Re: Fairchild PT s and Tuskegee (and Garner Fld.)

[broadhurst@talk21.com]

'Hi Cliff,

After the very hot and humid Oshkosh Airventure back in 1999 I could
have kicked my self for not searching out the Tuskegee Airmen's stand
in one of the air-conditioned exhibition hangars, because I would
have like to ask them about this myself. Unfortunately I did not
know about them being there until I read all the brochures afterwards!

For the most part primary training at Tuskegee (Moton Field , I
think) was flown on Stearmans, certainly the photographs seem to
indicate that. As you know I have some of the AAF record cards on PT-
19a and I recall being rather surprised to find a few PT-19 records
(PT-19Bs, perhaps) that that included the entry "Tuskegee". So yes
there must have been a few used there, but how many and how were they
used? -- this was one of the questions I would have liked to have
put to one of the veterans.

One aside to the Tuskegee story that might be of interest to you and
other Fairchild PT owners relates to Capt. (later Brigadier General)
Noel F. Parrish, Commander of the 66th Army Air Force Training
Detachment at Tuskegee. Captain Parrish had the respect of his
cadets as a fair man who did all in his power to make
the "Experiment" work, which is perhaps more than could be said of
some the other authorities. What I have to tell you relates to a
period about two years earlier.

Through the kind assistance of the good people at the College Park
Archives in Maryland I received some documents relating to the trials
and selection of the prototype M-62 during July and August 1939 that
resulted in the first order for 270 PT-19 being placed in the
following September.

Among these trials were some held at the, then very new, primary
flying school at Glenveiw, Chicago (now a Naval Air Station).
Basically, a small group of the cadets were selected to under take
part of their primary flying training on the very first Fairchild M-
62, NX18689. Other similar groups were tried on the competing Ryan
YPT-16 and WACO. The purpose seemed to have been to assess how the
cadets (most had done some flying training on Stearmans) would
respond to these new aircraft and any problems that showed up "in the
field" had been missed in the tests held at the beginning of July at
Wright Field. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves that previous
primary trainers had been biplanes and that both the Ryan and
Fairchild represented a new departure. One of the officers (a
Captain and two 1st Lts.) responsible for the trials was a 1st Lt.
Noel Parish. Parrish was then an instructor at Glenview and a part
of the team whose recommendation led to the Fairchild being adjudged
the winner.

To quote the Conclusions stated in one document: "After a service
test consisting of 5:30 hours of instructor time (Captain Andrew,
Lieut. McVea and Lieut. Parrish) and 12:45 hours student dual time,
it is concluded that the Fairchild M-62 is highly adaptable as a
primary training type airplane."

Parrish's signature appears on one document and others have
those of General Arnold and Lt. Colonel Stratemeyer.

Hope the above is of interest and use, Tony'

[robert hensarling]

'-----Original Message-----
From: broadhurst@talk21.com
To: fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 5:06 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Fairchild PT s and Tuskegee

>Thanks for the interesting story on the Tuskegee 19's. This brought up a

question I've had for a long time: PT-19's were used at Garner Field
originally, then replaced by PT-17's. Why is that? To me, the 17 is easier
to fly, but can be touchy in ground handling. The 19 is also a delight to
fly, but is very good and forgiving when on it's gear (for the most part,
Richard may have something to say about this ) One story I've heard is
that the 19 was so easy to fly and land, that the military opted for the 17
which was tougher. Any comments, opinions, thoughts? I know the 19 has a
higher wing loading, so to me that would make it more desirable as a trainer
for guys that would go on to fly fighters, etc.

Thanks for the time!
Robert Hensarling
http://www.mesquiterocker.com
Uvalde, Texas'

[broadhurst@talk21.com]

'--- In fairchildclub@y..., "robert hensarling" wrote:

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: broadhurst@t...

> To: fairchildclub@y...
> Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 5:06 PM
> Subject: [fairchildclub] Fairchild PT s and Tuskegee
>
>
> >Thanks for the interesting story on the Tuskegee 19's. This

brought up a

> question I've had for a long time: PT-19's were used at Garner

Field

> originally, then replaced by PT-17's. Why is that? To me, the 17

is easier

> to fly, but can be touchy in ground handling. The 19 is also a

delight to

> fly, but is very good and forgiving when on it's gear (for the most

part,

> Richard may have something to say about this ) One story I've

heard is

> that the 19 was so easy to fly and land, that the military opted

for the 17

> which was tougher. Any comments, opinions, thoughts? I know the

19 has a

> higher wing loading, so to me that would make it more desirable as

a trainer

> for guys that would go on to fly fighters, etc.
>
> Thanks for the time!
> Robert Hensarling
> http://www.mesquiterocker.com
> Uvalde, Texas

Hi Robert,

Your message poses an interesting question and I confess to having no
clear answer.

Garner Field -- that was at Uvalde, wasn't? I am aware of the
Fairchild's were used there but not a changeover to Stearman. When I
have a few of the unit history microfilms from the Maxwell archive it
may become clearer. I have both aircraft and unit records that
relate to RCAF use, but it the main, those I have from Maxwell are
just the aircraft histories.

Conversely, the early schools at Tulsa and East Louis converted to
Fairchild from Stearman in 1940 and Tuscaloosa did not receive it's
first PT-19As until having flown Stearmans for almost three years.

Can you suggest an approximate date for the changeover at Garner
Field? The reason I ask is that there is a passage in official
history; "The Army Air Forces in World War II - Vol. VI - Men and
Planes" - page 577, discussing the availability of suitable training
aircraft of all types, which follows:
"Full conversion to the most appropriate models was not accomplished
until the spring of 1945. Among primary training planes, the
Stearman PT-13 was eventually selected to replace all other primary
trainers. A biplane, and thus different from later trainers and
combat types, the PT-13 had the special virtue of ruggedness, a
quality not to be despised in a plane that had to take the punishment
inflicted by a novice."

The paragraph then moves on to discuss the suitability of the
Vultee BT-13 and various twin-engined AT types used until sufficient
modified B-25s were available. Whether "the spring of 1945" relates
to the selection of the PT-13, the retirement of the BT-13 or the
availability of the AT-24/TB-25 is not clear to me. The aircraft
cards suggest most of PT-19 were retired during 1944, though I had
thought that just reflected the closure of the civil contract AAF
primary schools.

Herb Puckett in his book - "Sherman Fairchild's PT-19 - Cradle of
Heroes" has a chapter on the wing failures and the structural testing
of the Cornell wing. He mentions a Fairchild file which indicated
three PT-19 "wing failures at a training base in Texas during World
War II and documents seven cases of wing failure at RCAF training
centers during the same period."

Did this influenced remarks about the PT-13's "ruggedness" and it's
eventual selection? It is possible, although the overall statistics
from RCAF records indicate a much better safety record for the PT-26
Cornell than for the PT-27 Stearman. I would be pleased to find
comparative USAAF's figures for the Fairchild, Stearman and Ryan PTs.

By the middle of 1944, both the huge production orders for primary
trainers and the training programs they were intended for were cut
back to the extent that there must have been many surplus PT about
and the AAF probably thought it prudent to concentrate on one type.

Sorry, I cannot be more definite. If the re-equipment of Garner
Field took place in 1942 or 43 then we need to look for another
explanation.

Tony Broadhurst
Grimsby, England'