KH T-6/Harvard Kicked Up A Notch: Apr 14/20: Finished!

[Alain Gadbois]

Yes, I read that problem with the vac canopy, and my idea was to see if there could be a combination of short canopy and long exhaust, because sometimes there are exceptions and even good reference book can miss some information, and I know this from very real experience!

In any case, feeling free to do what you want is the only obligation you need to have with your model and it is going to be very nice to be sure!

 

Alain

[Thunnus]

Brilliant and beautifully informative work as always, Chuck!

[chuck540z3]

4 hours ago, Alain Gadbois said:

Yes, I read that problem with the vac canopy, and my idea was to see if there could be a combination of short canopy and long exhaust, because sometimes there are exceptions and even good reference book can miss some information, and I know this from very real experience!

In any case, feeling free to do what you want is the only obligation you need to have with your model and it is going to be very nice to be sure!

 

Alain

 

Thanks Alain.  This book has hundreds of photographs of all sorts of Texans and Harvards, but as usual, photos of the right side exhaust are not as plentiful as the left side where you board the aircraft.  I did not find a pic of a short canopy and long exhaust.  However, while most of the aircraft had stubby exhausts, I did find a South African Mk IV (p. 201), Jordanian Mk IIB (p. 199), British Mk IIB (p. 194), and even a Chinese Mk IIB (p. 187) all with long exhaust stacks, to prove that some non-Canadian versions had them occasionally.  Having said that, maybe they originated in Canada, since they all have canopy pipe heaters?

 

Cheers,

Chuck

Edited January 12, 2020 by chuck540z3

[levier]

The Harvard was a Canadian Car and Foundry license built T-6, so yes, they all originated from Canada.  I believe these versions migrated to many countries in the late 50s and early 60s.  I do not have a copy of Dan's book, but I would be willing to bet he covers how CCF Harvards were exported.

 

The Harvards were different in many ways, including lighter wings, which made them a favorite in custom built 230+ mph T-6 racers.

Edited January 12, 2020 by levier
Sp

[chuck540z3]

2 hours ago, levier said:

The Harvard was a Canadian Car and Foundry license built T-6, so yes, they all originated from Canada.  I believe these versions migrated to many countries in the late 50s and early 60s.  I do not have a copy of Dan's book, but I would be willing to bet he covers how CCF Harvards were exported.

 

The Harvards were different in many ways, including lighter wings, which made them a favorite in custom built 230+ mph T-6 racers.

 

Not quite.  While all the Canadian Car and Foundry (CCF) aircraft were called Harvards, many more were produced by North American before and after CCF to Commonwealth countries where they were designated Harvards, rather than T-6's.  This is found all over the Hagedorn book, but here's a snip from Google:

 

"The Harvard series of advanced trainers were British Commonwealth Air Forces versions of the North American Aviation (NAA) T-6 Texan used during and after World War II. NAA delivered its first Harvards in October 1938 to the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). The US-built Harvards included the Harvard I, based on the North American BC-1, immediate predecessor to the AT-6; the Harvard II (AT-6); Harvard IIA (AT-6C); and Harvard III (AT-6D). In all, North American built 2,989 Harvards.

Due to NAA being so heavily involved building its B-25 Mitchell and P-51 Mustang aircraft, a license to build Harvards was awarded to Noorduyn Aviation Limited in Canada. Noorduyn built 757 Harvard IIBs for the RCAF and an additional 1,800 of the Harvard IIB/AT-6A type designated AT-16 for lend-lease.

Following World War II, Canadian Car & Foundry (CCF) in Fort William (now Thunder Bay), Ontario, built the Harvard Mk. IV, introduced into RCAF service in 1951. The Mk. IV was similar to the US Air Force remanufactured T-6G Texan. Of the 555 Harvard Mk. IVs built by CCF, the USAF purchased 285 as T-6Js, built to T-6G standards, for the Mutual Defense Assistance Program."

 

Most of the Harvards with long exhausts mentioned above were made before 1945, so they could not have originated from CCF.

 

Cheers,

Chuck

Edited January 12, 2020 by chuck540z3

[levier]

So, there you have it!  Appreciate that correction.  I guess I should order the book ...

[MikeMaben]

10 hours ago, chuck540z3 said:

               Accuracy for once, is not a priority in this build, so I’m now free to do whatever I want for a change.

 

                       

 

 

[chuck540z3]

5 hours ago, levier said:

So, there you have it!  Appreciate that correction.  I guess I should order the book ...

 

As you know, we modelers are always bombarded with given facts on a variety of aircraft we try to replicate, and found that for any rule, there are always exceptions.  Just try and ask if rivet marks ever made it through P-51D puttied wings over time or what color the landing gear bay should be- then duck!  How camo paint was applied to Spitfires is another.  For every given rule, there are exceptions.

 

The Hagedorn book is excellent on the history of the aircraft and all the versions, but weak on specific details that differentiate each version in photographs, which is what I was looking for.  Still, if you want the bible on the T-6 Texan and all variants like the Harvard and Wirraway (Australian), this is it.

 

Cheers,

Chuck

[Biggles87]

I know the answer to the one about rivet marks on Mustang wings: “ That depends........”. 

[glidingbob]

Hi Chuck,

 

nice build 

there is one thinng that is never mentioned on review of this model: the foot steps on the left fuselage are placed to low.

Look at pictures their position in regard of the air intake in front

I willl try to post my model 

Keep the good work

Bob (Belgian T-6 fan)

[chuck540z3]

49 minutes ago, glidingbob said:

Hi Chuck,

 

nice build 

there is one thinng that is never mentioned on review of this model: the foot steps on the left fuselage are placed to low.

Look at pictures their position in regard of the air intake in front

I willl try to post my model 

Keep the good work

Bob (Belgian T-6 fan)

 

Thanks Bob, I had not noticed that until you pointed it out.  I'll see how much hassle it ill be to move the foot steps and then go from there.

 

Cheers,

Chuck

[zaxos345]

Stunning work as always Chuck!!!!!!

 

John

[chuck540z3]

On 1/13/2020 at 11:06 AM, glidingbob said:

Hi Chuck,

 

There is one thing that is never mentioned on review of this model: the foot steps on the left fuselage are placed too low.

Look at pictures their position in regard of the air intake in front

 

Bob (Belgian T-6 fan)

 

 

Thank you again Bob!

 

Checking pics of the real deal- and my subject- the steps should be roughly in alignment with the rear side intake as shown below.  Further, there is a panel just under it that fits up snug to the front step at the  bottom and front.

 

 

The kit steps are too low as Bob pointed out.  Further, I'm embarrassed to say, my side panel is way too far aft and is crowding the main panel line beneath it, because of the low steps.

 

 

So I pulled off the brass panel and filled the step inserts with CA glue.  If you do this, remember to not apply the CA glue too thick, or it will bubble with accelerator.  Apply the glue in thin layers, with accelerator between coats, then wiped off.  I then sanded the bottom off the steps, which is no longer needed to be inserted into the recesses and thinned them a bit for scale.

 

A new brass panel applied, which now fits generally where it's supposed to, although a touch forward to hide the filled recess, just in case.

 

 

That is all- and again thank you Bob, for pointing out an easy fix before it's too late!

 

Cheers,

Chuck

Edited January 14, 2020 by chuck540z3

[dodgem37]

Good show, Bro'.

 

Sincerely,

Mark

[DerekB]

Great to see you working on this subject Chuck, I have four of these kits, all destined to end up somewhat modified. So I'm very interested to see what you can do with this one. Great choice of subject too!

 

I'm always amazed to see kit manufacturers coming out with so many inaccuracies in their kits... some are understandable if the subject is rare or poorly documented. But with so many Texans and Harvards around, the mistakes in this kit are unforgivable!!

 

The tail-wheel detail by KH is stupendously poor, and I noticed your solution based on Max's fine work. Since I have 4 of these kits, I've been working on a 3D printed solution to the tail-wheel "knuckle", see my photos below for how it should look:

 

Harvard tail wheel collage by Derek Buckmaster, on Flickr

 

You can see the shape of the fuselage cut-out and the triangular shape of the "knuckle" when viewed from below. It was nice of the Imperial War Museum (Duxford) to hang their Texan up in the air to enable lots of photos of the underside, which you can't normally get!

 

Also, the amount by which the tail-wheel protrudes from the fuselage is due to the fuel and crew load, not related to the position of the tail-wheel. Since the tail-wheel is sprung with an internal pneudraulic cylinder, if the fuel tanks are full and there are 2 pilots on board, the tail-wheel doesn't protrude much at all. In the photos above you can see that with no load on the wheel it is fully extended.

 

Cheers,
Derek 

Edited January 15, 2020 by DerekB