A terrible doubt regarding F4U Corsair BuNo

[le_steph40]

Hello,
I have a doubt regarding F4U BuNo 17472... F4U-1 "Birdcage" or F4U-1A ??????
On Joe Baugher website the serie 17456 => 18121 are F4U-1A Corsair, therefore, BuNo 17472 is a F4U-1A. But we often see a F4U-1 "Birdcage" Corsair BuNo 17590 "white 590" flown by A. R. Conant from VMF-215...!!! May be the the real BuNo is 02590 ?
I found this picture of apparently BuNo 17465 from VMF-222 during december 1943 and it's a F4U-1 "Birdcage"...

I don't understand...
Anyone to enlighten me ?

 

[Capt. Vick]

Replacement canopy?

 

[le_steph40]

I don't think... This "white 465" is, apparently, a real "birdcage"... We can see the rear window under the canopy. Maybe BuNo 17465 is a mistake ?
Other thing "bizarre", "white 590" flown by A. R. Conant. The BuNo 17590 is for a F4U-1A but it's a "Birdcage canopy". But there is no rear window visible on "white 590"...

 

[Crimea_River]

Our resident Corsair expert, Cory, might be able to answer but he has not been around for a while. I could try e-mailing him if you're really stuck. Let me know.

 

[le_steph40]

Hello Andy,

Yes, the thing that I need to know is if the F4U BuNo 17472 is a F4U-1A or a F4U-1 "Birdcage" ? It's for one of my future projects => Robert M. Hanson aircraft flown on 1 November 1943.
I think the BuNo of Joe Baugher'website are corrects but I asked myself when I saw some Corsairs with BuNo after 17456 identified as "Birdcage"...
Thank you in advance to ask Cory
I'm looking for photos or informations about F4U-1 "Birdcage" BuNo 17395... Is it a 3 tones scheme or 2 tones ? Was she marked/identified "white 395" ?

 

[Crimea_River]

Message sent.

 

[Catch22]

Ok, so I got Andy's email about this thread. All of the pictures that have been posted are of F4U-1s, not any -1As with replacement canopies. The F4U-1 had a horizontal bar on the windscreen near the top, and that was deleted on the F4U-1A. So if it has that, unless they completely replaced everything (which is doubtful), you're looking at a birdcage. As time went on, some F4U-1s had the rear windows deleted by way of painting over them. While the photo in post #3 looks like it lacks the windows entirely, I would imagine that they're still there, just overpainted as usual, and the seam lines are obscured by the canopy.

As for the BuNo, this is the tricky part. I'd argue that Joe Baugher's site is likely correct in stating that it's an F4U-1A. Trying to find another source is like finding a needle in a haystack. Any other sources I've come across are just using his information. The biggest problem that may cause some confusion is that during the war, there was no such thing as an F4U-1A, the A was added after the war to help with identification purposes. Seeing as 17472 seems to be in the first 20 F4U-1As made, it's easy for there to be confusion.

To sum it up, I'd trust Baugher and say 17472 is an F4U-1A. Sometimes the captions on photos can be rather incorrect and lack sources of any kind, but Baugher has an exhaustive list of 2700 sources, and is updating his site regularly.

As for 17395, let me look in my Black Sheep books and I will add to this post.

Alright, for 17395 I cannot seem to find a photo or even a profile of it in any of my books or on the internet. In Swashbucklers and Black Sheep by Bruce Gamble, it is mentioned that the aircraft was often flown by Boyington himself.

Swashbucklers and Black Sheep: A Pictorial History of Marine Fighting ... - Bruce Gamble - Google Books

It was shot down over Rabaul on December 23, 1943 while being flown by Major Carmagey (Carnagey?, the Gamble book listed above has the latter spelling, and makes more sense to me), while part of VMF-214. Major Carnagey was listed as MIA.

Volume II: U. S. Navy, U. S. Marine Corps and U. S. Coast Guard Aircraft ... - Campbell, Ph. D. Douglas E. Campbell - Google Books

As for how it was painted and what markings it had, I can only guess. I have no idea whatsoever what the side number would be, as there didn't seem to really be any consistency with them. Many had the last digits of the BuNo as the side number, but seemingly just as many didn't. Without having any way of truly knowing, I would just mark it with a white 395. The paint scheme would more than likely have been the 2 tone scheme and would probably look very similar to the White 590 that you've posted above. Again, that is conjecture, but at the very least what paint scheme is an educated guess. Sorry I couldn't give you a picture or anything, but hopefully that's enough to go on.

 

[fubar57]

Nice to see you pop in Cory and great info,

Geo

 

[Catch22]

It's good to pop back in Geo, been distracted with other things!

 

[le_steph40]

A BIG THANK YOU Cory for your precious help
I would have thought the camo of 17395 was a 3 tones camo scheme (like Birdcage "white 465" posted above) because it's in the last BuNo of F4U-1 "Birdcage"

 

[Catch22]

Not a problem.

Actually, I think you may be right. Way more -1s received the 2 tone, but you caught me sleeping with the block numbers! I'd go with your gut on this one. If it's three toned, it would more than likely have had the roundels with the round edging at some point, or just the straight blue. For your time period however, it would have a blue outline.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Noice!

 

[Navalwarrior]

Ok, so I got Andy's email about this thread. All of the pictures that have been posted are of F4U-1s, not any -1As with replacement canopies. The F4U-1 had a horizontal bar on the windscreen near the top, and that was deleted on the F4U-1A. So if it has that, unless they completely replaced everything (which is doubtful), you're looking at a birdcage. As time went on, some F4U-1s had the rear windows deleted by way of painting over them. While the photo in post #3 looks like it lacks the windows entirely, I would imagine that they're still there, just overpainted as usual, and the seam lines are obscured by the canopy.

As for the BuNo, this is the tricky part. I'd argue that Joe Baugher's site is likely correct in stating that it's an F4U-1A. Trying to find another source is like finding a needle in a haystack. Any other sources I've come across are just using his information. The biggest problem that may cause some confusion is that during the war, there was no such thing as an F4U-1A, the A was added after the war to help with identification purposes. Seeing as 17472 seems to be in the first 20 F4U-1As made, it's easy for there to be confusion.

To sum it up, I'd trust Baugher and say 17472 is an F4U-1A. Sometimes the captions on photos can be rather incorrect and lack sources of any kind, but Baugher has an exhaustive list of 2700 sources, and is updating his site regularly.

As for 17395, let me look in my Black Sheep books and I will add to this post.

Alright, for 17395 I cannot seem to find a photo or even a profile of it in any of my books or on the internet. In Swashbucklers and Black Sheep by Bruce Gamble, it is mentioned that the aircraft was often flown by Boyington himself.

Swashbucklers and Black Sheep: A Pictorial History of Marine Fighting ... - Bruce Gamble - Google Books

It was shot down over Rabaul on December 23, 1943 while being flown by Major Carmagey (Carnagey?, the Gamble book listed above has the latter spelling, and makes more sense to me), while part of VMF-214. Major Carnagey was listed as MIA.

Volume II: U. S. Navy, U. S. Marine Corps and U. S. Coast Guard Aircraft ... - Campbell, Ph. D. Douglas E. Campbell - Google Books

As for how it was painted and what markings it had, I can only guess. I have no idea whatsoever what the side number would be, as there didn't seem to really be any consistency with them. Many had the last digits of the BuNo as the side number, but seemingly just as many didn't. Without having any way of truly knowing, I would just mark it with a white 395. The paint scheme would more than likely have been the 2 tone scheme and would probably look very similar to the White 590 that you've posted above. Again, that is conjecture, but at the very least what paint scheme is an educated guess. Sorry I couldn't give you a picture or anything, but hopefully that's enough to go on.

Resp:
Actually, the statement 'there was no such thing as F4U-1A during the war' is incorrect. I have seen a Marine form (maintenance?) that had 'F4U-1A' typed in top right corner; the date was 1944! It is true the Navy did not differenciate the changes, but personnel (at Vought?) likely came up with a way of distinguishing the two.
Also, would the earlier 'bird cage' canopy fit the rails of a -1A? I think so. The photo of a -1A with the early canopy may have been due to damage to the original clear plexi glass one. Likely removed the canopy from a out of service F4U-1, as there might not have been any replacement canopies on hand.

 

[Dana Bell]

I realize that this is a necro-thread, and the original poster has probably long-since completed his project and moved on. But since the thread has been resurrected, I though I should add some notes from two-years' research at the National Archives.

I've not said this before, but in this case Joe's serial listing is incorrect - something probably caused by the seemingly random assignment of serials in Corsair production. The following ranges are all Birdcages:
02153-02736
03802-03841
17392-17646
18122-18191

The fuselage structure aft of the canopy was originally too weak, and several pilots died when the roll-over structure failed. As a result, internal supports were installed and some aircraft had their rear-view tunnel windows removed and replaced with additional aluminum structure. By the end of Birdcage production the entire turtledeck was redesigned and built without the rear-view tunnel.

The -1A designation was requested by the manufacturers, but refused by BuAer. All Birdcages were originally to have been modded to the raised cockpit version, so BuAer considered the new designation superfluous. Manufacturers were allowed to use the -1A and -1B (for "British) designations internally to help sort drawings and other records, and the designation saw some use in the field, but the designations were never Navy/Marine official.

The camouflages are more complicated than we originally thought. I covered them and a bunch of other Corsair details in two books:

I know, just another author hawking his books, but I think there are still a lot of misunderstandings about the Corsair's technical history that need clearing up...

Cheees,


Dana

 

[Navalwarrior]

I realize that this is a necro-thread, and the original poster has probably long-since completed his project and moved on. But since the thread has been resurrected, I though I should add some notes from two-years' research at the National Archives.

I've not said this before, but in this case Joe's serial listing is incorrect - something probably caused by the seemingly random assignment of serials in Corsair production. The following ranges are all Birdcages:
02153-02736
03802-03841
17392-17646
18122-18191

The fuselage structure aft of the canopy was originally too weak, and several pilots died when the roll-over structure failed. As a result, internal supports were installed and some aircraft had their rear-view tunnel windows removed and replaced with additional aluminum structure. By the end of Birdcage production the entire turtledeck was redesigned and built without the rear-view tunnel.

The -1A designation was requested by the manufacturers, but refused by BuAer. All Birdcages were originally to have been modded to the raised cockpit version, so BuAer considered the new designation superfluous. Manufacturers were allowed to use the -1A and -1B (for "British) designations internally to help sort drawings and other records, and the designation saw some use in the field, but the designations were never Navy/Marine official.

The camouflages are more complicated than we originally thought. I covered them and a bunch of other Corsair details in two books:

I know, just another author hawking his books, but I think there are still a lot of misunderstandings about the Corsair's technical history that need clearing up...

Cheees,


Dana

Resp:
Thanks for the info, as I had not heard the problem with the roll-over structure before.

 

[MrSmoothie]

I realize that this is a necro-thread, and the original poster has probably long-since completed his project and moved on. But since the thread has been resurrected, I though I should add some notes from two-years' research at the National Archives.

I've not said this before, but in this case Joe's serial listing is incorrect - something probably caused by the seemingly random assignment of serials in Corsair production. The following ranges are all Birdcages:
02153-02736
03802-03841
17392-17646
18122-18191

The fuselage structure aft of the canopy was originally too weak, and several pilots died when the roll-over structure failed. As a result, internal supports were installed and some aircraft had their rear-view tunnel windows removed and replaced with additional aluminum structure. By the end of Birdcage production the entire turtledeck was redesigned and built without the rear-view tunnel.

The -1A designation was requested by the manufacturers, but refused by BuAer. All Birdcages were originally to have been modded to the raised cockpit version, so BuAer considered the new designation superfluous. Manufacturers were allowed to use the -1A and -1B (for "British) designations internally to help sort drawings and other records, and the designation saw some use in the field, but the designations were never Navy/Marine official.

The camouflages are more complicated than we originally thought. I covered them and a bunch of other Corsair details in two books:

I know, just another author hawking his books, but I think there are still a lot of misunderstandings about the Corsair's technical history that need clearing up...

Cheees,


Dana

Dana, I just got your F4U Vol. 1 book and enjoying it very much. I'm about to do some work on an RC 1600mm Corsair and have been investigating various color schemes and liveries for the F4U-1 "birdcage."

I found it interesting that you feel the blue/gray scheme with the gray extending up onto the sides of the fuselage and even the rudder is a myth (in spite of numerous profiles which have been rendered). I stumbled across a good photo that looks down the side of a fuselage towards the cowl on a sea blue/mid blue birdcage -- and it appeared to me that the exhaust had faded the side nearly it's entire length creating the illusion of gray-sided fuselage. I can see where an expansion of the faded area a bit more up and down might look just like gray sides on some photos of blue/gray scheme F4U-1's.

Two things -- First: do you think there's any chance that Norfolk-painted birdcage Corsairs in VF-17 simply had sea blue added to the pre-existing blue/gray scheme? In some photos that looks to be the case, while others clearly show white bottoms. Also the mid-tone on the side of the cowling extends too far down to be blue/gray, unless the area was touched up. In other words, I'm talking myself out of the possibility.

Second: for your continuing research are you interested in seeing high res scans I just made from original photos, of P-39's in the Canal Zone, 1943? The camo details are very interesting and nicely shown. These belong to a 98-year old gentleman I recently befriended. He flew Airacobras before going to North Africa (trained on Spits) and then flew P-51B's and early P-51D-5 (no dorsal fin) in Italy. 4.5 confirmed, all Bf-109s. He kindly lent me his personal memorabilia to scan.

Nick DeCarlis

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Nick,

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the Birdcage Corsair book - that book and its raised cockpit brother were the most enjoyable projects I've ever written up, and it always feels good to hear that someone else is enjoying either of them!

That revised Blue Gray/Light Gray color scheme - and all the other Corsair color schemes, for that matter - confused me as I began the project. It appears to have originated solely as an interpretation of B&W photos translated into profile artwork that looked good and caught on with modelers. All I needed to do was find some documentation explaining why the scheme originated and when it was implemented. (A factory list of serial numbers would have made me happy, thank you!) Instead, the few factory drawings and all of the correspondence between BuAer and the contractors began to suggest instead that the scheme was an early version of the four-tone graded camouflage.

Some clarity came when I started collecting additional photos, particularly crash record pix. The crash shots were B&W pix taken in the states; they usually included reports of crash dates, units, and serial numbers with three or more walkaround photos of the entire aircraft and some closeups. Many of the aircraft had flipped over, showing the white (not Light Gray) bellies, and all of the photos showed evidence of four camouflage tones.

The serials showed that some of these aircraft had been delivered before BuAer had contacted Vought about introducing the four-tone scheme, so it was clear to me that someone had repainted them. In the cases I could identify, North Island was most likely, since the aircraft were sent there and a large number of other North Island aircraft showed the same scheme. The one color shot of a North Island aircraft that I've found in the scheme was VERY clearly the four-tone camouflage, leading me to expect that all of the B&W images were probably in the same scheme.

I am not certain that the two-toned variation we've seen in the artwork didn't exist, but I'm about 95% certain it didn't. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I could find the North Island paint records!

So, on to the aircraft in your photo. The image is in the National Archives as 127-GW-306513, and my copy is a 1200dpi scan of the 3x4 file print. I have not pulled the original neg, and I'm not certain it's at the Archives, but I'll have to have a go at it if the Archives ever open up again. The Aircraft is BuNo 02685, the 533rd Corsair built. It was accepted on 10 May 1943 and shipped to NAS Norfolk. The aircraft was accepted about a month after Vought had reported that they were applying the new four-toned scheme, making this photo a probable example of the early Vought four-toned application. (It could be a variation of the Blue Gray/Light Gray scheme, since there could be a long delay between an aircraft's completion and its delivery, but I don't think so. If older colors were used, the vertical tail would have been delivered in sub-contractor applied Blue Gray, not Light Gray - a Vought repaint would have been Intermediate Blue, not Light Gray.) Also, the aircraft was delivered before Vought was given permission to draw the upper fuselage camouflage down the sides to merge into the top pf the wing.

The Corsair's exhausts ran beneath the wing, but had they been diverted above the wing, I would have expected the fuselage stains to follow the airflow, not a straight line. What I THINK we're seeing here is an early, sloppy Vought application of the graded scheme with N/S Sea Blue on the top, white on the bottom and up the sides, and a very heavy attempt to stipple the Sea Blue down the sides, fading into the white. I've seen other examples of the scheme applied, but none quite so heavy as this. (Perhaps the painters were still learning?) Or perhaps the application isn't as poor as I think we're seeing, and the print has just picked up too much contrast.

That whole March-August '43 period is full of Corsair camouflage variations, and this is just my interpretation of the evidence and photos. I've certainly been wrong before, and I'll be the last to criticize a model for having the wrong camouflage. The best I can offer is the evidence I've found and my interpretation - there's certainly room in the hobby for more than one interpretation!

I appreciate your offer of copies of your scans; if you don't mind, I'll also ask you to share copies with Dan Hagedorn - the man who has done the best research on the Sixth Air Force.

Cheers,



Dana
[email protected]

 

[MrSmoothie]

Dana,

Thanks for the detailed response. I totally agree that one's opinion about these color issues should be flexible based on the research and evidence which is unearthed. So often, "facts" are merely the same incorrect information which has been repeated over an over.

I realize nobody really cares how accurate my RC model will be (I no longer compete), but it bothers me when I do something that I later discover to be incorrect!

I'm leaning towards doing #590 which I'd already researched before finding this thread (photo near top). I found a nice artist profile of this and it shows the early blue-gray/gray scheme, which is what the photo looks like to me. Do you agree that it's blue/gray (and not the later 4-color)? Or do you think this is yet another example of the early 4-color scheme?

One reason I like it: the addition of white bars to the original star on blue disk is unusual, and while seen on plastic model builds, I haven't noted an RC model thus marked. Note also that there is no star (with or without bars, which I have seen) on the upper right wing. Repainted wing panel? Or did this only have the star (originally w/o bars) on upper left/lower right wing only (like VMF-17's)?

Nick

 

[Navalwarrior]

Hi Nick,

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the Birdcage Corsair book - that book and its raised cockpit brother were the most enjoyable projects I've ever written up, and it always feels good to hear that someone else is enjoying either of them!

That revised Blue Gray/Light Gray color scheme - and all the other Corsair color schemes, for that matter - confused me as I began the project. It appears to have originated solely as an interpretation of B&W photos translated into profile artwork that looked good and caught on with modelers. All I needed to do was find some documentation explaining why the scheme originated and when it was implemented. (A factory list of serial numbers would have made me happy, thank you!) Instead, the few factory drawings and all of the correspondence between BuAer and the contractors began to suggest instead that the scheme was an early version of the four-tone graded camouflage.

Some clarity came when I started collecting additional photos, particularly crash record pix. The crash shots were B&W pix taken in the states; they usually included reports of crash dates, units, and serial numbers with three or more walkaround photos of the entire aircraft and some closeups. Many of the aircraft had flipped over, showing the white (not Light Gray) bellies, and all of the photos showed evidence of four camouflage tones.

The serials showed that some of these aircraft had been delivered before BuAer had contacted Vought about introducing the four-tone scheme, so it was clear to me that someone had repainted them. In the cases I could identify, North Island was most likely, since the aircraft were sent there and a large number of other North Island aircraft showed the same scheme. The one color shot of a North Island aircraft that I've found in the scheme was VERY clearly the four-tone camouflage, leading me to expect that all of the B&W images were probably in the same scheme.

I am not certain that the two-toned variation we've seen in the artwork didn't exist, but I'm about 95% certain it didn't. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I could find the North Island paint records!

So, on to the aircraft in your photo. The image is in the National Archives as 127-GW-306513, and my copy is a 1200dpi scan of the 3x4 file print. I have not pulled the original neg, and I'm not certain it's at the Archives, but I'll have to have a go at it if the Archives ever open up again. The Aircraft is BuNo 02685, the 533rd Corsair built. It was accepted on 10 May 1943 and shipped to NAS Norfolk. The aircraft was accepted about a month after Vought had reported that they were applying the new four-toned scheme, making this photo a probable example of the early Vought four-toned application. (It could be a variation of the Blue Gray/Light Gray scheme, since there could be a long delay between an aircraft's completion and its delivery, but I don't think so. If older colors were used, the vertical tail would have been delivered in sub-contractor applied Blue Gray, not Light Gray - a Vought repaint would have been Intermediate Blue, not Light Gray.) Also, the aircraft was delivered before Vought was given permission to draw the upper fuselage camouflage down the sides to merge into the top pf the wing.

The Corsair's exhausts ran beneath the wing, but had they been diverted above the wing, I would have expected the fuselage stains to follow the airflow, not a straight line. What I THINK we're seeing here is an early, sloppy Vought application of the graded scheme with N/S Sea Blue on the top, white on the bottom and up the sides, and a very heavy attempt to stipple the Sea Blue down the sides, fading into the white. I've seen other examples of the scheme applied, but none quite so heavy as this. (Perhaps the painters were still learning?) Or perhaps the application isn't as poor as I think we're seeing, and the print has just picked up too much contrast.

That whole March-August '43 period is full of Corsair camouflage variations, and this is just my interpretation of the evidence and photos. I've certainly been wrong before, and I'll be the last to criticize a model for having the wrong camouflage. The best I can offer is the evidence I've found and my interpretation - there's certainly room in the hobby for more than one interpretation!

I appreciate your offer of copies of your scans; if you don't mind, I'll also ask you to share copies with Dan Hagedorn - the man who has done the best research on the Sixth Air Force.

Cheers,



Dana
[email protected]

Resp:
FYI: In 'Eagles Illustrated, Allies in the Pacific,' Edition 2, by Tom Tullis, shows several F4Us of various models (F4U-1, -1A, -1D etc) with various paint schemes. Schemes taken from photographs, with some interpretation by Tullis. It is out of print, but second hand copies are out there. I don't have my copy in front of me, but in addition to the blue/gray/white paint schemes . . .are insignia variations, such as 'White Bars' added to the the fuselage roundel.

 

[special ed]

May I add a source,as Dana Bell mentioned, Naval crash records. I worked with a recently discharged Naval asst photog mate who told me the Navy wanted photos of every aircraft accident. If there was an accident, he rode the fire truck or ambulance and was unimpeded in his photography, both shipboard or on land. He said he had a large personal collection.