Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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
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.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
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
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.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 ?
No other investigations. Only interested by BuNo 17472You 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?
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).No other investigations. Only interested by BuNo 17472