Well, this is what I meant when I said that the subject can be confusing to some! [:P]
The short of it would be that if it’s a US bird, it’s a Texan and if it’s British or Canadian, or most any other nation, it’s a Harvard II. That’s about as simple an explanation as I can give.
They’re all basically the same airplane. The differences described above, the most prominant of which is the longer exhaust, would differentiate a Texan from a Harvard II, with the more subtle differences denoting the different models or variants. One thing along these lines which I forgot to mention above is the radio mast. But I won’t go there…
Anyhoo, many if not most folks wouldn’t be able to tell a Harvard II from a Harvard IIA (Before yesterday I wouldn’t have been able to!) or an AT-6A from an AT-6B or even the later T-6G.
So, in the end, if you don’t really care about the little details, all you have to remember is that if it’s a US bird it’s a Texan. If it’s not a US bird, it’s more than likely a Harvard II.
One last thing, when I talk about all this stuff, I’m referring to the aircraft during the war years, not restored warbirds. The world of warbirds can be even more confusing, if you can believe it… [;)]
The Revelogram T-6 could be modified to a Harvard, but I would suggest aquiring the Modelcraft/Occidental kit. It is for a MK IV, but can be converted to MK II configuration with canopy parts [supplied] and a few interior alterations as MK IV used U.S. interior found in T6G variant. I purchased several of the afore mentioned kits and wish that I had obtained one more to convert over to BT14 .
Next ? What are the seats and belts looking like in the Harvard/texan the pics/info I have is inconclusive. The seat is it steel bucket, or canvassy stuff. How arw the belts attached, are they the same as a policarpov, coming from a central point, or 2 separate?[?][:I][][%-)]
Now, there you go and have to rile up our “Bell Bottomed Brethern!” US Army Air Force or USAF birds of this genre = Texan. If you put NAVY on the thing, it becomes an SNJ, either -1,-2,-3,-4 or -5 models. The BBB folks even put tail hooks on the things and crashed them onto and bounced off of their portable airfields. [alien][banghead]
As to the SNJ/Texan thing… SNJ was just the Navy’s designation for the BC-1 and the AT-6. And yeah, guys undoubtedly referred to the aircraft as ‘SNJ’, but the official name was ‘Texan’.
As a side note… the SNJ-1 and SNJ-2 were not equivalent to the AT-6, they were more akin to the BC-1. (Not the BC-1A, which was the original designation for what became the AT-6, if I recall correctly. I could be mistaken…) The BC-1 and the AT-6 were roughly the same design, but in reality they were quite diffferent aircraft in many respects. The original Harvard, or Harvard I, was also more or less equivalent to the BC-1, as was the Wirraway.
Tail hooks…
Not all SNJ’s had tail hooks. I believe that none of the less-than 100 or so (or 150, depending what source you believe) SNJ-1’s and SNJ-2’s had tail hooks installed at the factory and it is doubtful that they were installed afterward.
Some SNJ-3, 4 and 5 airframes had tail hooks and these were designated SNJ-3C, 4C and 5C. I don’t know the total number of hook-equipped aircraft because my references give conflicting info, but it seems that perhaps as many as 2000 may have had them.
With around 5000 SNJ’s being procured by the Navy, this leaves roughly 3000 aircraft with no tail hooks; so even though a Texan with a hook is undoubtedly an SNJ, that feature alone cannot be considered a defining one for the Navy’s Texans. Indeed, many SNJ’s were literally identical to the Army’s AT-6 because many of them were taken directly from USAAC/USAAF contracts and were built as AT-6’s. (As an interesting side note, I have an image of what appears to be a Harvard II which has a tail hook… just another example that the subject of Texans/Harvards is nowhere near black and white…)
Markvs,
I dunno fersher what harnesses the Harvard II would have had, but I assume that they would have been the type used by the RAF, Sutton harnesses I think they’re called; certainly a Harvard built in Canada would have had them. As to US-built aircraft, I think they would have been installed as per specs from the customer (RAF was the major customer, and they would have probably asked for their standard equipment) but I just don’t know for sure. If I had to pick, I’d go with the Sutton harnesses.
The seats themselves, to my way of thinking, would have been the same as for a US Texan, which were originally buckets as far as I know. I dunno if the seat type was subsequently changed on the production line or what operational aircraft, of any service, may have had cushioned seats. Some may have had them, but, again, I simply do not know. But if you are intending to build a replica of a wartime aircraft, I’d say go with the buckets.
I’ve seen plush, cushioned seats in many photos of restored aircraft as well as the several I have been able to crawl around in, but if you’re building historically-correct models of aircraft from the war years you cannot always rely on restored warbirds or even museum pieces for many details. This leads me to the subject of restored aircraft in general…
In the case of flying restorations, many safety regulations which were not in place ‘back in the day’ must be adhered to and non-historical equipment must be installed both inside and outside the aircraft.
Colors and markings combine to create a very real pandora’s box, and this is a subject which spawns many an argument which, in many cases, will never be resolved. People restoring real aircraft have the same difficulties in this area as we modelers do.
As to your specific question of seats, many times the stock units are not used in flying restorations and are replaced with more comfortable seats.
Restored aircraft are just like models in the respect that the folks working on them have different intentions and motivations. Some just want to clean up an airframe for display in a museum, with little interest in the accuracy of the aircraft’sappearance. Some are similarly unconcerned about accuracy but want to restore the aircraft to flying condition for their own leisure. These types of restorations are not good to use for reference in the areas outlined above.
But If they’re looking to produce as historically-accurate a restoration as they can, then they have to do research just like us. And now and again, an absolutely stunning finished product results. But they’re people just like us; they make mistakes… just like us…
Markvs: I have a few hours flight time in two different T-6’s, both belonging to the CAF. Both of the ones I was strapped to were were still basically all original in the cockpits. Except for absurd paint schemes – and these were flying museum airplanes, no less – with markings appropriate to three different wars covering 50 years on one airplane. But if you see a line of T-6’s at an air show like Oshkosh, you know that’s the rule rather than an aberration. Still, I’m writing from memory here and it has been a few years.
But back to the seat harnesses: the ones I’ve used were the familiar American fighter and trainer harness of the period. It’s a heavy white canvass affair with a wide seatbelt with a wider leather lap strap. (What is the name of the leather part of the seatbelt, or does it have a name?) The right and left straps of the harness were attached, I believe, at two points behind the seats to hardware riveted to the seat back from behind.
Everything had a single-point attachment where the lap-strap system came togther at your, um, well, lap. In other words, these were standard American harnesses and belts for single engine military prop planes from WW II to Vietnam, though I’m sure the ones I wore had been replaced a few times over the years. They seem big and wide and bulky, but remember these harnesses were made to go around a man who was wearing a complete parachute and survival rig, probably a heavy jacket and often a Mae West. Well, in civilian T-6 or other warbird the same harness often goes on a guy who is wearing no more than a pair of jeans and a tee shirt, and it feels as though the harness itself covers half your upper body.
These aircraft had original seats, and though the FAA required us to wear parachutes, we never did (I was not yet a licensed pilot on these first little jaunts, and my ignorance was indeed bliss. I’m pretty sure most T-6 owners and their passengers don’t wear them, and it’s stupid.) The deep buckets of the seats were filled with thick seat cushions. One thing that struck me about one of these T-6’s I flew in (three times, I think in this one bird) was that not only did the the stick have no grip, I think it was a piece of plumbing pipe, because it was just bare, threaded steel at the top, with an open end! The intercom and mike buttons were attached to the commo wire that went from our Snoopy caps to the plug.
I experienced my first aerobatic rides in these T-6’s, and one of my most striking memories is how surprised I was the first time we came to the top of a loop, inverted, and how much dirt, gravel, drinking straw wrappers and cigarette butts came raining down upon my face and into my eyes from the bowels of the aircraft. This happens to some degree even in a spic and span F-15, but at least in a jet most or all of your face is covered.
TOM
OOps , next question. What are the liuttle trumpety things on the side of the t6. I assume they might be either a venturi for air change in the cockpit, or a venturi powered auxiliary power unit? The same sort of thing appear on a lot of planes from the 30’s
I’d say the venturis on the Harvards were for some of the flight instruments. Maybe for the gyro horizon, directional gyro, turn/bank indicator or possibly all three. Two sets of instruments; two venturis?
][%-)]