Forward Air Control Harvards

[NZ1009]

NZ1056 I think - the previous thread is at rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/14173/rnzaf-harvard-mow-incident

[camtech]

The "truck" Harvard was definitely NZ1013.

[NZ1009]

In the previous thread (rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/14173/rnzaf-harvard-mow-incident) you started with saying it was NZ1013 but then changed to NZ1056 after looking at the accident records

[camtech]

Just got home and I can see the confusion I'm creating.
NZ 1013 crashed in Oct 69, whereas NZ 1056 crashed in February 69. The report appeared in the September issue of RNZAF Flight Safety.
My apologies to all - old age is my only excuse.

[Dave Homewood]

On the 20th of May 1952 Rod Dahlberg of No. 14 Squadron flew Harvard NZ1023 on a duty his logbook describes as "ARMY COOP, WAIOURU". Is hat likely to be FAC work? Or something different?

[hrvd1068]

Hi everyone im curious to know if any inst airframes were used as templates for the extra radio gear installed. As 1068 has alot of extra radio harness plugs for the an/arc5 system. We think that maybe 68 was used to install stuff before being ìnstalled in the fac harvards

[tbf25o4]

In the early 1950s the term "ARMY COOP" was used to describe the use of RNZAF aircraft in a number of tasks supporting the army. The usual role of Harvards was to be either "friendly" or "enemy" aircraft
depending on the task and involved usually flying over convoys or camps or camouflaged positions in either role to be an attacker or to make contact with the friendly forces on the ground. In the
role of checking the effects of their camouflage, an Army observer was sometimes carried to see how good they were. Some "spotting" for Artillery was flown. This was important in the days of CMT.
The FAC role did not evolve until the mid 1960s when our increasing involvement in Vietnam, both Army and Air made the use of FACs by the NZ Army and RNZAF more relevant, and with proper air/ground
communications fits in the Harvards.

[shorty]

This is NZ 1056 after the truck incident and is the result of Fg Off Bruce Renai's beat up of a truck at Raumai/Tangimoana on 3-2-69.
He had only recently qualified as a pilot and was authorised on this day to carry out continuation training including aerobatics and low flying practice.
Then there was this local council truck parked on a sand dune (fortunately the crew were not in the cab) and the 50' minimum height restriction sort of got lost "in a rush of youthful exuberence" and the wing tip went through the truck cab.
Result? The Harvard lost about 18" of wing tip and jammed the aileron.
He never declared a problem until he joined finals which didn't go down well with the powers that be.
The wing was written off and the pilot was fined and awarded a loss of seniority.
He left the Air Force shortly after.
Document (58) by Neville Mines, on Flickr

[camtech]

Minor control difficulty! He was damn lucky to survive that. The truck cab was severely bent as a result.

[johnnyfalcon]

My father was based at Ohakea when this happened. I was 4, and as I grew up, this story became one of those folk-lore tales he would tell.

[shorty]

I was on 14 squadron at the time

[Dave Homewood]

Not the first time a low flying aircraft from Ohakea struck a vehicle either. The Hudson in 1945 sadly killed a guy. Not the fault of the crew though, the aircraft had a loss of power on take off.

[davidd]

Dave, that Hudson (NZ2045, June 1945, Gunnery Training School from memory) actually had an accumulation of winter ice on its wings which interfered with its flying qualities, which was the reason for a baulked take off, nothing wrong with engines.
David D

[Dave Homewood]

Oh yes, quite correct.

[tbf25o4]

In the Harvard incident at Raumai, folk lore has it that the "crew" of said truck were undertaking some recreational fishing, when according to their bosses, they were mending a road, some distance
from the accident site. They also had some explaining to do!

[30sqnatc]

NZ Serials states 'in use by New Zealand Army as FAC aircraft during 1970's.' Wonder if Army use was true.

Funny how the memory plays tricks as I'm sure I recall seeing a Havard drop smoke to make target. Perhaps the rear cockpit was open and a smoke grenade was thrown out.

[tbf25o4]

Both Harvards and Sioux used smoke grenades/flares to mark targets and as you say launched (very carefully) by the pilot or observer!

[hrvd1068]

So does any one know what radio gear was used in forward air control harvards? As im trying to work out if 1068 was an inst template for radio installations of fac harvards.

[agile]

A bit of thread necro with regard to NZ1058 being an FAC aircraft. Ken Wells (the pilot on '58s last flight) commented that "...l think it did some FAC (forward air controller) Training and had a non standard communication system that required the use of an APH 5 helmet instead of the old RAF style silver one". As well as the extra whip aerial 1058's front instrument panel has the rectangular cutout at the bottom for the C1611 AIC box, and the infill panel at top right for the ARN30 course indicator shown in this incredibly useful pic shared by Camtech on the Harvard Pile thread:

Harvard cocpit NZ1037 Ohakea 14 Sep 1973 by Les Billcliff, on Flickr

I guess we need to go hunting for some 'murican radios...

[agile]

I spent a wee bit of time in the archives of the AFMNZ today. The Harvard mod cards list:
NZM/HARV/157 "Provision for fitment of AN/ARC-54 FM/UHF radio to harvard a/c for use in fac role" dated 11 Feb 70; and
NZM/HARV/159 "Fitment of ARC-51BX UHF, ARC-54 VHF FM Homing and C-1611 Interphone Facilities" dated 21.1.72

These two mods were to be carried out at 1RD and were applicable to NZ1017 and NZ1056. The structural mod was estimated to take 157 man hours.

Amongst the records for NZ1058 was a weight sheet from 22/1/73 which was commented "A/C weigh after embodiment of NZM/HARV/157 and NZM/HARV/159...". My next mission is to find either the mod leaflets or associated drawings.

I'm happy to get this additional verification regarding 1058, especially as we just acquired the FM radio controller.