Wooden BT-13's

[mike furline]

These are part of the NARA 342-C Collection.

I thought they were interesting with the rarely seen wooden aft fuselage and wooden prop. They appear to be fresh from the factory "new" aircraft.

Have any of these wooden parts survived?

[AG pilot]

The photos, and the aircraft are simply beautiful. Thank you for posting them! I wish I had one.

[Cvairwerks]

Mike: There was such a glut of BT's available after the war, that I believe the wood component ones were the first scrapped for just their engines and props for duster conversions. I've only seen a few of the wooden parts since I started playing with warbirds back in 1979. I might actually have part of a wood side panel in my parts pile, but it would take a lot of digging to know for sure.

[marine air]

Occasionally a few of the wooden parts like ailerons and props show up for sale on barnstormers.com Never seen any fuselage panels.My father’s mentor , Paul Booth , was one of six men hired from Nashville to go out to Arizona and purchase and fly back some BT’s for Jesse Stallings, founder of Capitol Airlines.
He said they got there and there were about 850 BT’s. They were given a paper list. Jesse said “ no BT-15s ( Wright engine) only 13’s with the coveted P&W R-985. The next day they called him as there still had 600 to choose from. So, he said “ none of the wooden ones,” Each day they eliminated more from the list. They only looked at the ones that looked perfect. Tattered fabric on control surfaces, or a flat tire, then scratched off the list.
All of the airplanes were full of fuel. Finally they would open the canopy and flip on the master switch. If the battery was low or dead, that BT was eliminated. After five days they found six absolutely perfect airplanes, fired them up and headed east to Nashville. Seems like he said they cost $150. Each.
Stallings had started an air service with charter, flight training and crop dusting. Most likely the BT’s served as parts sources.

[Noha307]

He said they got there and there were about 850 BT’s. They were given a paper list. Jesse said “ no BT-15s ( Wright engine) only 13’s with the coveted P&W R-985. The next day they called him as there still had 600 to choose from. So, he said “ none of the wooden ones,” Each day they eliminated more from the list. They only looked at the ones that looked perfect. Tattered fabric on control surfaces, or a flat tire, then scratched off the list.
All of the airplanes were full of fuel. Finally they would open the canopy and flip on the master switch. If the battery was low or dead, that BT was eliminated. After five days they found six absolutely perfect airplanes, fired them up and headed east to Nashville.

Thanks for sharing this. Ever since I did a bit of research into the Corsairs that Ed Maloney recovered from boneyard, I've wondered about how you make a decision in this sort of situation. You're faced with a field full of surplus airplanes, but you only need a few. How do you pick? Do you go with the ones that are at the front of the line and easiest to tow out? (Supposedly, this is the reason that the steam engine that was the inspiration for the book Polar Express was saved.) Do you pick the aircraft based on some semblance of historical value? (Ira Kepford's Corsair was marked as #39 and BuNo 92132 is pictured as having that same number when it was recovered from the boneyard. Was it a coincidence or a deliberate decision?) Or, as you have now supplied evidence for, do you spend the time trying to find the examples in the best condition? (Then, on the other hand, you have cases like the first B-17 that Art Lacey was given, where it was clearly a war-weary aircraft.) I guess the short answer is that it depends on the person on the spot and their goals, but it would be nice to have some more anecdotes for reference.

[Chris Brame]

(Then, on the other hand, you have cases like the first B-17 that Art Lacey was given, where it was clearly a war-weary aircraft.) I guess the short answer is that it depends on the person on the spot and their goals, but it would be nice to have some more anecdotes for reference.

Got a similar story to Lacey's with the Paducah Air Scouts war memorial B-17: the Scoutmaster, Stanley Pirtle, went to Walnut Ridge, AR and picked out a Pacific veteran Fortress.

So they ended up taking (for whatever reason) the weary ex-stateside trainer 42-102875 instead; don't know how closely they inspected it because they lost an engine on takeoff, couldn't raise the gear, and couldn't get higher than 2,000 or 3,000 feet of altitude on the trip home.

[sandiego89]

Thanks for sharing this. Ever since I did a bit of research into the Corsairs that Ed Maloney recovered from boneyard, I've wondered about how you make a decision in this sort of situation. You're faced with a field full of surplus airplanes, but you only need a few. How do you pick? Do you go with the ones that are at the front of the line and easiest to tow out?.....Do you pick the aircraft based on some semblance of historical value?.... Was it a coincidence or a deliberate decision?) Or, as you have now supplied evidence for, do you spend the time trying to find the examples in the best condition?..... I guess the short answer is that it depends on the person on the spot and their goals, but it would be nice to have some more anecdotes for reference.

I think the B-29 recoveries at China Lake provide a good anecdote to the "depends" story, and provided the majority of B-29 survivors we have today.

The Confederate Air Force wanted a flyable B-29 and was one of the first to approach the navy and by 1971 recovered 44-62070 FiFi. They basically had first dibs on a China Lake B-29 and conducted a thorough investigation to find the "best" aircraft in terms of overall condition and ability to get airborne. There were more historic airframes with documented WWII and Korea (some with both) missions, kills etc. FiFi did not have a particularly notable active duty career.

Later China Lake B-29 recoveries in the 1970's and 1980's were also mostly based on best/most intact airframes. The 1970's recoveries were the most complete examples and a few were intended to be flyable warbirds like David Tallichets 44-61535) where condition/completeness were paramount. By the 1980's most of the "good" ones were gone and a few museum examples pulled were mash ups of several airframes. Several museums wanted the most historic. Doc was largely a leftover of the "best available'

[marine air]

Wanted to point out another item of interest on the pictures of the wooden BT's . I think the BT-13s and BT-15s may have been the most stenciled aircraft of any design. IF you get a chance to see the intact, with original paint, early BT-15 at the Soplata collection it has even more stencils than the ones pictured above. It even has a stencil at each wingtip position light. Someone was obviously getting a kickback from the company that made stencils! You can really see the plethora of stencils on the BT's in these photos.

[bdk]

The Type Certificate Data Sheet for the T-6 specifically excludes wooden structural components. The BT might have also.

[Dan Jones]

He said they got there and there were about 850 BT’s. They were given a paper list. Jesse said “ no BT-15s ( Wright engine) only 13’s with the coveted P&W R-985. The next day they called him as there still had 600 to choose from. So, he said “ none of the wooden ones,” Each day they eliminated more from the list. They only looked at the ones that looked perfect. Tattered fabric on control surfaces, or a flat tire, then scratched off the list.
All of the airplanes were full of fuel. Finally they would open the canopy and flip on the master switch. If the battery was low or dead, that BT was eliminated. After five days they found six absolutely perfect airplanes, fired them up and headed east to Nashville.

Thanks for sharing this. Ever since I did a bit of research into the Corsairs that Ed Maloney recovered from boneyard, I've wondered about how you make a decision in this sort of situation. You're faced with a field full of surplus airplanes, but you only need a few. How do you pick? Do you go with the ones that are at the front of the line and easiest to tow out? (Supposedly, this is the reason that the steam engine that was the inspiration for the book Polar Express was saved.) Do you pick the aircraft based on some semblance of historical value? (Ira Kepford's Corsair was marked as #39 and BuNo 92132 is pictured as having that same number when it was recovered from the boneyard. Was it a coincidence or a deliberate decision?) Or, as you have now supplied evidence for, do you spend the time trying to find the examples in the best condition? (Then, on the other hand, you have cases like the first B-17 that Art Lacey was given, where it was clearly a war-weary aircraft.) I guess the short answer is that it depends on the person on the spot and their goals, but it would be nice to have some more anecdotes for reference.

If you could go back in time to those days and know what we know today you’d likely be looking for the most historically significant, combat airplanes you could find. You’d be looking for a “Memphis Belle”or a “Flak Bait”, etc. At the time and with prices being fixed by type I expect most guys were looking for a late model airplane with all the mods & whistles and as few hours on it as possible, and with no damage history. I think when Tony Levier bought his P-38 it was a late production L model with ferry time only from the factory to the scrapyard.

[JohnB]

Remember, that most people were buying aircraft to work, not as artifacts.
They were looking for aircraft with.the latest block number, possibly just out of a modification center.

[dougdrivr]

The Type Certificate Data Sheet for the T-6 specifically excludes wooden structural components. The BT might have also.

My SNJ-4 had a wood tail that was swapped out shortly after WWII ended. Funny story. When I was looking for a AT-6, my good friend mechanic and T-6 expert told me about a T-6 parts supplier in Texas that had several metal empennage kits, still in the crates . What we needed to find was a T-6, scrapped but in excellent condition, that had the bad luck of a tree falling on the tail.

[AG pilot]

The Type Certificate Data Sheet for the T-6 specifically excludes wooden structural components. The BT might have also.

The TCDS for the BT-13 does mention the use of wood components.

[bdk]

BT-13 TCDS (Number: A-2-571 TCDS Number: A-2-571) says... Note: Wood components may be interchanged with similar metal parts, provided one
wood wing is not used with one metal wing.

AT-6 TCDS (Number: A-2-575) says... Aircraft must have aluminum alloy wing outer panels and fuselage aft sections
Allows for "605 Wood horizontal stabilizer -3 lbs. (+222)"

[Hemiman]

I have a wooden prop for a BT-13. Bought it back in the early 80's when I was in A&P School. I'll dig out some pics and post them on the Wix's fb page.