North American Yale

Anyone know what happened to all of them that were auctioned in 1971-72 at the Ernie Simmons auction in Canada?

I recall reading an article saying someone bought one as a plaything for their children.
In any event, I expected to see them show up as flying warbirds…I’m still waiting.:D

A Lot have made their way into museums, probably never to fly again.
These I’ve seen…
Canadian Warplane Heritage (Hamilton, ON) has two,
Western Canada Aviation Museum (Winnipeg, MB)
BCATP Museum (Brandon, MB)
Reynolds-Alberta Museum (Wetaskiwin, AB)
Nanton Lancaster Society Air Museum (Nanton, AB)
Western Development Museum (Moose Jaw, SK)
Privately owned (Creve Coeur near St. Louis, MO – possibly visiting)
USAF Museum (Dayton, OH)

These I’ve not…
Canadian Harvard Aircraft Association (Woodstock, ON)
No. 6 RCAF Dunnville Museum (Dunnville, ON)
CAF Museum (Midland, TX)
Pima Air & Space Museum (Tucson, AZ)
Milestones of Flight Air Museum (Lancaster, CA) – re-engined into BT-14
Aero Retro Warbirds (Wilmington, DE)
Southwest Aviation Inc (Fairacres, NM)
Privately Owned (Toledo, OH)
Privately Owned (Hershey, NE)
Privately owned, (Palm Harbour FL)
Privately owned (North Fort Myers, FL)
Privately owned (recently sold) (Birmingham, AL)
Privately owned (Casa Grande, AZ)
Privately owned (Norwalk IO)
Privately owned (Williamson, GA)
Privately owned (Brighton, MI)
Privately owned (St Charles, MO – possibly the one I saw at Creve Coeur)
Privately owned (Hershey, NE)
Privately owned (Wirtz, VA)
Privately owned (Wadsworth, OH)

So there are quite a few potentially on the circuit – most probably don’t travel much, and given the treacherous handling it is possible that many do not fly all that much either.
All of the ones listed as Privately owned showed an individuals name in the FAA registry (as opposed to a company name), of which there are 15.
There seems to be three additional aircraft on the Canadian registry in addition to those listed above.

Cheers,

Mike Fletcher

Some insight into how different it really is here on WIX:

JDK wrote:

Eric,
Can you give a rundown on the Yale? I understand the engine makes it a bit more ‘interesting’ than a T-6. An American friend of mine had a go in a CAC Wirraway (essentially a NA-16) and his first remark was about its ‘Limeyfication’ compared to the T-6. Presumably the Yale wasn’t ‘Fracofied’?

The Yale actually has very little in common with the T6. First of all, it is much more challenging to fly than the T6. It has a Wright 975-E3, at 440hp and @400lbs lighter than the T6 it is under powered. It has a different wing than the T6, the wing span is slightly shorter, more dihedral and stronger ailerons. Much better roll rate. The stall charesteristics are viscious. Clean it stalls just like a T6, dirty the flaps blank out the tail and it snaps over on it’s back every time. The gear is two feet narrower than the T6 and the Vertical CG is a little higher so it’s also challenging to land well. Crosswinds are also challenging.

In his book, Ragwing to Heavy Iron, by Martin Caidin, there is a passage interviewing Tom Crevase about which of the WWII era airplanes were the most challenging to fly. He said he thought the Yale was. He restored my Yale for himself and flew it quite a bit.

With everything written above, one might question why I enjoy flying it. In the air it handles as well as any airplane I have ever flown. Seldom have I found anything in life that gives me as much satisfaction as flying the Yale well. I learned to fly tailwheel in it, and can’t imagine ever selling it.

That and more here:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17511&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25

Including some thoughts on survivors and this priceless piece:

I don’t have any PIC time in the heavy iron like the P-51, F4U, Sea Fury, or Skyraider types but I’ve got about 750 hours in a Stearman and 250 or so in an SNJ. Most of the rest of my time is in odd ball antiques and most of that time is in the pattern. I’ve always considered a plane’s flying characteristics as a “complete package”. What does it do or feel like from the time you taxi out until the time you taxi back in. You don’t really get to know an airplane until you’ve stalled it, spun it, rolled it, landed it in a strong crosswind, simulated a dead stick landing etc. At least that’s my take on this stuff. I’ve had a few people tell me that “no airplanes fly badly, some of them just fly differently than others” That’s like saying “there is no bad beer, some beer is just better than other beer” Bullsh*t! I’ve had some really bad beer and I’ve flown some really crappy airplanes.

Ah, the Yale. Let me tell you about that little gem.

So Eric Downing is busy in the hangar one day and his buddy John Lohmar is headed back out in the Yale by himself. “Hey Albert” says Eric, have you ever been in my Yale? The next thing I know, I’m sitting in the back seat of the Yale, headed down the runway. Hmm, seems like our SNJ, smells like our SNJ, about the same view as our SNJ, the controls sure look like our SNJ, and in level flight it sure handles like our SJN. Gear down and welded, minus 150 HP, but other than that, it’s a T-6/SNJ.

Sure it is.

So John Lohmar says, “hey Albert, I got it”, “Let me show you something”. With that, John cranks down some flaps and starts to pull off some power. No problem, I’m just along for the ride, I guess John’s going to show me a stall. I start to enjoy the nice view of St. Charles/St. Louis, Missouri area below and by this time I’m resting my head against the canopy. WHAM! My head bounces off the inside of the canopy and we’re in a half snap, up is down and down is up and I’m really pissed off. “Hey John, what the heck was that?” “Sorry Albert, I just thought you would like to see how different this thing stalls compared to the SNJ”. So I’m thinking, ok, smart a$$ airline pilot/warbird pilot is trying to see if he can bring back the hangover that I’ve spent most of the day trying to get rid of. I know John’s five times the pilot I am but this time, I’ve got him. I’ve got lots more time in this kind of stuff. I’ll show him. Right on cue comes John on the intercom. “Hey Albert, want to try it?”. “You bet, rack em, set it up just like that last one but this time let me show you what happens when you keep the ball centered and the wings level” (all said to myself). So up we go, I’ve got the flaps half down, I’m pulling a bit more power off, now I’m cranking in the rest of the flaps, I’m watching the airspeed, balls in the middle, wings level….WHAM!!! *&#*@!% What the F*%K! Holy Sh*t! How did that happen! no buffet, no noise, no warning. Now I’m really mad and a bit embarrased but I regain my composure and ask for another try. We climb back up and I try it again, this time with a bit more power but this time I’m like a cougar ready to pounce on it’s prey, my lightning quick Judo like reflexes had been lulled to sleep by our sightseeing trip over the Missouri corn fields but two “head smacks” against the canopy have awakened the crouching tiger within me…..WHAM! *&^%!*$ Pineapple upside down cake again. I recover after loosing about 900 feet of altitude and roll out on a heading of 425 degrees somewhere over southern Indiana. Little did I know that John had the ball dead centered and the wings perfectly level on the first demo, probably better than I did on either attempt. Try that with a T-6/SNJ and it will shudder and shake long before it departs. It will scream “let go dumb a$$” long before you manage to snap into a spin, inside or over the top. Not the Yale! It sits in the corner, coiled up like a rattle snake, ready to bite when you are paying the least attention. Oh, and then there’s that landing gear. Taller and more narrow than the T-6/SNJ’s, when combined with a stiff cross wind and the Yale’s considerable wing dihedral, it’s a real party to land. The Yale reminds me of a peach of a plane that I once owned, a SOKO 522. Another type that belongs in a static museum! But that’s another story.

Anyone know what happened to all of them that were auctioned in 1971-72 at the Ernie Simmons auction in Canada?

I recall reading an article saying someone bought one as a plaything for their children.
In any event, I expected to see them show up as flying warbirds…I’m still waiting.:D

To me the Yale looks like a Harvard with fixed gear, what were the other differances?…………Martin

The wing centre section is narrower (it was widened on later versions to allow space for the undercarriage to retract into, and improve ground handling),
the outer wings lack the forward sweep (having a straight trailling edge) but do not have rounded tips as on the Harvard I, Wirraway and BT-9. The aileron mechanism is internal as opposed to the external arm as found on the Harvards.
Internal structure on the fin is slightly different (it lacks one of the internal stiffeners) and the rudder trim tab on stock Yales wasn’t adjustable in the air, being a small piece of sheet aluminium sticking out from the trailling edge, bent to the desired angle, rather than the built in tab of the Harvards. The elevator trim control is internal as well, unlike the external one used on the Harvards.
Rollover pylon was of the early type, which forms a ‘IX’ rather than a ‘N’ from the left hand side.
Electrical power is as per early Harvard II’s (6v iirc) unless modified.
and of course the Wright R-975 (with downdraft carb) and fixed gear.

The USAF Museum in Dayton has one masquerading as a BT-14, one of roughly 35 that have survived out of the 230 built.

Mike Fletcher

Theres another project on Barnstormers for 20.000 but it has some accident damage.

Staying on topic, has anyone seen the Yale project advertised on Barnstormers?

Yes… I have.

It looks like a good buy to me. If only I had a few more $$$’s and a few less projects then I could be tempted!

G’day Tom,

Have never heard about the rounded wingtips having too much of an effect on stalling characteristics on the NA-16 family of aircraft, however I know the wing sweep back played a definite role in the less than friendly nature of the stall in the Wirraway. I believe that the Yale shared the same sweep back as the Wirraway, and this was changed in further development of the NA-16 family.

More than happy to discuss this and many other matters over a clensing drink or two in about a weeks time ;).

Cheers,
Matt

IIRC the Yale and early Harvards had rounded wingtips which gave them ‘interesting’ handling characteristics, they were squared-off on the Harvard/T-6.

Tom

Very Harvard looking:)

Cheers Dave C

Staying on topic, has anyone seen the Yale project advertised on Barnstormers?

The Yales had a Wright Whirlwind engine of about 350hp whereas the Harvard had about a 500hp engine.