NA Harvard Mk.1- Do any survive?

Here some various modern photos from the net, of Wirraways flying with their younger T6/SNJ cousins to contrast the shorter rear fuselage, fabric covered metal tube front and rear fuselage, round rudder and straight trailing edge wing (copyright as per any branding)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Here are some equivalent pages out of the CAC Wirraway manual, to show the similarities, between it (a licence built NA-16-2K / NA-33) and the Harvard I (an NAA built NA-16-1E / NA49)

(and a “side on” modern photo as a comparison to the Harvard I in the previous post)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I purchased a rare original North American Harvard I (NA-16-1E) manual from Canada (they only ever had 30 examples of the type) via Ebay a few months ago – it has just arrived.

Its very easy to see the “family resemblance” with its “NA-16” sibling the CAC Wirraway

regards

Mark Pilkington

Here, Here Beermat…………… Wirraway with no wash-out is not a friendly aircraft. Totally different handling to the BC.2/ T.6/Later Harvards. Nasty stall characteristics that resulted in many accidents/losses when low and slow. My friend Ed Field, whose company rebuilt two Wirraways and a Mustang, said to me that the best way to learn to fly a Wirraway was to start on the Tiger Moth, graduate straight to the P.51 then go to the Wirraway………

Hi Mark

I note these examples were 2 degree washed-out. Without the washout things would be – indeed were – beyond marginal.

Do you know the story of an attempt made to shortcut introduction of washout, so urgent was it? A wing was put in a jig by NAA with rivets drilled out, literally twisted and then re-riveted. As soon as it was removed from the jig, it sprang back, throwing rivets all over. I will dig out my source for that later.

Matt

.

I would be keen to see that information as I have an ongoing interest in the NA-16 family of aircraft, – I have recently been collecting original NAA Trainer manuals and am currently waiting for a rare NAA Harvard I manual to arrive from Canada.

I would agree that the original zero-wash-out wings would not be a good idea to replicate, and the BT-9 had a number of mods to improve its wing, and the CAC Wirraway seemingly benefited from those lessons, – my earlier post was simply to suggest that a Harvard Mk I “could be replicated” through using the Wirraway wing design as the basis of new Harvard I wings given both are NA-16 derivatives, and that the ongoing operation of Wirraways in Australia suggests they can be flown safely by experienced pilots.

However, again as per my earlier post, if I was trying to create a flying Harvard I reproduction, I personally wouldn’t bother making new straight trailing edge wings and would instead use the later T6/SNJ taper wing for its ease of obtaining, its ongoing parts support and of course its better flying characteristics, and that a fabric covered full steel tube frame with short length rear fuselage, and flat bottomed rudder, would deliver most of the obvious visual aspects of the Harvard I compared to the Harvard II to IV, and most would not be aware of, and notice that its wing was a taper wing and hence incorrect for the type.

I am not sure what Pat’s objective was in converting a set of Harvard II taper wing outers to Harvard I straight trailing edge wing outers, as changing the wing outers is probably the least recognisable element of a Harvard I, and hence a Harvard II with Harvard I wing outers would still be hard to identify on a flight line, and would be a poor reproduction of a Harvard I if it retained the metal skinned fuselage etc, and fitting the flat bottomed rudder would simply make it look like an SNJ-2.

Where as the fabric covered fuselage, and flat bottomed rudder of a Harvard I would make it stand out as “different” on a flight line of T6’s, SNJ’s and Harvard II to IV’s , regardless of the paint schemes.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi Mark

I note these examples were 2 degree washed-out. Without the washout things would be – indeed were – beyond marginal.

Do you know the story of an attempt made to shortcut introduction of washout, so urgent was it? A wing was put in a jig by NAA with rivets drilled out, literally twisted and then re-riveted. As soon as it was removed from the jig, it sprang back, throwing rivets all over. I will dig out my source for that later.

Matt

Since several have indicated interest in the surprisingly diverse history of the North American trainers serirs, I can recommend this book…

https://www.amazon.com/North-Americans-T-6-Definitive-History/dp/1580071244/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=T-6+Texan&qid=1560387483&s=books&sr=1-2

There are sever curved rudder SNJ-2s flying in the U.S., and several Yales…including projects as well.

The NA trainers (note I avoid using the T-6 or Harvard designation since there are many other members of the family) are a bit like the DC-3 family…a lot of variations and even otherwise knowledgeable enthusiasts don’t appreciate the differences in the variants.

I would be extremely wary of going back to the earliest of the breed. Recreating a non-washed-out, straight-winged, short-tailed, round-ruddered NA trainer.would mean reversing all the amends made to make a frankly dangerous aeroplane acceptable. There is a story in there, and as is often the case it’s not the one told by the manufacturer.

We built and flew 750 2 deg washed-out, straight-winged, short-tailed, round-ruddered CAC Wirraway licence built NA trainers down under and coped with the wing stall characteristics, and have a number still flying today, although one restored example did succumb to those un-forgiving wing stall characteristics when the pilot was performing steep turns at an Airshow, but the same characteristics were also in the CAC Boomerang and CAC Ceres and those also flew successfully, with restored examples flying today, the characteristics were improved through the fitting of leading edge wedges to the centre-section as well as wing slats on the Ceres.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tWirraway_A20_109a.jpg Views:t0 Size:t55.5 KB ID:t3865146″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3865146″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]

However If someone did want to recreate a Harvard I with a full steel tube (short) fuselage, and with its squared rather than rounded or triangular rudder, I personally would avoid the costs and issues with building new examples of the straight trailing edge wing and simply use the more modern T6/SNJ tapered wing, inclusive of its Centre-section and simply put round wing tips on it, what ever you build is only ever going to be a reproduction, not a restored and authentic original.

In fact the first post war airworthy restoration of a Boomerang by Guido Zuccoli flew with a clipped T-6 tapered wing until the first new straight trailing edge Boomerang wings were built Matt Denning.

Here is the description of the Wirraway wing from the Overhaul and Repair Manual

l. Description. ‘ The wing assembly consists essentially of a centre section, two outer panels, two wing tips, two ailerons, two aileron booster tabs and five flap panels. The centre section. is of constant chord design and is set at a 2 angle of incidence. Each outer panel is twisted 2′, thus resulting in, an angle of 0’at the tips, The outer panels have a sweep back of 12 5′ at their leading edges and have, relative to the centre section, a dihedral angle of 5’ measured along the upper surface. The entire trailing edge of the wing is straight.

2. Centre Section. The wing centre section is of aluminium alloy construction consisting of two spars with channel type flanges and flat sheet webs, flanged channel type intermediate ribs between the spars, two end plates and a corrugated sheet riveted to the spar flanges and intermediate ribs between the spars at the top. The entire assembly is covered with aluminium alloy sheet, with access doors and openings provided in the upper surface to accommodate the fuel co*k extension shaft, aileron control cables, flap and hydraulic brake pipes, fuel tank filler necks, . A large door, extending the whole length of the centre section between the spars,- gives access to the fuel tanks. When bolted into position between the outer wing panels this – door forms an integral part of the wing centre

section. Incorporated in the assembly of this fuel tank cover is the manual bomb release mechanism. The removal of this cover gives access to both fuel tanks. The landing gear supports and lock-pin mechanisms are installed at the outboard ends of the centre section _on ,the front spar. Wheel wells are provided in the leading edge to accommodate the landing gear wheels in the fully retracted position. On the rear bottom surface of the centre section are installed electro-magnetic -bomb release mechanisms.

3. Outer Panels. A twist of 2′ (wash-out) is incorporated in each outer wing panel, which is of aluminium alloy construction throughout. The basic construction of each- outer panel consists of a single spar, pressed flanged ribs and aluminium alloy sheet covering. Access doors are provided on the upper and lower surfaces to facilitate inspection, servicing, replacement, – The outer -panels are attached to the centre section by means of eight (8) bolts through angles riveted to end plates of the centre section and screwing in-o anchor nuts on the spar of the outer panel, also by numerous bolts through bolt angles which are riveted to the centre section and outer panels about their respective root profiles. Two universal type bomb carriers are built into each wing panel. These carriers are so arranged that the-.slip and .electro-magnetic releases are- entirely within the wing. The necessary bomb steadies and rails for the fusing units are incorporated as part of the wing assembly.

For Pat’s inquiry above I have added a photo of the Wirraway wing outer panel and the repair drawing of the wing from the manual, showing the straight trailing edge in common with the NA-16 and Harvard I, and the 13 rib positions.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I would be extremely wary of going back to the earliest of the breed. Recreating a non-washed-out, straight-winged, short-tailed, round-ruddered NA trainer.would mean reversing all the amends made to make a frankly dangerous aeroplane acceptable. There is a story in there, and as is often the case it’s not the one told by the manufacturer.

The only reason I ask is that I am currently exploring the possibility and feasibility of retrofitting a set of Harvard Mk 2 outer wing panels to a set of Harvard Mk 1 panels. Does anyone know if this has been done before? I see that there is currently an NA-50 replica for sale on Barnstormers that states that it has been modified from the later wing to the earlier straight trailing edge type and is six inches shorter than the standard Harvard wing panel. I would imagine that the earlier straight trailing edge wing panels also have 12 ribs rather than the 13 rib standard. Does anyone have any drawings that lay out the part numbers for the ribs on the early outer wing panels?

Pat,

it would be a major task to modify the later T6 forward swept trailing edge wing outers to become straight trailing edge wings for a NA-50 replica or Harvard I replica, although Matt Denning in Queensland Australia has been building CAC Boomerang wing outers for years and they are effectively shortened/clipped wing versions of the straight trailing edge Wirraway / NA-16 wing.

There is only 1 surviving NA-16 example – in Boliva in South America, and no other known survivors of the various NA models with the early straight trailing edge wing such as the BT-9, BC-1, NJ-1 and Harvard I etc.

But there are a healthy number of CAC Wirraways surviving with the NA-16 wing and a smaller number of CAC Boomerangs with the modified version and I have no doubt Matt could punch out a set of Wirraway/Harvard mk I straight trailing edge wing outers based on his production capabilities of Boomerang wing outers.

The drawings of the CAC Wirraway wings do exist

regards

Mark Pilkington

Lovely photos. The BT9 wing underwent a series of modifications, initially no washout and no slat, then the slat was added, then the slat was replaced by washout. The nasty stall characteristics were noted by the A&AEE which is why slats were added to the Harvard Mk.Is after entering service. The design’s problems were eventually cured by a longer fuselage and a reduction in wing sweep, creating the famous T-6.

Also wondering if the BT.9 had the same design outer wing panels as the Wirraway – no washout. Lead to some nasty stall characteristics and perhaps why there are fixed LE slats.

Certainly looks a lot different to the Randolf AFB I have visited but the actual layout is obviously the same. Had the nickname of the “Taj Mahal” from its early days and the tile covered water tank is still a feature

Here’s some wonderful shots, taken at Randolph Field,Texas 1939 of BT-9s.

I’d imagine they are known crash sites where there might be a few remains

The only reason I ask is that I am currently exploring the possibility and feasibility of retrofitting a set of Harvard Mk 2 outer wing panels to a set of Harvard Mk 1 panels. Does anyone know if this has been done before? I see that there is currently an NA-50 replica for sale on Barnstormers that states that it has been modified from the later wing to the earlier straight trailing edge type and is six inches shorter than the standard Harvard wing panel. I would imagine that the earlier straight trailing edge wing panels also have 12 ribs rather than the 13 rib standard. Does anyone have any drawings that lay out the part numbers for the ribs on the early outer wing panels?

I’d imagine they are known crash sites where there might be a few remains

Does anyone have any information on the Harvard Mk1 survivors in Canada mentioned by Scorpion89? Just curious as to if they were total write offs and why they haven’t been recovered?

There were only 30 Mk.Is serving in Canada, serials 1321 – 1350. From July 1939 with the last one wfu in July 1946 (1325). Hard to believe that this many would survive in the woods. Not impossible though.

Regards,

BennoT6

Does anyone have any information on the Harvard Mk1 survivors in Canada mentioned by Scorpion89? Just curious as to if they were total write offs and why they haven’t been recovered?

Great to learn here! thanks for all the info and those pictures. I realy enjoyed to see those early Harvard variants!

Thanks all!

Stieglitz

As mark has point out that there are no early BC-1/Mk.1/SNJ-1 that have been put on display or flying. But thats not to say that their aren’t any that survive.

In my master list for Canada I have 7 Mk1s still out in the woods and I know of the location of a BC-1 in the States but the problem with these airframes are the location which make them very hard to go after.

As for the SNJ-1 I know of 2 crash sites on eof them I’m going to try to get to sometime in 2008.

Now there are a few BC-1A tat are out there also, there are three in the Mountains of Calf that could be recovered and rebuild to at least one flyere and one static using parts from later T-6s.

Its a shame that while we in the Warbird Community are big on hunting down the P-51 or F4U out in the wilds some of the rarer Trainers are out there and no one(well not everyone:D ) don’t want to go hunting for them.

I know they aren’t the big money ticket thing but it would be cool to have a BT-9/BT-8 and other late 20s early 30s trainers at Attack aircraft recovered.