I have just purchased a revell t6 reno racer. this kit is dated about 1990? The question is does anyone have links, etc. for this kit in review, and also reference pics. Will it build intoan approximation of a normal harvard[?]
It is the old Monogram T-6. A very good kit for it’s age.
If you want to see a review of the kit, a re-issue of the original not the Reno racer, just check out the FSM homepage. They did a review of the kit in the January issue.
Here you go!!!
http://www.finescale.com/fsm/default.aspx?c=a&id=1708
I’m not a Texan/Harvard guru, but if you intend to build a Harvard from the kit you have you’ll most likely have to add the lengthened exhaust as shown in this photo of a Canadian example:
I say ‘most likely’ because I dunno if all variants had this arrangement or not. I do have a few more shots of Harvards if you’d like to see them…
Fade to Black…
I just checked my 2 Texans/Harvards in my stash and they didn’t show the extended exhaust, so I went to the web and the vintage pics I could find showed about 80% of them had the extended exhaust, especially among foreign users of it… the rest the short exhaust… so not sure which it would be… my guess is build it for whichever you like, you can always pull out a reference and say you modelled it with the short exhaust.
here’s a pic of one of the short exhausts I saw, there were plenty of long ones…
http://www.jimmylescalle.com/t6.htm
I’m gonna have to look into this and see if I can find a consensus out there on the web, or a reason for the long exhaust versus short…
I haven’t much on the T-6 but I did come across a reference which stated that the longer exhaust, in reference to Harvard II’s built by Noorduyn in Canada, was for better heating in winter operations. Makes sense, but something doesn’t seem right and I feel that there’s more to this story. There were other differences as well, such as a different landing gear and some internal stuff.
By the way, Tom, you probably won’t find many photos of US Texans with a long exhaust. This was peculiar to the foreign-built aircraft, although I think that some Noorduyn-built Harvard II’s may have been used here in the US under the designation AT-16. Like I said, my references on this airplane are meager and the one ‘good’ reference I have is somewhat confusing. So I’m not sure on this last bit of info.
Anyhoo, you’d be able to make a Harvard II out of the Monogram kit, as the original Harvards were more akin to the BC-1 or BC-2 from what I gather.
I guess we just need a true Texan/Harvard guru to explain it all…
Fade to Black…
Squadron’s “AT-6 In Action” shows several shots of Harvards. Those showing the starboard side all have the long exhaust. The Canadian RCAF and British RAF & RN had T-6’s they called Harvards and all I have ever seen had the long exhaust. One major difference in the cockpit area, all Harvards had the loop on the top of the control stick like the British Spitfire. [alien]
yeah, what’s wierd Steve is I saw vintage photos of the US Harvards with the long exhaust or the short one… I was leaning toward the USN SNJ’s didn’t have it… just a hunch… but that pic I provided was a USAF one… I guess I am going to look into the different plants/possible alternate manufacturers too… might be the slant on this…
I dunno I will look into it tomorrow…
Just to clarify a couple of things…
US aircraft were not Harvards, they were Texans. Although the Texan and the Harvard (specifically the Harvard II) were essentially similar, there were several variants of Harvards and Texans which resulted in many different model numbers as well as equipment and detail differences.
Harvard II’s and IIA’s were comprised of at least six different North American Aviation model numbers; NA-55, 66, 75, 76, 81 & 88 as well as the Noorduyn-built models… not to mention the Yale which was a French fixed-gear variant, model number NA-64, taken over by the British and Canadians after the fall of France. So you can see how things could be confusing, especially for those who don’t know Texans/Harvards.
One thing that is definite is the fact that any Texan built in the US for the US, whether it be a BC-1A/T-6/AT-6 for the USAAC/USAAF/USAF or an SNJ for the USN, would not have the longer exhaust. There is no question on this point.
The only possible exceptions would be aircraft which were requisitioned from British contracts for use by the USAAC in 1940. These were Harvard II’s (model NA-81), and since they were not built to US specifications they were not assigned US designations or serial numbers by the Army. I do not know if they were equipped with the longer exhausts, or not.
Here’s a shot of two of these aircraft:
So if you’ve found an image of a US-marked aircraft with the longer exhaust, it’s possible that it was among those RAF aircraft requisitioned by the USAAC and I’d be very interested in seeing any such images.
Another thing about these long exhausts, after a bit of digging I’ve discovered that they were, indeed, for heating the cockpit and that there was no more to it than that. However, it seems that some aircraft built in the US were delivered without these long exhaust ‘muffs’, as they were called. I do not know if the muffs were retrofitted to any aircraft not originally equipped with them, but it seems likely that this would have been done, especially by the Canadians.
As to any other nations, especially post-war operators, I think it would depend upon where and to what specifications their aircraft were built. My research has largely been confined to wartime operators, but I know that some later operators of the type, such as the South Africans, had many aircraft without the long exhausts.
I mentioned the AT-16 in an earlier post. After a bit more digging I’ve discovered that these comprised 1500 Harvard IIB’s built by Noorduyn in Canada but paid for with US Army funds under lend-lease. (A further 300 were officially canceled, although RAF records are said to indicate that 157 additional aircraft were, indeed, built.) They were not intended for use by the US but they did receive the US designation of AT-16-ND and US serial numbers, although they were still designated and referred to as Harvard II’s by the Brits and Canucks. Also, only the RAF/RCAF serials were applied to the aircraft.
Some of these Harvard IIB/AT-16’s were handed over to the US by the RAF in India for use as hacks. Here’s a shot of one of those particular aircraft:
Now, back to the question of using the Monogram kit to build a Harvard. As I said earlier, the only Harvard variants you could build from the Monogram kit, without major modifications, would be the Harvard II and later variants. Since some Harvard II’s were built without the long exhausts you could build the kit pretty much SOB with only a few minor changes in details. One of these details, which I alluded to earlier and which yardbird specifically mentioned, would be the control sticks.
Here’s a shot of a ‘spade-grip’ stick in a Harvard II:
As I stated earlier, I’ve a few more shots of Harvard II’s and will post them if you like.
Fade to Black…
Thank you gentlemen [and ladies?]
There is a lot of info there to digest, and I will probably mull things over for a while to think just what to do.
I have just checked with the photos that I have of ex rnzaf HARVARDS [:-,] and they all seem to be of the short exhaust type , if anyone wanted to know.
By the way, blackwolf, please do post the other images, as it seems there is at least a little interest in the topic?
cool, thanks Steve! I was looking into it last night and the computer nazi wife came and wrested me from my seat to watch some movie…
I’ll try and keep this simple.
I believe that Belcher Bits had an update set for the Texan to Harvard conversion. I’m not sure if it is still available but I know that I have seen it advertised in the past. It came with the longer exhaust.
Steve,
A Canadian Harvard can be certified in Standard and Utility catagories by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) if two modifications are made on the airframe (one of which is very noticable.) The Harvard has a long exhaust down the starboard side that extends almost to the trailing edge of the wing. Near the front of each cockpit, there is a pipe extending from the exhaust pipe into cockpit. This carries exhaust gases to the heat exchanger in the cockpit. The Faa requires the removal of the pipes into the cockpit, patching the resultant holes and replacement of the exhaust pipe (with a much shorter unit as shown in your origional reply or preferably a T-6 unit, it depends on what your local FSDO wants). The second mod is somewhat less noticable. The upper oleos in the Harvard main landing gear was made by welding pieces together while the T-6 unit was cast as one piece and machined. The FAA doesn’t like the welded unit for some reason. Over the years I’ve been involved with three Harvard to T-6 certifications.
This really shows my age, but if you can get an archive copy or CD of the first year or two of FSM, there is a featurein one of those issues in which a guy took that same old Monogram T-6 kit and literally turned it into one of the two or three finest models I have ever seen in or out of a museum. The cockpit framing was completely replaced with soldered brass tubing and rod, and every part of the a/c was rebuilt or modified. This was before we had AM parts for everything and, come to think of it, there’s still very little AM stuff out there for a T-6. But most people who stick plastic together will agree, that kit is still a nice one, and like the Mustang and Sabre, it just doesn’t seem to age. There’s just something about North American Aviation’s products, even when rendered in plastic…
My first warbird flight was in a T-6, and I really wasn’t all that impressed, and felt kind of stupid in that Snoopy cap (I had to wear it because they didn’t believe in normal commo gear at CAF). But when my driver started down the runway, seeming to take an hour to get up to unstick speed, he lifted the thing up just enough inches to pull the gear up, then picked up speed, hauled back on the stick until we were pulling about four G’s, and I swear it was like an Alpha departure in an F-15. Of course, we were going a bit slower, and the T-6 couldn’t sustain vertical flight for very long, but it made a believer out of me. I’d give anything to be flying one right now. Or in one. And, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t mind building one right now.
Tom
thats what I was thinking Tom… got a 1/72 and 1/48 kit in my closet right now… whats stopping me???
[V] okokok… the 5 kits in line before them… thats what’s stopping me…
so little time, so many kits…
Do I hear ‘Texan/Harvard Group Build’?
Oh geez, here I go again…
Fade to Black…
hmmm maybe in May…of 2006… if I keep getting myself into these things!
haha… no actually I am up for it… summer this year?
Tom, I dunno on the GB thing, I was just being funny. Possibly… this is something to think about…
Alrighty, here’s some more images. These first two shots were posted on this forum some time ago, unfortunately I can’t recall who it was that posted them…
These next three shots were taken at RCAF Station Summerside in 1941.
This next shot isn’t a Harvard, but rather a Yale. Thought I’d throw it in for good measure…
I came across a couple articles from Airpower/Wings and there’s a good number of Harvard II’s that I could post. I’ll see if I can scan some of the better shots. I’ll also try and find some detail shots, walkarounds and the like.
Fade to Black…
As for the alleged P51 in that Reno racer set, where did they get it from? a Cornflake packet? Did Mr Magoo measure up the canopy or what?
Pete
If I remember right, the Stang was the old Revell kit which was pretty… uh… well… let’s just say thank goodness for Tamigawa and Hasegagme…
Fade to Black…
I think I may have made an oops. When Icall something a harvard, that would, for me include texans and snj’s . by the way what is the difference , in english please, not too techo.[%-)]