Question for you Canadians- about Harvards... others welcome

[AirJimL2]

Gunny,

The green in the baggage compartment is probably bronze green and was probably an artifact of its overhaul with Canadian Car and Foundry in 1948.

As for the designation it is either a Harvard II or NA-76, but not a AT-6 of any sort as it was not delivered to or purchased by the USAAF. But as you say that is more academic than practical.

Jim

[gunnyperdue]

Gunny,

The green in the baggage compartment is probably bronze green and was probably an artifact of its overhaul with Canadian Car and Foundry in 1948.

As for the designation it is either a Harvard II or NA-76, but not a AT-6 of any sort as it was not delivered to or purchased by the USAAF. But as you say that is more academic than practical.

Jim

Someone in the past painted the interior in some crummy flaking grey.... it is a mess, I do see some chromate green in there too.

There is a NAA data plate in the airplane that says AT-6A with the serial AJ832.... maybe that is an artifact of the re-importation process.

gunny

[gunnyperdue]

Gunny,

The credit for the background on your aircraft belongs to R. W. Walker.

I merely passed on the information.

Cheers.

Tom Walsh.

Tom, I think I can give credit to both of you!

gunny

[gunnyperdue]

Thanks Doug!

The picture becomes more clear, thanks to all the posts on this thread (I didn't know about the
2nd batch of Harvard IIs having been meant for France).

It was pointed out to me shortly after I bought RCAF 3134 that it was the 1st of the batch of
NA-75 airplanes. 75-3048 was also the "example" aircraft which was used to include the Inglewood-built
Harvard II serial numbered aircraft on the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for the T-6 series aircraft.
There is paperwork in the batch of stuff I got from the FAA from the Chief, Engineering & Manufacturing
Branch (in 1961) where the FAA agreed the Inglewood-built Harvard II aircraft were eligible to be on the TCDS.

Bela P. Havasreti

Bela-

Is there any chance I could talk you into sending me a digital copy of that letter? That would be fantastic!

Thanks,
gunny

[JDK]

Very interesting thread. A few general thoughts intended to be of contextual use - and corrections to those who know more than me on Harvards et al welcome.

Gunny, you're going to have to start thinking British a bit! (Colours... ) More seriously, the context is that Britain set the agenda for the Commonwealth (British Empire & Dominions) at the start of the war (rather like the DOD) and each country of the Commonwealth followed British expectations to some degree initially, the expectation being that there would be commonality in war service. However as the war progressed, each Commonwealth country's aircraft schemes tended to diverge in their own directions, based on needs and availability. So RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF, SAAF, IAF, and RAF schemes have common grounds, but different details or overall 'look'. Likewise theatres dictated differences even within a national air force, meaning RAAF and RAF Kittyhawks in N Africa looked alike, while RNZAF and RAAF Kittyhawks in the Pacific were easily distinguished.

So - I don't know, but I'd expect early W.W.II RCAF colours and markings would be expected to confirm to RAF standards. As the war progressed, US equipment, nomenclature and details began to become more common in Canadian aircraft in Canada, less so elsewhere in the Commonwealth for obvious reasons.

One detail I'm not clear on is that the letter-number serial series (a0000, aa000 etc.) was for RAF (and RN FAA) equipment initially. Australia had a completely different system, but ended up with British serialed aircraft, alongside Australian. Canada I think (Canadians help here!) started W.W.II with British related serials, but went to numeral only, often four digit serials, as depicted on the aircraft, though these were often written in paperwork as 'RCAF 1234', obviously to avoid confusion with other numbers, though not applied as such.

Often RAF serials are written 'AJ-123' or 'AJ 123' but should be read and applied as 'AJ123'.

The French serial system was completely different again, and so the 'AJ000' allocation would date to the diversion to RAF / RCAF orders, and not any earlier - correction welcome.

What I'd really like is a spec, or reference to one that I can lay my hands on for the paint colors. I can't find a spec from NAA for the color (there are specs available for marking placement and other things, even for the RAF).... A dated photo, or a spec, would confirm whether the airplane was delivered in Yellow or Silver and I would very much like to have a spec to use as a reference.

Here's an assumption. If given an AJ000 series number the Harvard may well have been painted to RAF (British Air Ministry) supplied colour specifications. And for our Canadians - When did the RCAF specify colours to NAA? Did they? Were there differences to RAF specs?

In the Ohlrich/Ethell book there is a picture of two AJ's supposedly at the Inglewood ramp prior to delivery... B&W but appear to be yellow and the caption says as much. I've seen a photo of AJ832 in cammo, and in Smith's book there is a color shot of AJ832 in cammo over silver (caption says its a Mk IV). There is a photo in one of these books of AJ838 in cammo, supposedly in the MTO in 1944.

No 'MTO' for the Commonwealth, it's just the Mediterranean, or North Africa, Italy etc. (These comments are unimportant in discussion, but if searching, you'll never find anything useful on RAF Harvards under 'MTO colors', where North Africa Harvard colours will pick up the right online refs.)

Locally here John Rayner operates a Harvard in North African colours as a 3 Squadron RAAF example (it's a bit of an inside joke as 'Australia never operated Harvards' - except for three in N Africa.) John's machine has changed serials on occasion, but includes AJ845.





Now in North Africa, while the pattern of camouflage was the same as the northern European 'Temperate' scheme, the colours are different; here Sand, Mid Stone and Azure Blue. So care with black and white images there!

Also the North African scheme would (here) be a repaint of a temperate scheme, and often the stencils not re-applied.

I would very much like to have the font used, as it looks different than standard USAAF fonts, and there aren't many markings as such on the outside of the airplane.

If painted for the RAF, as said earlier it would've been given RAF spec font, and lots of smallish stencils for maintenance. Over to the Canadians for if that applies to RCAF machines.

A note about designations: In modern military aircraft manufacture the block number denotes major changes within the basic design..... F-16C-30, or -50denote major changes in engine and avionics, as well as an order batch. NAA used the block numbers as order batches and although there was some customer variation in spec within the block but predominately the block conformed to a particular over arching model designation....

Academic but interesting! Seems to me that the Block system was and pretty much remains a US or US sphere of influence approach. As you've noted, the Commonwealth used Mark and sub mark as type and to a degree fit designators. Apparently, though the Block System dates to W.W.II - I hadn't realised:

(8) Block Number: Block numbers are not part of the official MDS designation, and their use is optional to the various DOD services. In fact, block numbers are used for some production aircraft (e.g. the F-15) but not all. Block numbers were introduced by the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II to distinguish between minor sub-variants of a specific aircraft variant, and were originally assigned in steps of five (1, 5, 10, 15, ...), with the gaps being intended to be used for modifications after production. This was also the rule for block numbers as defined in the first issue of the current designation system in 1962. The current AFI 16-401(I), however, defines block numbers as optional and doesn't state any rules for their actual application. In fact, there are several aircraft types where the block numbers were assigned in strict sequence from 1 up, leaving no gaps. It also seems that the USAF doesn't generally use the "dash-number" nomenclature any more, e.g. the latest B-2A update is generally referred to as "B-2A Block 30" and not "B-2A-30".

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmi ... craft.html
To put it another way (though your summary's excellent, too) the manufacturer will have a designation system, different customers different designations for the same type, and thus x, y and z types from different paperwork can be 'the same' aircraft type.

All interesting stuff, good luck with the repaint.

Regards,

[gunnyperdue]

James-

Actually his is becoming an interesting thread. Your comment about the color... being colour and a RAF spec led me to look for it under RAF WWII colors.... and I found a spec for Trainer Yellow referenced as a US Federal Standard 595 Color FS 33538 spec..... that I can use to mix the paint. Excellent.

Now for the Font and other markings on the airplane.

As far as I know about US designations for aircraft Blocks etc there is actually a DoD regulation on that... and all aircraft are spec'd under that common designation scheme.... but when people talk about it they commonly SAY F-15E Block 10, or F-16C Big Mouth (for Block 30's)... I have seen manufacturer designations differ from DoD.... whom to use?

Repaint the outside will be easy compared to cleaning up the inside.... jeez.... now I wish I could find some spec/ guidance about which primer<g>...

gunny

[JDK]

It's a fascinating thread, indeed! Good luck with the fonts; it's not my field, but maybe drop Steve a line on Warbird Colour Services? http://www.warbirdcolour.co.uk/

However, I'll defer to the Canadian contingent re- the possible use of RAF stencils on RCAF aircraft. I've no idea, but those that do are here...

As to the whole 'Block' thing, I get your point indeed. One of the hard things is to have a feel for context, which is what I was trying to outline with the whole Commonwealth schemes section; if it's the area you're used to, it's just 'normal', if not, it can be a jungle - and I find much of the US systems a jungle to me, but hope to bring other useful insights to the table.

And as has been shown here, if you just ask, there's a whole load of good knowledge easily and helpfully provided, all aiming to avoid those paint-scheme disasters that are thankfully becoming rarer these days.

Regards,

[Ken]

In the color photo, I see a T-38ish red barber pole stripe around the pitot mast ...was that standard or an individual add?

[snj-5]

Thanks Doug!

The picture becomes more clear, thanks to all the posts on this thread (I didn't know about the
2nd batch of Harvard IIs having been meant for France).

It was pointed out to me shortly after I bought RCAF 3134 that it was the 1st of the batch of
NA-75 airplanes. 75-3048 was also the "example" aircraft which was used to include the Inglewood-built
Harvard II serial numbered aircraft on the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet for the T-6 series aircraft.
There is paperwork in the batch of stuff I got from the FAA from the Chief, Engineering & Manufacturing
Branch (in 1961) where the FAA agreed the Inglewood-built Harvard II aircraft were eligible to be on the TCDS.

Bela P. Havasreti

Bela-

Is there any chance I could talk you into sending me a digital copy of that letter? That would be fantastic!

Thanks,
gunny

Sure, hopefully these will come across here.

Bela P. Havasreti

[MacHarvard]

Bela, all I see is the word 'image' four times. Is it me, or the forum?

Doug

[JDK]

Bela, all I see is the word 'image' four times. Is it me, or the forum?

No pics here, either, just the word 'image'. I *think* it may be that Bela's used a password protected URL that he can see but we can't. But that's a guess.

[gunnyperdue]

It's a fascinating thread, indeed! Good luck with the fonts; it's not my field, but maybe drop Steve a line on Warbird Colour Services? http://www.warbirdcolour.co.uk/

However, I'll defer to the Canadian contingent re- the possible use of RAF stencils on RCAF aircraft. I've no idea, but those that do are here...

.....................

all aiming to avoid those paint-scheme disasters that are thankfully becoming rarer these days.

Regards,

James-

I figure if you own the airplane you can paint it how you like... as for me, I prefer an accurate period scheme... as I realize a lot of ya'll do here as well.

These AJ airplanes were RAF airplanes, and spent a good part of the war in RAF training scheme in Canada.... the RAF also did pilot training here in the states at several different locations (although with USAAF airplanes as far as I can tell). So, I imagine that the RAF font was the one used.... the RAF Roundel was there as well.

Maybe you can stop by KMWL if you make a trip to the US.... one of these days I'm hoping to visit Australia and NZ... gotta have a dream to get a start,

thanks,
gunny

[gunnyperdue]

Bela-

If you send them to me I'll post them on the WIX forum<g>....

gunny

[JDK]

I figure if you own the airplane you can paint it how you like... as for me, I prefer an accurate period scheme... as I realize a lot of ya'll do here as well.

Exactly. Personally I like a sharp civil scheme on a warbird, or a wacky one, as well as the authentic. As Steve Atkin (Warbird Colour) has roughly said in this context, an accurate scheme cost the same in paint as an inaccurate one, which would you want?

These AJ airplanes were RAF airplanes, and spent a good part of the war in RAF training scheme in Canada.... the RAF also did pilot training here in the states at several different locations (although with USAAF airplanes as far as I can tell). So, I imagine that the RAF font was the one used.... the RAF Roundel was there as well.

Sounds credible, but I really can't comment in that detail. (But note there was only the RAF style roundel anyway until later - variations, like the white/blue no red were theatre-based rather than national, initially at least. The leaf, roo, kiwi et al came later, though the South Africans had often an orange dot rather than red, giving them the only nationalistic roundel of the Commonwealth in W.W.II.)

Maybe you can stop by KMWL if you make a trip to the US.... one of these days I'm hoping to visit Australia and NZ... gotta have a dream to get a start,

One end or the other that's a deal, with a tall frosty one for you! By the way -Do you know how to fly on the left side of the sky?

Regards,

[k5083]

One detail I'm not clear on is that the letter-number serial series (a0000, aa000 etc.) was for RAF (and RN FAA) equipment initially. Australia had a completely different system, but ended up with British serialed aircraft, alongside Australian. Canada I think (Canadians help here!) started W.W.II with British related serials, but went to numeral only, often four digit serials, as depicted on the aircraft, though these were often written in paperwork as 'RCAF 1234', obviously to avoid confusion with other numbers, though not applied as such.

No, it's a bit more complicated.

RCAF used a simple numerical serial sequence to designate its aircraft. The series started in 1928; RCAF 1 happened to be an Avro 504. By the beginning of WWII they were into the 4-digits; by 1942 they were into 5 digits. There were gaps in the series and some duplications. As in the US, many thousands of serials were assigned to aircraft never built as contracts were cancelled when the end of the war occurred or was imminent. Some of these were recycled postwar so that, e.g., RCAF 10000 was a 1942 Bolingbroke, yet the Mustang Mk.IVs acquired in 1947 used serials from the 9000 block.

The sequence lasted until 1968, when serials became 6-digit numbers with the first three being a type designator and the last three being a numerical sequence within type. Existing aircraft were given new serials often retaining the last-3 of the older sequence. Thus for example Paul Keppeler's CT-133 started life as 21579 (simple numerical sequence) but became 133579. This is used to date.

Canadian aircraft that bore RAF-style serials generally are those initially procured by/for Britain, although the RAF in many instances never took possession of them. A few were RAF aircraft transferred to Canada, but most, including the Harvard under discussion, were actually owned by the RAF throughout their use in Canada with the BCATP. Some of these were re-serialled in the RCAF sequence at some point, but the vast majority were not. Aircraft procured directly by the RCAF were numbered in the RCAF sequence.

A good general intro to the topic is at http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/index.htm, and for info specific to Harvards, the Fletcher-MacPhail book is indispensable.

August