Douglas A/B-26 Invader

Illustrations - Page 4

HOME | SUB INDEX | Preface | Features | Site Navigation | Reg'n cross ref. | S/No's & Prod'n codes | MILITARY VARIANTS - History, Data & Photos | CIVIL VARIANTS - History, Data & Photos | About the author/Contact | Info Req'd | LATEST

Illustrations I -   Constellation, York, Lanc's/Linc's,  B-17,  PB4Y,  DC's,  Carvair, Shackleton,  Herc's

" Amelia's" Lockheed Model 10 Electra



TBM / TBF Avenger




Hughes H-4 / HK-1 Spruce Goose


North American ( Noorduyn ) AT-16 Harvard IIB

Regarding the below illustrations, I had a mail from Bill Todd.


There were never any Harvard's in any classification in the USAAF or USAF inventories. Most all the AT-16's & IIB's were scrapped in place or sold out to private parties at war's end. I've been told that airframes in sea transit were pushed off the freighters or carriers rather than deal with them as surplus.  The Indian AF turned back some 17 aircraft that were Lend Lease to USAAF in India, but almost all were scrapped. No Harvard was ever brought into the USAAF inventory......why?

  • They had the non-conforming long Harvard style exhaust that was prone to carbon monoxide leakage into the cabin
  • The aircraft had the spade grip like a "Spit"
  • The engine controls were backwards, ie Aft was full bore, forward was off (Very confusing to AAF pilots)
  • The gear legs were foreign made in Canada and didn't meet USA standards (This is also a FAA requirement)
  • Only a limited number of Harvard I's & II's (not IIB's) were built in Inglewood (Pre-war), the rest were built either by Noordyn or Canadian Car & Foundry in Canada
  • Only IIA & III Harvards were built in Dallas during the war. IIA=T-6C, III=T-6D. Interestingly, the aircraft carried the NAA Model number 88, same as the C & D Texans.
  • The biggest problem was that the aircraft were not the same airframe. It would have been a nightmare for logistics. Wings & fuselage were all different from the T-6 and they were just plain lighter duty. The T-6 is more robust & withstood punishment better. They all had different armament schemes, different from the AT-6's/SNJ's. As confirmation of this, when the follow-on project, the T-6G was built, the old Harvard airframes, although abundant were not used in building the 5 new NAA models of T-6G.  The Canadian version of the T-6G, the Harvard 4 was a completely new build, not an old airframe upgrade.

References: Dan Hagedorn; "North American NA-16/AT-6/SNJ;" Warbird Tech Pubs, pages 76 & 77

"North American's AT-6"  Specialty Press  (I wrote the forward & contributed to the book)

Bill Todd: "T-6 -A Systems View" Self Published and out of print

The illustrations you show of the aircraft as "43" with a late "star & bar" on the tail section with a bogus tail code may have been some builders fantasy aircraft. Historically it's totally incorrect and never was ever in any services flying aircraft. There's already too many completely fake T-6's attributed to NAA, such as the T-6H and the T-6J. These aircraft were never built according to NAA, yet there's authors out there that absolutely claim there were. "NAA Report O" quickly dispells these untruths perpetuated by these totally misinformed souls.'s about spelling my last name correctly on your site/B-26 page? It's TODD with two d's!

Thanks & Happy New Year, mate!





DH-82 Tiger Moth


DHC-1 Chipmunk








Banners and Logos I have designed for various museums and Forums





Just fun