T-6 Type Certificate / history?

[snj-5]

Anyone know the background / history behind the stipulation in the T-6 TCDS
that says prior to civil certification, Harvard aircraft manufactured in the US
must have US-Made landing gear?

"The use of foreign manufactured landing gear is not considered acceptable, and therefore
must be replaced by an acceptable gear manufactured in the United States"

Was there a history of foreign-manufactured main landing gear failure?

Bela P. Havasreti

[Stoney]

The Canadian upper legs don't have the piece that the gear door adjustment arm attachs to, because they don't use gear doors.

[Forgotten Field]

This is just a guess, but I would wager that line is some foreign trade protectionism written into the TCDS. The Harvard IV's were not built on the Type Certificate, although they have parts which will bolt up to SNJ/T6/Harvard II. I don't know if the landing gear is a bolt-up part or not. But if it is, they probably didn't want non-US built parts competing with US manufacturers products after WWII. The other issue might be that the same manufacturer made the parts in separate US and Canadian plants. With the US Governments cost-plus contracts, US built parts might have been more expensive than Canadian parts. They didn't value globalization back then like we do today...

It might be interesting to compare this with the Fairchild M-62 TCDS. And by the way, this stuff still happens. US Military HMMWV's were declared not compliant with DOT safety standards, so the Government would not surplus them as vehicles, only residue. The vehicle was virtually indistinguishable from the first civilian models which DID meet DOT safety standards.

[The Inspector]

Years ago, a close friend knocked heads with an FAA Inspector over a HARVARD he was restoring for a Canadian customer. Since it was going into U.S. temp registration prior to going North, the FAA guy INSISTED the strut doors be installed. Stu gave up, removed and replaced the gear with ones that had the bracketry and installed the strut doors, got it signed off and as soon as the FAA clown drove off, the HARVARD was going up on jacks to have the correct struts re-installed.
The very same FAA guy happened to be @ a fly-in a few months later, spotted the HARVARD still in U.S. registration but without the strut covers, his only reamark to Stu-'It looks really good, you did a good job'

[snj-5]

Thanks for the replies. That makes sense Stoney! I have two sets of American gear and one set Canadian (i was just
curious as to what that blurb in the TCDS was all about).

I ordered all the paperwork the Feds had on my Harvard II project (75-3048, RCAF 3134) and in there was a bunch
of letters dating back to the early 1960s between the then owner and the FAA / FSDO (and even to North American
Rockwell) about licensing that particular aircraft in the normal category (if you look on the T-6 TCDS, 75-3048 is one
of the first serial numbers in a block of Inglewood-built Harvard II aircraft that are eligible for a standard category
airworthiness certificate).

Bela P. Havasreti

[Stoney]

A-2-575 tells all.

[snj-5]

I had an older version of A-2-575 on-file, but Chuck Wahl kindly told me what the latest (dated)
version was (just found it / downloaded it). Thanks again!

Bela P. havasreti