Talk:North American BT-9
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated C-class)|
What dollars are we talking about with the cost figure? Clearly it's not 2005 dollars; is it 1939 dollars? 1945 dollars? 1936 dollars?--Robert Merkel 12:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Boeing link gives the internal North American designation of the production BT-9 as the NA-19. Do you have a source for the NA-57 designation?--Robert Merkel 12:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- This variants issue is quite confusing. In French service (1939-42), an early model with fabric-covered rear fuselage was designated as NAA-57 while the later, fully-metallic model (still with fixed landing gear) was designated as NAA-64. PpPachy 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is because the main source is so tertiary it doesn't know it doesn't have a clue about the subject - about one step below even an encyclopedia as a source. BT-9 is the USAACs designation for the several variants of the NA-16 family it specifically used, which comprised a much larger number of variations. To make matters more confusing, North American identified its aircraft in several different ways, so the NA-16-2H was the same as the NA-20 (which was a variant for Honduras) - but then they dropped the NA-16-# codes for later members of the family such as the NA-57 for France. The whole series (including the later AT-6) was designed in such a way as to allow interchangeable components, so that a wide variety of engines could be used, as well as fixed or retractable undercarriage, fabric or metal fuselages (of different lengths) several different outer wing panels (as a result of problems with spinning), round, square and triangular rudders, and either armed or unarmed, with several different canopy designs. A lot of mixing and matching occurred, with types like the NA-57 and NA-64 using a mixture of new and old parts. The NA-16 page is the place for clearing all this confusion up (there being basic trainer, advanced trainer, bomber, fighter and observation variants), not the BT-9 page, which should just be about the USAAC's basic trainer.