Seversky BT-8

[quemerford]

A new one on me; I hadn’t realised that Seversky made basic trainers such as this BT-8. It’s one of thirty procured for the Army Air Corps but not proceeded with, supposedly due to poor power-to-weight characteristics. Nevertheless, the type was replaced by the NAA BT-9, which had a higher gross weight and even less power. It seems that the last BT-8s were removed from training duty during 1941.

This one is s/n 35-250, the fourth aircraft built, and photographed on 9 May 1936 a week or so after its delivery from Seversky to Randolph Field.







S/n 35-250 had been assigned from production on 25 February 1936 and retained at Seversky. Then its movements were:

* Assigned to 52nd School Squadron at Randolph Field 27 April 1936 with 22 hrs
- nosed-over on landing at Corpus Christi 13 October 1936 (1Lt John K Poole)
* To San Antonio Air Depot 13 October 1936 for repair with 216 hrs (repairs costed at $3381.72)
* Assigned to Randolph Field 18 January 1937 with 238 hrs
* Assigned to Kelly Field 8 March 1937 with 299 hrs
* Assigned to 63rd Air Base Squadron, Brooks Field 23 July 1940 with 1453 hrs
- ground-looped at Brooks Field 3 November 1940 (2Lt Leslie M Thompson)
- wrecked on Hensley Ranch, 18 miles north of San Antonio 2 December 1940 (2Lt Hubert L Spence killed) – cause unknown; 1584 hrs TT
* Recommended survey 4 December 1940
* Authorized for reclamation 17 February 1941.

The surviving aircraft were condemned awaiting Class 26 action on 14 January 1941 with most going to vocational schools as follows:

35-249; Academy of Aeronautics at Jackson Heights, Long Island (1646 hrs)
35-253; Academy of Aeronautics at Jackson Heights, Long Island (1387 hrs)
35-256; Casey Jones School of Aeronautics at Newark, New Jersey (1505 hrs)
35-260; Academy of Aeronautics at Jackson Heights, Long Island (997 hrs)
35-263; Casey Jones School of Aeronautics at Newark, New Jersey (1320 hrs)
35-265; Academy of Aeronautics at Jackson Heights, Long Island (1764 hrs)
35-266: Rising Sun School of Aeronautics, Philadelphia (1541 hrs)
35-267; Spartan Aircraft Co, Tulsa 19 March 1941 (1618 hrs)
35-271; Spartan Aircraft Co, Tulsa 19 March 1941 (1332 hrs)
35-273; New England Aircraft School, Boston (1572 hrs)

Final aircraft seems to have been s/n 35-258, transferred from Wright Field to Chanute in August 1941 with just 711 hrs and still being reported there as late as March 1942 with ten more flying hours.

This is 35-247, the first production machine (and serving as the prototype), without aerial mast and showing the novel opening screen panel in the forward windshield:



And 35-252, the sixth production BT-8:



Finally pretty much half the production run in flight, probably up from Brooks Field (with San Antonio below?). Note that all have a prominent D/F loop antenna between the main landing gear legs.



Does anyone have photos of the aircraft during their time with the ground training schools?

[Sopwith]

Nice looking aeroplane. Love the trousered undercarriage

[tulsaboy]

Trying this to see if it works. This is a closeup of a larger photo, but you can see one of the the BT-8 aircraft assigned to Spartan in Tulsa, along with a tiny view of the Spartan Zeus behind it. If this works, I will post the larger photo.

kevin

[tulsaboy]

Here is the larger photo...

kevin

[quemerford]

Here is the larger photo...

kevin

Spartan 022 2.jpg

Awesome! Thanks so much for posting: sometimes (most times) these aircraft seemed to have disappeared from view once they went to schools. I know that Mark Allen has posted a thread about these a while back but maybe it's time for a re-visit?

[Mark Sampson]

I love seeing these photos of uncommon aircraft. They are also a reminder of how many variations on the basic P-35 design Seversky built. Seems like they tried everything they could, hoping that something would sell. Luckily for them (and us), eventually their P-47 was a success.

[JohnB]

It certainly has the classic Seversky wing shape.
Aside from the power/weight issue previously mentioned, I wonder what else worked against it...handling, cost?

It certainly looks like it would be more expensive than the Vultee BTs.

[quemerford]

I'd love to know more about it but the 'power' issue doesn't sound right if it was replaced by something with less power and more weight. I do wonder if cost/supportability had more to do with it.

[Clifford Bossie]

I'd love to know more about it but the 'power' issue doesn't sound right if it was replaced by something with less power and more weight. I do wonder if cost/supportability had more to do with it.

I have the same thought. It sounds like there is "more to the story".

[mike furline]

https://edan.si.edu/slideshow/viewer/?e ... 004_ref150

[Mark Allen M]

Seversky BT-8 1936


Seversky BT-8 fuselage construction 1935


Seversky BT-8 front cockpit


Seversky BT-8 production 1936

[quemerford]

Nice one Mark. I was looking for photos that showed serial numbers but I'm guessing your selection all show the #1 aircraft.

[Duggy009]

A couple more.

[Cvairwerks]

I'd love to know more about it but the 'power' issue doesn't sound right if it was replaced by something with less power and more weight. I do wonder if cost/supportability had more to do with it.

I suspect if one ran an accurate model of the BT-8 vs the BT-9 in a wind tunnel, you would find a huge drag difference between the two. That could account for the fact that lower hp was giving the BT-9 approximately the same speed. Push the BT-8 tail out to the same fuselage length and correct the empennage size for the new location, and lower the canopy a bit and there might have been a bigger difference.