A terrible doubt regarding F4U Corsair BuNo

[Navalwarrior]

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?
Resp:
Search: ' Asisbiz Vought F4U-1A corsair VMF 214 White 735 BuNo 17735 Bougainville 1944' you will see a/w photo taken from 'port' and above that shows the top L wing with white bars added to blue roundel, and a portion of the top R wing. I cannot tell what is on that R wing, but you may want to enlarge it to determine if there is an insignia there.

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Nick,

Lots of answers for you, so please forgive this truncated version of an answer. (I'm trying to finish an edit on my next book so I'll need to break off to get back to "the job.") I still can't find my copy of this photo, so I'll repost the earlier image for clarity:

- Wing stars - the right upper/left lower arrangement was standard at different periods, as was the four-wing-position variation. I think 590 is safe with two wing stars. The Pacific theater hated the red meatball in the insignia, and they weren't too happy with the red-bordered version of the barred insignia. Their frequent solution was to add the white bars, omit the border, and demand that BuAer change the insignia. (Fifth and Thirteenth air forces were also very clear on this.) Makes for an interesting insignia variation!

- Canopy - I'll cover this in a separate response below

- Camouflage - here's a semi-detailed response...

As delivered from the factories, the Blue Gray/Light Gray scheme used a very distinctive application, with a lightly feathered demarcation that was in nearly the same position on every aircraft. On the cowling, note the sweep down to wing leading edge. Aft of the wing note the quick turn up, almost level demarcation to the insignia, then quicker pitch-up to meet the wing leading edge.

The four-tone graded scheme had far more variations and was much more complicated. The fuselage often omitted any Intermediate Blue, instead feathering the N/S Sea Blue down the sides to fade into the white undersides. Because a great deal of skill was needed to subtly feather the darker blue into the white, each painter seemed to have developed his own style. For me the one underside give away can be seen near the tail - the upper fuselage color usually pitches under the stabilizer to some degree.

The vertical tail was always to be Intermediate Blue, but BuAer insisted that the hard demarcation between the tail and fuselage be blurred by a narrow overspray of N/S Sea Blue. For instance, just looking at the tones of this aircraft would suggest a Blue Gray/Light Gray camouflage, but the demarcations - particularly on the fin and under the stabilizers - and the heavy feathering show that the scheme is four-toned.

The early North Island and factory applications had the feathered fuselage colors above the wing. This usually involved stippled N/S Sea Blue over white, but I've seen several photos that I suspect blended in Intermediate Blue instead. Contractors also received permission to draw the N/S Sea Blue down the fuselage sides to the top of the wing.

The final Corsair four-toned camouflage scheme is the one we're all most familiar with, simplifying the paint application by adding Intermediate Blue segments to the fuselage and limiting the blending of colors.

Believe it or not, this is a simplified explanation of the color schemes - I hope to write an article for HyperScale later this year, and I'll try to remember to post a link for anyone who might be interested in "more than you ever wanted to know about Corsair camouflage."

So back to the original question - I believe 590 wears a camouflage similar to what we're seeing in the color shot above.

Cheers,



Dana
(Edited to correct several typos)

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi again Nick,

As promised (or was that threatened?) here's what you need to know about 590's turtledeck aft of the canopy. We're all familiar with the rear-view tunnels on Birdcage Corsairs. However, the fuselage structure aft of the cockpit was designed to be lightweight rather than strong. If a Corsair landed on its back, the structure generally collapsed and let the armor plate shift forward onto the pilot. There were several serious injuries and at least two fatalities

North Island devised a fix that beefed up the internal structure, removed the tunnel glazing, and added a metal structure in the tunnel itself. I suspect this is what folks were seeing when they reported that the tunnel windows were overpainted. The famous Marine's Dream had this structure.

A similar internal modification was added at the factory, without removing the rear vision windows. The windows were becoming unnecessary anyway, since the new armor plate was wider and blocked the view aft anyhow. The new structures were also provided as kits for field installation, though (with their plated over aft windows) only the North Island kits would be recognizable in photos.

In the meantime, Vought was designing a revised turtledeck, with even stronger internal structural support and a cleaner exterior skin. Though it's hard to see in your photo of 590, that's what this aircraft was delivered with. It was used on the last 115 Birdcage Corsairs (beginning with BuNo 17532), including 25 aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm. This photo of 590 is almost certainly the same aircraft - BuNo 17590.

This photo appears to show another camouflage variation, though I suspect we're seeing a trick of the lighting. The underside of the fuselage seems to have a darker color with a semi-tight demarcation. I'm interpreting this as the bright reflection of the sand on the underside; since the white belly is reflecting that light away from the camera, everything seems darker rather than brighter. I've seen this in a number of other photos, and the darker belly certainly doesn't show in the first photo of 590, but other interpretation are certainly as valid as my own.

OK, I've had enough fun with Corsairs for the morning - it's time for me to get back to work! Hope this helps!

Cheers,


Dana

 

[le_steph40]

it seems like I missed something

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

Fortunately, in doubt, this project has not been realized yet...
First, thank you for all your explanations
So, if I well understood, the most probable scheme regarding F4U-1 BuNo.17472, is this one below ?

Birdcage with 3 tones camo scheme and 4 positions of the National Insignia, am I right ?
TIA
Stéph

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Steph,

Without seeing a photo of the aircraft, your art for 472 seems entirely reasonable. With time, gasoline stains on the fuselage (over the wing) might have led to the addition of a darker blue touchup paint, and there may have been only two wing insignia, but only photos can prove that either way...

Cheers,


Dana

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi again Steph,

I just noticed your art has the revised turtledeck aft of the cockpit canopy - 470 would have had the glazed rear vision tunnels, though they may have been plated over with sheet aluminum. Sorry I didn't catch that earlier...

Cheers,



Dana

 

[le_steph40]

Thank you again Dana

Does this one is more close to the reality?

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Steph,

I'd say that's a very reasonable estimate of how the aircraft probably appeared - a photo might change everything one day, but until then, this is a sensible presentation. Very nice artwork, too!

Cheers,



Dana

 

[le_steph40]

Hi Steph,

I'd say that's a very reasonable estimate of how the aircraft probably appeared - a photo might change everything one day, but until then, this is a sensible presentation. Very nice artwork, too!

Cheers,

Dana

Thanx Dana, but it's not my work, just a profile found on the net that I modified to make Hanson mount...

 

[Navalwarrior]

Hi Steph,

I'd say that's a very reasonable estimate of how the aircraft probably appeared - a photo might change everything one day, but until then, this is a sensible presentation. Very nice artwork, too!

Cheers,



Dana

Pacific climate likely blurred the shade lines from one to the other very quickly. A major difference from a factory paint job.

 

[le_steph40]

Hello,
Another terrible doubt

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

Do I understand that the F4U-1a BuNo 17596 flown by Bob M. Hanson (VMF-215) during January/early February 1944 is also a mistake?
Does the BuNo is ok and the aircraft was a "Birdcage" ?
Or, due the period, the aircraft was a "1a" but the BuNo is wrong ?

TIA for your help

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Steph,

The BuNo is the problem - 17596 was the 899th Birdcage built, but it was delivered to the Brits as JT174 a Corsair I.

I'm not sure which Corsairs Hanson flew...

Cheers,



Dana

 

[rmarshal]

A minor clarification about the identity of the 17735 in discussion here. The Asisbiz photo shows 17735 and xx795, but the planes are at Piva Yoke. VMF-214 had left the area when this photo was taken and some of their planes were then rotated to VMF-216 who flew 17735 in February and March, '44 (from log books). The BuNo of the 795 bird is in question, because March '44 shows 55975 flown many times by VMF-216 (from my father's flight log). So, we're not exactly sure of that plane's BuNo, yet. If someone can confirm 17795 flew with '214, that would narrow it a bit more.

 

[mjfur]

This Report differentiates between an FG-1 #13623 and FG-1A #14062.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/FG-1A_14575.pdf

Another unofficial use of -1 & -1A
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-ads.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1a-ads.jpg

This archive photo of #590 indicates that it was from VMF-223.
https://www.jdsf4u.be/photos-f4u-1-vought-corsair?pgid=isc3aey5-4f183f87-1628-41d0-b2fe-bacd4bb37699

 

[rmarshal]

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"...
View attachment 276237
View attachment 276238

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

You make two basic assumptions here. The first is that the fuselage number is related to the bureau number. This is reasonable. The second assumption is that it is a 17xxx series.
This is, quite possibly, incorrect. There were series that might account for the birdcage canopy. Have you investigated those other versions?

 

[le_steph40]

You make two basic assumptions here. The first is that the fuselage number is related to the bureau number. This is reasonable. The second assumption is that it is a 17xxx series.
This is, quite possibly, incorrect. There were series that might account for the birdcage canopy. Have you investigated those other versions?

No other investigations. Only interested by BuNo 17472

 

[le_steph40]

No other investigations. Only interested by BuNo 17472

I talk about 17472 because several sources here and there mention 17472 regarding the aircraft flown by R. M. Hanson the 1st of November 1943. So, I imagine that these sources took this info somewhere... But, it is possible that the BuNo could be 02472 but it seems that this aircraft was in service in VF-17 and was lost in north Atlantic Jun 17, 1943 (Joe Baugher's website).
And, to add confusion about F4U-1/1As and BuNos, I just received the last Pacific Profiles. It's an excellent book but I'm a little confused...
My confusion is with the BuNos and the illustrations. There is an F4U-1A "Bubble", white 475 BuNo.17475, an F4U-1A "Bubble" white 482 BuNo.17482, and an F4U-1 "Birdcage" white 1 named "Reluctant" BuNo.17675. But if we refer to the information given by Dana Bell here, BuNos.17475 and 17482 are supposed to be -1 "Birdcage" and not -1A ... As for BuNo.17675 => -1 or -1A?
Another point: do we have any idea when the -1A came into service? There is also an F4U-1A white 751 BuNo.17751 from VMF-122 dated June 1943. I thought that the -1A had arrived later in operation...
Anybody to enlighten me please ?

 

[mjfur]

And to add to the confusion,

BuNo 17818 Bubble, Bougainville Feb, 1944, https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51509657048_6da6050830_k.jpg
BuNo 17903 Bubble, Bougainville, Dec, 1943, https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51510159964_33b0757a85_k.jpg
BuNo 17930 Bubble, NH 87951 Vought F4U-1
BuNo 17995 Birdcage, Vought F4U 1A Corsair showing a weathered look BuNo 17995 at Provo UT c 1967 01
(Most likely a birdcage canopy on a bubble aircraft, notice front windscreen.)

 

[le_steph40]

I'm more confused than yesterday...!!!
I found this info in one of my books: the F4U-1"A" (cockpit raised and bubble canopy) began with the Buer.17467, the eleventh airframe from the serie 17457-17516 manufactured during August 1943. So, if this info is good, that means that my project Buer.17472 is an F4U-1A...
Heeeeeeeeeelp...............

 

[Dana Bell]

Hi Steph,

After so many years, I'm no longer sure what you want to do on your project - but I AM sure that 17472 was a Birdcage. The factory and BuAer records agree on this - the book you're using (whichever one it is) was misled by conflicting data released years ago.

Cheers,



Dana