had a long chat with markings and camouflage guru Mike Starmer about markings for this series. We both concluded that rules were meant to be broken and whilst there is a T/O for most schemes in major air forces- just model the machine you have a photo of! 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

A T-6/Harvard makes sense to me as Airfix has seemed to do all of the trainer’s used ? You have the Tiger Moth, TR.9 Spitfire, Chipmunk, Gnat, Hawk all in the two popular scales. It really does seem that a Harvard is likely to fit in with that collection ? 

[Graham Boak]

Plus Vampire Trainer and Jet Provost.  Yes, the Harvard would fit nicely, but would they do it as a Texan for the wider range of options?  That would still leave quite a few RAF trainers for later.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

11 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Plus Vampire Trainer and Jet Provost.  Yes, the Harvard would fit nicely, but would they do it as a Texan for the wider range of options?  That would still leave quite a few RAF trainers for later.

Thanks Graham .. I knew I was missing some but couldn't remember which ones. 

[MrB17]

Yes please! I would love to see some new Harvards in 72 or 48, I have yet to build a model of this particular Harvard. “The Red Knight”. The owner at the time was Kieth McMann, I saw his Harvard about 15 years earlier when I was stationed at CFB Namao, it was red with white stripes then and I have a few photographs of it in a 14 Harvard Goldilocks formation, taken on rehearsal day for the Alberta airshow back in 1980.

Years later it taxied up to our hangar at Victoria Air Maintenance and I recognized it from the airshow. Kieth’s father purchased it as surplus from RCAF stock. Kieth wanted it repainted in a red scheme and I proposed painting it as “The Red Knight”. Kieth liked the idea, so I sourced the CFTO’s for the Red Knight T-33. My younger brother Jamie sprayed it in “Dodge Viper Red”, and I hand masked and sprayed the markings, with the Canadian coat of arms on the red ensign hand painted. I wanted the brightest red possible that wouldn’t fade, hence the viper red. The photo was taken the day we rolled it out, Jamie on the left and myself with the Vulcan t-shirt. The only photo taken before race #64 was applied in white vinyl, so it could be removed. I got the back seat for the first flight, followed by Jamie, some very nice perks with the job. I believe Kieth has sold it to someone in Alberta now, but he raced it at Reno for many years. The Leading Edge decals would work just fine. The MOT waived the under wing registration CF-WLO due to the unique paint scheme, the 6” min. CF-WLO was mandatory on the rear fuselage so I complied with that and used a thin white outline underneath the horizontal stabilizer. It would make a stunning model, although I don’t know if there’s viper red model paint. The real thing was base/clear with uv protection, and very expensive at $2500 a gallon in the mid 90’s! This was hands down my favourite paint job ever, refreshing after many Beavers. (I can already hear the jokes).

 

Cheers

 

Jeff

 

[RossFMJ]

Yes, yes, yes, but does it come with a Gary Numan figure?

[MrB17]

Has there been or will there be a training GB, that would be a colourful one as well as very diverse.

 

Cheers

 

Jeff