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

[Jack Cook]

Most of today's flying examples are post-war modified T-6Gs.

I will disagree with that. Many AF AT-6s were upgraded to 'G' standards but not all of them
and certainly NOT the Navy SNJs unless you're going to say thy're not AT-6s cause they're SNJs
Changing the locking full swivle tailwheel to the steerable does not a T-6G make

[Nathan]

My fav examples are the BC-1 and A-27. With the SNJ-2 my fav of the naval version.

[agent86]

was gonna say,also known as the Harvard and SNJ.same plane ,different name. oh and what about the Yale?oh ,sorry,one has a tail hook

[Hunterfan]

[quote="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.

Jack,

I'm interested in the really early AT-6 variants, and as you say, only a handful survive. I have read that no Harvard Mk.1's , of the many used by the RAF and RCAF, are left. I believe they were all retired pretty quickly, as their handling characteristics were different from later models in certain critical ways..

Could you possibly tell us where the early AT-6 in Oregon is located?

[Jack Cook]

It's a straight AT-6 ie BC-1A in NMF and it's based in Prineville but doesn't fly much.
n56737 Leonard P__________? is the owner.
http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=01543307

[Hunterfan]

Thanks for the prompt reply. Nice colour scheme, no faked up markings.

My copy of Bob Ogden's Nth America Aviation Museums book lists 40-2122, which was three places further down the production line, as preserved with the Minnesota Air Guard Museum at MSP. Quite a coincidence after all this time.

[rcaf_100]

I have read that no Harvard Mk.1's , of the many used by the RAF and RCAF, are left. I believe they were all retired pretty quickly, as their handling characteristics were different from later models in certain critical ways..

Yep, no Harvard Mk I's survive.
Not sure about RAF service, but in Canada they were quickly relegated to instructional airframes once the upgraded Mk II's arrived in 1940.
The design of the wing (same as on the Yale and early BT-9) had very nasty stall characteristics.
(and the fact that with the lengthened exhaust for cockpit heating the fabric covering on the right side of the cockpit tended to catch fire once in a while)
Once the war was over their usefulness as instructional airframes was gone as well since there was a huge number of Mk II's available to fill the role so they were quickly sold off as scrap.

On an interesting note, RCAF Harvard Mk I 1344 crashed into the Bay of Quinte near Belleville, ON and as far as I know hasn't been recovered...

Last edited by rcaf_100 on Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Chappie]

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

Oh jeez..the B-26 thing! To me Martin built the B-26. Period!

On the T-6 discussion, there also the Wirraway down ner ah Down Unda.


Chappie

[Aeronut]

Giving aircraft proper names is a lot less confusing than all this alphanumeric nonsense the US goes in for, especially when they change the letters and what they mean, eg P = pursuit becomes F = fighter, and then they decide that three digits are too much and restart the numbering system from 1.
The trouble with names is that there are only so many good ones and they tend to get reused hence the current confusion with the C-17 Globmaster III bought for the RAF, whilst they were leased it was easy, they were C-17 Globmaster III just like the US aircarft they were, however, once the RAF paid for them the C-17 tag was (officially at least) dropped as its an American designation meaningless (apparently) to us Brits. So the aircraft officially became the Boeing Globemaster C Mk 1, the III being dropped as the UK never operated the other two Globemasters. The confusing situation is of course that everyone still calls it the C-17.

As for the B-26 problem, easy, Martin built the Marauder and Douglas the Invader.

[Ztex]

Speaking of the modern "T-6"..what drives me nuts, is the Navy is calling their version a T-6B not an SNJ...

But that's just me.

[Hunterfan]

[quote="rcaf_100"][quote="Hunterfan"]I have read that no Harvard Mk.1's , of the many used by the RAF and RCAF, are left. I believe they were all retired pretty quickly, as their handling characteristics were different from later models in certain critical ways..[/quote]
Yep, no Harvard Mk I's survive.
Not sure about RAF service, but in Canada they were quickly relegated to instructional airframes once the upgraded Mk II's arrived in 1940.
The design of the wing (same as on the Yale and early BT-9) had very nasty stall characteristics.
(and the fact that with the lengthened exhaust for cockpit heating the fabric covering on the right side of the cockpit tended to catch fire once in a while)
Once the war was over their usefulness as instructional airframes was gone as well since there was a huge number of Mk II's available to fill the role so they were quickly sold off as scrap.

On an interesting note, RCAF Harvard Mk I 1344 crashed into the Bay of Quinte near Belleville, ON and as far as I know hasn't been recovered...

[/quote]

That might be worth fishing for, if it's still recognisable, a very significant type in the BCATP story.

[Stoney]

S = Scout
N = Trainer
J = North American, formerly Berliner Joyce

So how could it be an SNJ?

[AvroAvian]

It's a terrible shame there are no Harvard Mk I's surviving. About the closest you would get would be the Wirraway. Mind you, the Wirraway has some pretty nasty stall characteristics too, which were partially tamed by adding stall strips to the inner wing leading edges, not to mention the groundlooping tendencies eased by an additional tailwheel locking mechanism.
Anyhoo, I'm surprised that no-one appears to have rounded up any wrecks or bits and tried to put a Havard Mk I together - would be a great project...

[shrike]

Giving aircraft proper names is a lot less confusing than all this alphanumeric nonsense the US goes in for, especially when they change the letters and what they mean, eg P = pursuit becomes F = fighter, and then they decide that three digits are too much and restart the numbering system from 1.
The trouble with names is that there are only so many good ones and they tend to get reused hence the current confusion with the C-17 Globmaster III bought for the RAF, whilst they were leased it was easy, they were C-17 Globmaster III just like the US aircarft they were, however, once the RAF paid for them the C-17 tag was (officially at least) dropped as its an American designation meaningless (apparently) to us Brits. So the aircraft officially became the Boeing Globemaster C Mk 1, the III being dropped as the UK never operated the other two Globemasters. The confusing situation is of course that everyone still calls it the C-17.

As for the B-26 problem, easy, Martin built the Marauder and Douglas the Invader.

A lot less confusing he says..then cites a confusing situation
The RAF switched from Roman numerals with a letter suffix to Arabic numerals with one or two (possibly three) letter role prefix, with or without the 'Mk." and you can't deal with switching from 'P' to 'F'?
Strewth! <g>

[famvburg]

The fact they 'named' it T-6 is just because that's where it fell in line with the current designation system for traimers. The DoD followed their own rules here, (as opposed to the F-35 mis-designation among others), & they called it "Texan II" to honor our beloved original AT-6/SNJ/T-6. As for other companies' uses of same designations, due to various changes in the designation systems over the years, a number of completely unrelated aircraft have used the same names or designations. Example, what was the first F-15? How about the first Eagle? And neither are what Randy drives...... Or the first C-10? This ain't nuttin' new.

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.