Number of flying T-6's?

[Stoney]

My guess is about 1000 T-6s worldwide with about 700-750 flying, we have about 500 flying in NATA with more as projects.

[AirJimL2]

AFAIK, the Harvard II's were built in the US and can be certified in the Standard Category.

BDK,

Thanks for the info on the Harvard IVs. Makes sense to me.

Quite a few of the Harvards II were built in Canada by Noorduyn. Maybe what I heard is that you can do some mods to a Harvard II and then register it in the Standard Category. Anyone know for sure?

Thanks,

Jim

[bdk]

Quite a few of the Harvards II were built in Canada by Noorduyn. Maybe what I heard is that you can do some mods to a Harvard II and then register it in the Standard Category. Anyone know for sure?

All the foreign built ones are verboten.

"The first Mk IV aircraft were partly assembled using excess NAA parts, but they cannot be licensed as a T-6G, because they are considered "foreign built." Only a limited amount of Harvard Mk I & II aircraft qualify under the FAA specification as being "Made In The USA," at NAA's Inglewood plant. The FAA's A-2-575 Specification for the T-6 does not cover the Harvard Mk IIA, IIB, III or Mk IV. It must be licensed as a Harvard Mk IV, foreign built aircraft. The FAA Specification does not cover all of the Harvard I & II aircraft, only certain serial numbered aircraft."

http://www.geocities.com/t6modeling/harvardmkv.html

[srpatterson]

Experimental Exhibition is less desirable than Standard Category because you are subject to operating limitations when you get your airworthiness certificate. You can't give dual instruction like you can with your Cessna 150 for instance and you can't use your aircraft to commute.

Experimental Exhibition requires the submission of a "Program Letter" every year, outlining when and where the aircraft will be flown. You are given a 300nm proficiency area, where you may operate without prior notice, but no Class B, as well as other limitations. If an event is over 300nm away you can still go, provided you notify your local FSDO 48 hours in advance.

These restrictions are outlined in each Experimental Exhibition aircraft's "Operating Limitations", that must accompany every flight, along with the Program Letter and Airworthiness Certificate (Registration and W&B also).

[HarvardIV]

All of this makes me wonder, why hasn't anyone tried to get the FAA to approve the HarvardIV as standard category? I've heard it could be done, if each and every part on one is checked, tested and documented by the FAA.

[HarvardIV]

Well back to the subject, a little anyway.

On my Harvard, which has never flown as a civilian plane, I found two very durable coats of primer. The first coat was a yellow-green color, and the second coat was a forest green in color in the foward fuselage. In the rear fuselage, I've found the same color as above on the first coat, but the second coat has been more of a brownish green.

The fuel tanks show stamps marked "pressure tested 1958".

Overall very little corrosion has been found anywhere. I've only found corrosion in extremely odd places. I did find exfoliation in only a tiny edge of a fairing, and that has been it. None even in the typical area--stress panels.

I even have found a French Canadian pen in the tail that said in English and French "Misuse is Abuse". I also found an oxygen mask in the fuselage.

All the wiring of course has been the old fashioned type as well. There was a placard in the cockpit that says" Maximum Dive Speed 229 knots".
Another placard gives various power settings for cruise and climb, etc.

The steel frame fuselage says on the data plate "date of manufacture 1943" with an ANA stamp. Below that another tag says "date of remanufacture 1955" with a CCF stamp.

The engine mout also has similar dates and statements. A couple of the cockpit fixtures have the ANA stamp, and others have the CCF stamp. My overall conclusion is that these Harvard IVs used some spares from North American.

[bdk]

All of this makes me wonder, why hasn't anyone tried to get the FAA to approve the HarvardIV as standard category? I've heard it could be done, if each and every part on one is checked, tested and documented by the FAA.

Why not just lose the RCAF identity and certify the aircraft in the Standard Category as being built from spare parts as a "North American Miller T-6"? This was discussed in the recent Stearman thread, and I have been told that it was common for Bell 47 helicopters too.

It would be impossible to retroactively approve the CCF quality system after all these years, and I'm sure whoever they are now (is CCF still around?) would not cooperate for liability reasons.