North American A-27

[MIflyer]

I have been reading the book "Doomed At the Start" about the USAAF fighters in the PI in 1941-42. It mentions they were equipped with P-26's, P-35A's, P-40B's, P-40E's and A-27's. I had never heard of the A-27. Turns out it was the North American BC-1, a version of the AT-6 with an R-1820 engine instead of the usual R-1340, two .30 cal machine guns firing forward and a .30 cal machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit, and two bomb racks for 100 lb bombs. Thailand ordered 10 of them but they were intercepted by the US Govt and diverted to the PI, where they were used as trainers for the fresh-out-of-flight-school fighter pilots that were sent to the PI. Picture of two of them at Nichols Field in the PI, from Wkipedia.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Great book! I there are two more books written by William H. Bartsch on the early Pacific war. I recommend them also.

 

[MIflyer]

I found an article on line on converting the Monogram 1/48 AT-6 to an A-27. I may try that, but I'd change the engine, too and not just add a 3 blade prop to the R-1340.

 

[macharvard]

I found an article on line on converting the Monogram 1/48 AT-6 to an A-27. I may try that, but I'd change the engine, too and not just add a 3 blade prop to the R-1340.

If you're going to do a conversion, you really need to change the engine. It is quite different in size, shape etc. These photos are from long forgotten magazines and a book about attack aircraft, whose name escapes me for the moment. ....jus found it - American Attack Aircraft since 1926.

 

[MIflyer]

Yes, I was surprised that the conversion article did not change out the R-1340. But I have a 1/48 R-1820 and cowl that was intended for Accurate Miniatures F3F-3.

 

[MiTasol]

Great book! I there are two more books written by William H. Bartsch on the early Pacific war. I recommend them also.

Totally agree, I do not know which ones that Capt Vick is referring to but his three other books are
December 8, 1941
Every Day a Nightmare
Victory Fever on Guadalcanal

 

[Tom A. Hawk]

I'm planning on doing an A-27 conversion from the Monogram T-6 and have picked up an R-1820-22, propeller, and cowling from an F3F-2. Is the rear .30 cal. mount similar to an SBD? Are the wing guns in pods underneath or in the wings? I've seen reference to both cowl-mounted alone, and cowl plus wing guns. I'm assuming the camouflage is Thai AF with US markings, but those greens are all over the place paint spec wise.

I'm not too worried, as I have one foot in authenticity and one foot into doing the A-27 from the movie "Air Force" along with the B-17D "Mary Ann".

 

[BlackSheep]

I have been reading the book "Doomed At the Start" about the USAAF fighters in the PI in 1941-42. It mentions they were equipped with P-26's, P-35A's, P-40B's, P-40E's and A-27's. I had never heard of the A-27. Turns out it was the North American BC-1, a version of the AT-6 with an R-1820 engine instead of the usual R-1340, two .30 cal machine guns firing forward and a .30 cal machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit, and two bomb racks for 100 lb bombs. Thailand ordered 10 of them but they were intercepted by the US Govt and diverted to the PI, where they were used as trainers for the fresh-out-of-flight-school fighter pilots that were sent to the PI. Picture of two of them at Nichols Field in the PI, from Wkipedia.

View attachment 583406

Slightly off topic, but regarding the USAAF in the PI, I kick myself for having lent out a book titled "Corregidor" that was so thoroughly written about the Philippines in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor all the way to the fall of Corregidor, it could have been used as a multi-semester text book on the subject. Edit: I believe the book was Corregidor: The End of the Line by Eric Morris but not 100% at this time

That being said, it covered all of the various planes stationed in the islands, including all of the above with a fascinating write up on the failure of the P-40Es. Apparently, they had just arrived via cargo ship, crated up nicely for the journey. Those that were unloaded before the ships were hit were put together by mechanics under what you could describe as "slight" duress. So, you had the pilots that survived bombings, strafing, and early sorties literally learning on the fly to dogfight a P-40E and iirc these planes were destined for the RAF so had metric gauges. The author makes the case that the main reason the P-40Es didn't help much was that they were literally being flown in combat with 4-6 hours max on the engines! They were assembled so fast and thrown onto the flight line, no one knew what work might have been overlooked. Brave men.

 

[MIflyer]

The pilots were "assembled" in haste as well, almost all being straight out of flight school and they had pretty well wrecked most of their P-35's by the time the P-40's arrived. Which is why someone decided to divert those modified trainers from Thailand.

I was surprised to read that rather than getting the dregs of production, the PI was equipped mainly with P-40E and only one squadron of P-40B, rather than the P-40B's that were the only versions at PH.

I believe the A-27 wing guns are internal with the wing. Some T-6 had an internally mounted .30 cal in the Right wing so it was possible.

In contrast, the P-64 were to have their 23MM cannon mounted in external pods.

As for the rear cockpit gun, the T-6 could be equipped with a rear gun and I assume they'd use the same thing. See attached from Monogram kit.

 

[special ed]

I have been reading the book "Doomed At the Start" about the USAAF fighters in the PI in 1941-42. It mentions they were equipped with P-26's, P-35A's, P-40B's, P-40E's and A-27's. I had never heard of the A-27. Turns out it was the North American BC-1, a version of the AT-6 with an R-1820 engine instead of the usual R-1340, two .30 cal machine guns firing forward and a .30 cal machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit, and two bomb racks for 100 lb bombs. Thailand ordered 10 of them but they were intercepted by the US Govt and diverted to the PI, where they were used as trainers for the fresh-out-of-flight-school fighter pilots that were sent to the PI. Picture of two of them at Nichols Field in the PI, from Wkipedia.

View attachment 583406

I believe your post may have resolved my question/mystery of the cadet in each B-17 landing at P.H. during the attack. Were these the "fresh out of flight school" personnel in need of flight training? I still think what happened with/to them would be a great story.

 

[MIflyer]

Aviation History did an article several years ago on "the PH B-17's" covering what happened to them after they left Hi. They had quite a career! It was actually a mixed formation of B-17E's and C's. I think the E's went on to war and the C's stayed in HI.

 

[special ed]

Rather than the B-17s, I was curious why at least eight B-17s carried a cadet, manifests listed his rank as cadet, with the crew. It appears the cadets went all the way to the P.I. and were given advance training with the A-27s. The cadets were not yet 2nd Lt or F.O.

 

[MIflyer]

As far as I know, the book "Doomed at the Start" is the definitve work on US fighter pilots in the PI.

 

[MiTasol]

Slightly off topic, but regarding the USAAF in the PI, I kick myself for having lent out a book titled "Corregidor" that was so thoroughly written about the Philippines in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor all the way to the fall of Corregidor, it could have been used as a multi-semester text book on the subject. Edit: I believe the book was Corregidor: The End of the Line by Eric Morris but not 100% at this time

That being said, it covered all of the various planes stationed in the islands, including all of the above with a fascinating write up on the failure of the P-40Es. Apparently, they had just arrived via cargo ship, crated up nicely for the journey. Those that were unloaded before the ships were hit were put together by mechanics under what you could describe as "slight" duress. So, you had the pilots that survived bombings, strafing, and early sorties literally learning on the fly to dogfight a P-40E and iirc these planes were destined for the RAF so had metric gauges. The author makes the case that the main reason the P-40Es didn't help much was that they were literally being flown in combat with 4-6 hours max on the engines! They were assembled so fast and thrown onto the flight line, no one knew what work might have been overlooked. Brave men.

Overall you are correct but I very much doubt that any of the P-40E aircraft were the British E-1 models and none of the British P-40s had metric instruments. RAF P-40s were not impressed into the USAAF until after Pearl Harbor.

In fact the only instruments that were not the same as in American P-40s were the fuel gauges which were in Imperial gallons instead of the smaller US gallons. All other instruments, including the manifold pressure gauge were the same as in US aircraft. Some RAF P-40s had a different oxygen system but the gauge was still in PSI.

There was no oxygen supplied with the P-40s to the PI and possibly no prestone. The first batch to arrrive in Australia, which were all diverted from the PI, definitely had no prestone. They were also sent into service without a modification to the gun charging hydraulics that disabled that system to prevent burst hoses draining the hydraulic system.

I will keep an eye open for a copy of that book.

 

[MIflyer]

"Doomed at the Start" says initially there was no Prestone coolant.

And the M3 Stuart tanks in the PI were supposed to receive SCR-183 radios but those were not available, either.

 

[MiTasol]

I have been reading the book "Doomed At the Start" about the USAAF fighters in the PI in 1941-42. It mentions they were equipped with P-26's, P-35A's, P-40B's, P-40E's and A-27's. I had never heard of the A-27. Turns out it was the North American BC-1, a version of the AT-6 with an R-1820 engine instead of the usual R-1340, two .30 cal machine guns firing forward and a .30 cal machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit, and two bomb racks for 100 lb bombs. Thailand ordered 10 of them but they were intercepted by the US Govt and diverted to the PI, where they were used as trainers for the fresh-out-of-flight-school fighter pilots that were sent to the PI. Picture of two of them at Nichols Field in the PI, from Wkipedia.

View attachment 583406

You are partially right about the BC-1 and A-27 relationship. The A-27 was derived from the NA-36 BC-1, which was an early predecessor to the NA-49 AT-6 with a shorter, rag sided fuselage, different wing shape and a 600hp R-1340-47 engine. The Australian NA-33 Wirraway was also a BC-1 derivative but had an earlier model number because the contract was signed first. Some BC-1 aircraft had round bottom rudders like the Wirraway but others had a square bottom rudder. The T-6 rudder is totally different to either of the BC-1 rudders and I do not know which rudder the A-27 had.

This USAAF list is the majority of the NA-16 derivatives of the time but does not include the A-27 as it would have been out of service by the time this list was printed. It does include the B-25 which may surprise some but that makes this list as it shares a number of spare parts with the NA-16 series. You will notice the RAF NA-49 Harvard I is a BC-1 derivative but it had most of the later AT-6 features and was in production well before the first NA-59 AT-6. Like the Apache/Mustang series the Brits recognized the types benefits first.

According to one source the A-27 was the NA-69 but that is definitely wrong as the USAAF list and other documents show the NA-69 as the P-64. It also shows the NA-69 as a derivative of the NA-44 which was the BC-2 with the longer T-6 type rear fuselage so the only thing in it that may be right is the number of guns.

The Wirraway looks like this and BC-1 almost identical.

 

[MIflyer]

So they put an R-1830 in the Boomerang. Did they ever upgrade the Whirraway with larger engines?

 

[MiTasol]

No - it stayed with the same R-1340 S3H1-G throughout its life.

 

[macharvard]

You are partially right about the BC-1 and A-27 relationship. The A-27 was derived from the NA-36 BC-1, which was an early predecessor to the NA-49 AT-6 with a shorter, rag sided fuselage, different wing shape and a 600hp R-1340-47 engine. The Australian NA-33 Wirraway was also a BC-1 derivative but had an earlier model number because the contract was signed first. Some BC-1 aircraft had round bottom rudders like the Wirraway but others had a square bottom rudder. The T-6 rudder is totally different to either of the BC-1 rudders and I do not know which rudder the A-27 had.

This USAAF list is the majority of the NA-16 derivatives of the time but does not include the A-27 as it would have been out of service by the time this list was printed. It does include the B-25 which may surprise some but that makes this list as it shares a number of spare parts with the NA-16 series. You will notice the RAF NA-49 Harvard I is a BC-1 derivative but it had most of the later AT-6 features and was in production well before the first NA-59 AT-6. Like the Apache/Mustang series the Brits recognized the types benefits first.

View attachment 660490

According to one source the A-27 was the NA-69 but that is definitely wrong as the USAAF list and other documents show the NA-69 as the P-64. It also shows the NA-69 as a derivative of the NA-44 which was the BC-2 with the longer T-6 type rear fuselage so the only thing in it that may be right is the number of guns.
View attachment 660491

The Wirraway looks like this and BC-1 almost identical.

View attachment 660492

I'm don't know what your source was of the NA-69/A-27 relationship, but that is absolutely correct. The first Harvard (Mk 1) was the NA-49, which was based on the BC-1/NA-36. Then came the NA-50, a single seat fighter for Peru. Next was the NA-50A which was the NA-68 to the customer, Siam. After PH, it was taken over by the US as the P-64. A great deal of confusion arises from NAA using two different numbers for almost every aircraft - one for in house accounting and a separate one for the customer.

My next (and possibly my last) book will be available shortly and it tells the story of what I choose to call the Heavyweights - the members of the NA-16 family that were armed and capable of seeing front line action. It wiill also clear up all the confusion for thos who are interested.

 

[Snautzer01]

I'm don't know what your source was of the NA-69/A-27 relationship, but that is absolutely correct. The first Harvard (Mk 1) was the NA-49, which was based on the BC-1/NA-36. Then came the NA-50, a single seat fighter for Peru. Next was the NA-50A which was the NA-68 to the customer, Siam. After PH, it was taken over by the US as the P-64. A great deal of confusion arises from NAA using two different numbers for almost every aircraft - one for in house accounting and a separate one for the customer.

My next (and possibly my last) book will be available shortly and it tells the story of what I choose to call the Heavyweights - the members of the NA-16 family that were armed and capable of seeing front line action. It wiill also clear up all the confusion for thos who are interested.

What books would that be then?