Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Resp: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: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
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: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
danabell@earthlink.net