AT-6 or T-6? It's AT-6

[TonyM]

Now that the AF has had its new T-6 II for some time now, can we go back to calling the real AT-6 by its proper name? The North American AT-6.
I think the plane spent more time in service as an AT-6 than T-6.

TM

[Jack Cook]

The only true AT-6 is the renamed BC-1A. There only 1 or 2 left. One of them is out here in OR.
So we have the............
BC-1A
AT-6
AT-6 (A-F)
T-6G
AT-16
SNJ (-1 thru -7)
Harvard (II & IV)

So many names to choose from. How about Texan?

[TonyM]

Thanks Jack,

You forgot the BC-1I.

The AT-6/SNJ type airplanes are really great and I never tire of seeing or hearing them.

TonyM.

[rcaf_100]

Harvard (II & IV)

So many names to choose from. How about Texan?

But Jack! You forgot the Mk I and III (Lend-Lease AT-6D)
And the Texan name only refers to the examples built in Dallas, right?

And to go back to Tony's question, we have the same problem up here with the CT-156's. Harvard Mk II vs Harvard II
However we were using the 'real' Harvards for over 25 years (39-65) so I imagine the newer versions will be long retired before they hit that mark.

[Matt Gunsch]

To call that thing a t-6 is a insult. There is only one T-6 and it was built by North American Aviation.

[Randy Haskin]

Don't forget that the counterinsurgency/attack version currently being marketed by Beech is called the AT-6.

Just to confuse the issue.

[Dan K]

Don't forget that the counterinsurgency/attack version currently being marketed by Beech is called the AT-6.

Just to confuse the issue.

The USAF was already test flying the C model last fall:

http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=26 ... n=military


But honestly, is this any more challenging than deciding what a real B-26 looks like?

[kalamazookid]

To call that thing a t-6 is a insult. There is only one T-6 and it was built by North American Aviation.

I could not agree more.

[Stoney]

How can a plane designed in Switzerland and built in Kansas be a Texan? The AT-6 name was changed by the USAF to T-6 with the G model. Only the Harvard 2b and 4 where built in Canada, note they don'y use IIB or IV any more.

[TonyM]

Don't forget that the counterinsurgency/attack version currently being marketed by Beech is called the AT-6.

Just to confuse the issue.

Unbelievable.

They couldn't pick another AT-desginator?

There is only one AT-6, the North American AT-6.

I guess this is a losing battle.

TM

[Matt Gunsch]

What ticks more than anything else about the AF calling that thing a t-6 is the fact that it has NOTHING to do with the original other than the name. Every other time the AF has named a new plane after a older one, it has always been built by the same company, or a companies descendant ,
Beech has no ties of any form with North American Aviation, or Rockwell and as such, the t-6 designation should have never been considered.

[Pogmusic]

What was the Beech WWII Trainer -- the AT-11 Kansan?

[pilot06]

Wow. The "new" T-6 is so far removed from the original. It's a COIN fighter on roids.

Patrick

Don't forget that the counterinsurgency/attack version currently being marketed by Beech is called the AT-6.

Just to confuse the issue.

The USAF was already test flying the C model last fall:

http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=26 ... n=military


But honestly, is this any more challenging than deciding what a real B-26 looks like?

[Pogmusic]

Wow. The "new" T-6 is so far removed from the original. It's a COIN fighter on roids.

Well, not really. Remember the ORIGINAL AT-6 eventually grew teeth in the form of the Mosquito in the Korean War.

[JohnB]

Sorry guys, I don't call the NA Texan the AT-6 unless I'm referring to it in the WWII period.
Post 1947 it was just the T-6. Most of today's flying examples are post-war modified T-6Gs. Check their data plates.
They're T-6s. Period.

When I mention the Raytheon AT-6s, I call it that or the Texan II.

As with most things in aviation, it's all in the details.