Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Great book! I there are two more books written by William H. Bartsch on the early Pacific war. I recommend them also.
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 timeI 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.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
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.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.
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'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.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
What books would that be then?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.