Warbird Information Exchange

Doug,

I wondered at your picture of the NA-44 in RCAF service as it appeared to have metal skins instead of fabric side panels more typical of the NA-16 series, grabbing my nearest reference (the AAHS Journal Vol24#2 1979, which has an excellent article and model tabulation of the various models & contract designations by Justin W Carter) I note the NA-44 is described as a derivative of the NA-36 which was the USAAC "BC-1" but fitted with the Wright Cyclone and "all metal fuselage" & integral fuel tanks, does this only refer to metal clad side panels in place of fabric side panels (a modification I am surprised was never applied to post war Wirraways, or that the NA-44 had a aluminium monocoque rear fuselage instead of the steel tube rear fuselage typical of the NA-16.

(the same table is in the appendix of Peter Smiths book "T-6 A pictorial Record of the Harvard, Texan and Wirraway) but doesnt carry the comments or notes on the models.



This table by Carter, based on an original NAA report confirms:

Honduras received 3 NA-16s:
1x NA-16-2H under charge number NA-20 "Similar to BT-9
2x NA-16-2A under charge number NA-42 "same as NA-20 but with guns"

Sweden received 2 NA-16s: for SK-14 Licence build
1x NA-16-4M under charge number NA-31 "Similar to BT-9"
1x NA-16-4M under charge number NA-38 "identical to NA-31"

Australia received 2NA-16s: for Wirraway Licence build
1x NA-16-1A under charge number NA-32 "similar to BC-1" but fixed gear.
1x NA-16-2K under charge number NA-33 "similar to BC-1" retract gear

Argentina received 30 NA-16s
30x NA-16-4P under charge number NA-34 Similar to BT-9 with armament

Japan received 2 NA-16's
1x NA-16-4R under charge number NA-37 Similar to BT-9 with larger engine
1x NA-16-4RW under charge number NA-47 same as NA-41

China received 100 NA-16's
35x NA-16-4 under charge number NA-41 essentially same as BT-9C
15x NA-16-3C under charge number NA-48 same as BC-1 but different engine
50x NA-16-4 under charge number NA-56 same as BC-1A NA-55

Venezuala received 3 NA-16's
3x NA-16-4 under charge number NA-45 similar to BC-1 NA-36

Brazil received 12 NA-16's
12x NA-16-4 under charge number NA-46 similar to BT-9C

RAF received 400 NA-16s as Harvard Mark 1
400x NA-16-1E under charge number NA-49 similar to BC-1 NA-36 but with British Equipment

RCAF received 30 NA-16s as Harvard Mark 1
30x NA-16-1E under charge number NA-61 near identical to NA-49

Siam "ordered" 10x NA-44's under charge number NA-69
delivered to USAAC as A-27

Venezuela received 3 x NA-16s
3x NA-16-3 under charge number NA-71 similar to NA-59/AT-6

Brazil received 30 NA-44's under charge number NA-72 - similar to BC-1A

Chile received 12 NA-44's under charge number NA-74 - similar to NA-72

It would seem from above that the NA-16-3 had a metal rear fuselage similar to the BC-1A and so did the NA-72 and NA-74, which then raises my earlier question of the RCAF NA-44 - was it an all metal rear fuselage?
ie effectively a BC-1A as well? A photo on page 19 of it as NX-18981 in "T-6 a pictorial record of the Harvard, Texan and Wirraway seems to clearly show a metal monocoque fuselage.



It seems that US Government orders were designated by their service designation without an equivalent NA-16-#

with the 149x BT-9 being charge numbers, NA-19, NA-19A, NA-23, NA-29

the 178x BC-1 being charge numbers NA-26 (Canada), & NA-36
The 40x NJ-1 being NA-28
The 16x SNJ-1 being NA-52
The 3x BC-2 being NA-54
The 83x BC-1A being NA-55

As you know the BC-1A NA-55 commenced the evolution to the T6/SNJ-2 in terms of the triangular empannage and metal monocoque rear fuselage

The BT-14 was based on the BT-9B/NA-23 but with the improvements from the BC-1/ NA-55

The 230x NA-57 and 230x NA-64 "Yales" (under those same charge numbers) were based on BT-9s but with NA-58/BT-14 improvements of metal rear fuselages and triangular empannage

The 36x SNJ-2 under charge number NA-65 was based on the SNJ-1 but with the improvements from the BC-1/NA-55

The 94x AT-6 under charge number NA-59 was a continuation of the BC-1A / NA-55

The 600x Harvard II for the RAF under charge number NA-66 was nearly identical to the AT-6 NA-59

1847x AT-6A and 270x SNJ-3 were built under charge numbers NA-77 & NA-78 and were essentually the same as the AT-6 NA-66.

From then came the T6C, D, E, F & G, the SNJ-4,5,6 & 7 and the Harvard III, and IV

In summary it would appear that the NA-44 and BC-1A, BT-14 represented the fundamental split from the original NA-16 design of steel tube rear fuselage, rounded empannage, and straight trailing edge wing outer panels that lead into the classic T6/SNJ series.

I too have tried to educate people on the various differences between the NA-16, T6/SNJ, Harvard & Wirraway family of aircraft.

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=28308&highlight=#28308

Interestingly, while CAC created many new drawings and casting numbers for the Wirraway (largely due to modification to British hardware) a few NAA numbered parts made their way into it unaltered the majority of these being 19-, 23- and 28- obviously reflecting improvements in the NA-16 inhereted from the BT-9 and NJ-1.

The Wirraway is very similar to the USAAC BC-1 charge number NA-36 yet that a/c of june 1937 post dates the tweo Australian NA-16 pattern aircraft, I therefore wonder if the RCAF BC-1 under charge number NA-26 on October 1936 was a heavy influence on the NA-16's delivered to Australia and built in March 1937 but that influence was masked by the CAC numbered 01- castings and drawings?

Doug, I know Matt, & his Wirraway Project, very well smiles

Matt, yes please book Me in for Dinner etc next Tuesday evening??


Regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

As a parting shot I thought it would be worth closing this post with a scanned picture from Smith's book of the General Aircraft Company of Maryland's two seat trainer concept design which won a 1934 US Army requirement which was re-designated as the NA-16 by North American, detailed designed, built and flown by NAA as X-2080 in 1935, after they had taken over GAC and its USAAC contract.

Later fitted with canopies and cowls it become the classic NA-16 shape and great grand-dad to the T6/SNJ family, before being delivered to Argentina as the NA-18 under charge number NA-18 (now wouldnt that be an historic airframe to find sitting in a shed)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

LOL!! Hey Mark, I sincerely hope we can sit down over a few cold ones when I finally get over to see Matt. We'll have a lot to laugh about. (actually, my wife and I have already met Matt. We drove him all over Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan last summer while he slept in the front passenger seat! It's tough to be young!)

The photo you have posted is a primary trainer one-off demonstrator designated NA-22.

From my notes: Ninth NA-19 modified with open cockpits and narrow cowl, to meet Army Circular Proposal 36-28. Underpowered (too much drag?) in this configuration, with R-760 engine. Returned to BT-9 standard and delivered.

Attached is a photo of the aircraft as fitted with a cowl (didn't help). After that you will see the original NA-16 and her subsequent 'tough' look under the NA-18 designation, with an R-1340 fitted, as well as nose guns and a flex gun in the rear.







Mark, if you want to carry on this discussion at some point, send me a PM with your email addie. I have just got home and haven't had time to read through your somewhat daunting posting above the one I am responding to here. If you rather I p-d off, I speak four languages. Just pick one and let me know.

Doug

Doug,

I'm sorry if it seemed I was p-ssed off?? that wasnt my intent, I thought having dragged out my ref book to review the NA-44 that I would post the various models and designations for the interest of innocent bi-standers to this thread smiles to show the charge numbers versus model numbers and to raise the issue of what model was the transition from NA-16 design to the classic T6/SNJ model.

I was interested in your view as to if the NA-44 has a steel tube or monocoque re fuselage, and posted the pic as an appropriate ending to our discussion again for the benefits of others, I chose that pic as it was a clearer image to scan, (at 2pm in the morning anything looked good) and it was labelled as being the NA-16 but I would agree with your photos that it is not the NA-16 smiles, an interesting error in the Smith book.

I seem to enjoy the history of the NA-16 as much as you do, and further extended family if you take the Boomerang and CAC Ceres into the family tree as cousins, (and the CAC Wackett as a nearby Neighbour) as all of those 3 have influences from NAA and particularly the Boomerang and Ceres which hold Wirraway & NAA 19- parts in areas such as the tail wheel etc.

again - no harm or agro meant smiles

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Doug
That's one of the 3 NA-16 that Honduras bought,with the ex-prototype NC16025 being delivered in Dec. 1937 painted with the honduran scheme.The circle that has been confused as the japanese insignia,was letf intentionally blank at the factory and upon arrival at Honduras,the national insignia was painted inside of it.

According to Dan Hagedorn,this are the correct numbers for the honduran aircraft:

FAH-20 NA-16-2H (NA-20) s/n X-16025 (ex NC16025)

FAH-21 NA-16-2A (NA-42) s/n 42-691

FAH-22 NA-16-2A (NA-42) s/n 42-692

Here's the picture that is posted in another thread,and shows the other NA-16 that dissapeared by the time the swedish people visited Honduras


Here's an old picture showing he nose of one of those aircraft


And this one is around 1979.It shows FAH-21 in front of the FAH HQ
Notice the machine guns in the last 2 photos

_________________
http://catrachowings.com/foro/index.php

G'day Doug,

Well I certainly must have been asleep on our travels if we went through Pennsylvania! I'm sure it might be a nice state to visit though. Was great to travel with you and Maxine and I do apologise for the occassional period of sleep - I'll blame the jet lag having caught up with me

Mark,

Dinner, etc on Tuesday the 7th sounds good to me. Will call and make detailed arrangements in due course.

Cheers,
Matt

Matt said "Well I certainly must have been asleep on our travels if we went through Pennsylvania!"

HA! So you were paying attention!

Doug

Hola Jaldo! Muchisimas gracias. Previamente no he visto esta foto del '21' con las bombas. Gracias! Hay mas?

I was hoping this thread was getting long enough to attract some surprises. Thank you!

Doug

Hey, Mark. No offense taken. Sorry if I gave that impression - and I apologize for completely missing your query on the NA-44. She was the first of the all metal aircraft and did indeed have a monocoque. I will attach a much better photo to show this.

Also you might find this article interesting. http://www.laahs.com/artman/publish/article_125.shtml
It concerns the NA-44 family in Latin America. I wrote it for LAAHS 3 or 4 years ago. I have done a lot more research since then and have added to my archives.

Doug

Doug,

from the side view photo of the NA-44 in civil drab it seems to still have the NA-16 straight trailing edge wing and rounded rudder (flat bottom) etc so it is the first step towards the T6/SNJ but deleting the steel tube rear fuselage.

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

Right, Mark. She had the original BT-9 wing form, but the wing was of an entirely different construction.

You have mentioned the NA-26 a couple of times. Here's a photo taken at the NAA factory. This one of the shots I received from Dustin Carter when I wrote my first book 25 years ago.

Doug

So what happened to all the BT-9s and 14s in the US? Were any sold surplus, or were they taken out of service and scrapped before the end of the war? Did the USAAF decide to devote the basic training role to the BT-13 to be standardized?

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

One BT-9 (destroyed by a tornado, March 1951) and a handful of BT-14s survived the war, but simply disappeared a year or two after being surplused.

As for the BT-13 question, North American production was full steam ahead on the Mustang and AT-6/Harvard/SNJ models and except for the French contract for 230 NA-64s (which became the Yale in RCAF service), NAA gave up building basic trainers. Obviously, with the BT-13/-15 available, it was an easy move for the air force.

Doug

Doug

The RCAF BC-1 NA-26 shown above, and the USAAC BC-1 NA-36 have striking similarities to both the NA33 and the Wirraway itself, other than the use of two blade props in place of three.

A20-10, a CA-1 Wirraway and the oldest surviving, being the 8th production aircraft built, still survives today the Australian National Aviation Museum, and retains the ribbed fin as shown in the NA-26 photo.



http://www.aarg.com.au/wirraway.htm


regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"