BT Questions

dj51d · **Posted:** Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:22 pm

All this talk of BTs vs T-6s lately got me thinking. Are there any BTs left flying with the original two position prop? Both BT-13s and the sole BT-15 I have photographed all have teh constant speed prop. Which brings up another question, is the constant speed prop strictly a civilian modification, or was this done while they were still in USAAF/USN service?

Jase · **Posted:** Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:19 am

I know of at least two still with the 2 speed prop. As I understand it, the prop and hub are the same 2 spd versus constant speed; it's a governour change. I have been told that the USAAC started the mods, but as that time frame is long before my time, I cannot swear to it!

Tom N · **Posted:** Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:02 pm

On our BT we installed a governor which on the P&W R-985 is on an accessory pad on the left side of the engine behind the power section unlike the R-1340 which has provision for mounting the governor on above the nosecase area......and also had to change the counterweights and arms to enable the governor to control rpm in dives and climbs...

marine air · **Posted:** Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:21 pm

We took a 450 Stearman on trade several years ago that had a Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN-1 with two speed propellor. There was no paperwork or performance charts with the airplane so we started trying to figure what else had that engine. The BT-13 of course but also the Beech UC-43 Traveller, or Staggerwing. I was told by the late Col. James R.Haun that his unit had an early model Beech 18 (C-45) with these engines. The engine had rods that ran between the cylinders forward then 90 degres to the prop hub. In the 450 Stearman I would get 95 mph indicated straight and level in the take-off stage and 125 mph in the cruise setting. There was a large RPM range that had to be avoided for prop vibration.
After the war, people would buy perfectly good Stearmans at auction and then buy an equal number of BT-13's. They would put the firewall forward from the BT on the Stearman as well as the wheels, brakes, throttle quadrants, and a few other items. The Stearman would be converted to a pretty darn good crop duster. THousands were converted and I would guess there are either a lot of these engines left or they are all consumed. Every crop duster pilot I talked to had crashed at least one or two Stearmans!

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:09 am

Ahh, the tragic squeal of melting aluminum echoes in my heart.... Here in Maryland, we had some operators who used BT13's as sprayers, converting the rear cockpit to a hopper. Problem was it just couldn't carry the same as a Stearman with a 985. Also, it just wasn't a good sprayer. Probably okay in places like California and Texas with LONG fields and not so much concern about turnaround time, but with short East Coast fields, the Stearmans just did better.

I've heard the same thing- people bought a few BT's and Stearmans, swapped out what they needed, and let the BT's set or scrapped them. No reasons other than economic, but this phenomenon has definitely caused the lack of awareness of the BT in modern popular aviation. While it is not my favorite paint scheme, Jason gave the best reason for painting a BT in Blue, Yellow, and red and white tail- they get confused with T6's.

How about the other reason that BT's have been overlooked? I believe (only on a hunch) that the BT 13 washed out more pilots than any other aircraft in WWII. Thoughts of the board?

Jase · **Posted:** Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:08 pm

John, I think that the BT is probably second only to the T-6 in number of pilots it washed out...or maybe now I think about it the AT-9 Curtiss Jeep might have been in there somewhere too.

The BT is easier to deal with in the T/O and landing regime for two reasons: fixed gear, which obviously reduces the potential for a gear-up (!) and second the gear stance is about 2 feet wider than a -6, which translates to a helluva lot easier time on landing.

The stock BT's I am told were pretty underpowered pigs. It's a pretty heavy airplane (~4300 lbs), and the -6 has a better power to weight ratio than the BT.

I think the major reason that the BT's were bought after the War was that they were a cheap source of parts for the Stearman dusters, as you have said. I have a copy of the War Assets bill of sale on our BT, in 1946 it set the buyer back $780.00. I've heard of them selling in the Midwest and East for ~$500. Cheaper than an engine, even at that time!!

I agree that that's why the BT's have not been given the recognition they deserve, but another reason is that in late 1944 the AAC actually started phasing out the "Basic Trainer" part of the curriculum, and combined that with the Primary and the Advanced, basically to cut down the fleet size I guess and to simplify training. The Texans, as we all know, soldiered on well into the 60's in the USAF, and of course much later in the rest of the world. So, to me, the Texan just has had more time on the spotlight, I guess.

dj51d · **Posted:** Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:54 pm

Thanks for the info guys!

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:34 pm

Jason,
I agree with you except for my anecdotal experience. You know there were HUGE amounts of people who washed out of flight school, and that most of them went on to become either non-rated flight officers (bombardiers, navigators, etc.) or enlisted swine. I have found VERY few who spoke about getting washed out of flight school, but the ones I have found were to a man washed out during basic flying BT's (I have met about 6).
I'd really like to do a study on this, but it is down on my list of Igotta's, and I am sure that some enterprising person will one of these days take a critical look at the people who DIDN'T make it through the pilot training program. Not just to answer this question, but to trace some of those guys like the 10,000 Hap Arnold handed over to Ike as infantry replacements in 1944 (they arrived in time for the Bulge); I think it would be very intriguing to hear about their stories.
Ohh, and I don't think the BT struggles too much with that 985 on the front, but that's another discussion...

Jase · **Posted:** Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:42 pm

John: Not at all disagreeing with you, but here's what I think. As you know, the BT was the night & instrument training platform. What I believe is that the folks you refer to washing out, washed out due to not being able to hack the *program* rather than actually having a problem flying the aircraft. I think it's just happenstance that they were flying the BT at the time they washed out.

Weeellll, I dunno about "struggles", let's just say that an R-1340 REALLY wakes the airframe right up. Can we say "Homesick Angel" or Rocketship on rails? :lol:

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:57 am

This happened to my uncle. He was washed out during advanced training when he ground looped and nosed over his AT-6 (the instructor told him to make a two-point landing due to a jammed tailwheel, but he three-pointed it). He went on to become a B-24 (F-7B photo ship) ball turret gunner and was credited with shooting down a Zero.

DanteC · **Posted:** Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:19 am

BT-13 was the first Warbird I ever rode in. My dad used to own N60794

Warbird Information Exchange

BT Questions

Who is online