Some thoughts from reading No Right to Win (1 Viewer)

[Gilder]

The change from four guns to six was the result of the G-36B version contact with the British for their Martlet II.

I am sorry but I believe this to be an often repeated error. The British were more than happy with the 4 x 0.5 guns considering them (correctly in most peoples view) to be considerably more potent than the 8 x LMG which were the normal armament in the RAF fighters of the time.
A number of years ago I spent a day in the National Archives looking at everything I could find on the Wildcat and could find no negative comments re the 4 x 0.5 and no wish to increase the firepower was even mentioned. There was a reference to the French contract as they had requested a version to be armed with 6 x 7.5mm LMG but the British were not interested for the reason previously stated.

Interestingly there were negative comments about the mounting of the additional two guns in the F4F-4 when they received them, as we found them unreliable.

 

[Frog]

I am sorry but I believe this to be an often repeated error. The British were more than happy with the 4 x 0.5 guns considering them (correctly in most peoples view) to be considerably more potent than the 8 x LMG which were the normal armament in the RAF fighters of the time.
A number of years ago I spent a day in the National Archives looking at everything I could find on the Wildcat and could find no negative comments re the 4 x 0.5 and no wish to increase the firepower was even mentioned. There was a reference to the French contract as they had requested a version to be armed with 6 x 7.5mm LMG but the British were not interested for the reason previously stated.

Interestingly there were negative comments about the mounting of the additional two guns in the F4F-4 when they received them, as we found them unreliable.

Exactly, six 7.5 mm Darne machine guns (two in the nose and four in the wings).

They were replaced by four .50 in the wings when these G-36A became Martlet Is.

 

[Skywalker Jin]

Bill Surgi stated that Yorktown's fighter squadron consisted VF-3 and VF-42:

And Tom Cheek said that actually there were just 2 VF-3 pilots:

Seems that US Navy tended to name the new combined squadron by its commander's squadron.

 

[R Leonard]

This is all somewhat of a mish-mash, and even contradictory, accounting of the personnel and aircraft allocation situation. Suggest a long, slow, careful read of John Lundstrom's The First Team - Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway for the straight dope.

And the fighter squadron aboard was VF-3 with 16 of its aviators VOTAD from VF-42; you don't see VF-42 mentioned until after the battle when the parent squadron, VF-3 or VF-42, is noted on the "Fighting Squadron Three - Partial Bag for the Battle of Midway" and the "Report of VF-3 Pilots Not Aboard USS Hornet" documents, both produced aboard USS Hornet after the battle and VF-3's augmentation of VF-8 (see below). All the squadron enlisted personnel were from VF-42. All of the F4F-4s aboard Yorktown were from the VF-3 inventory (note that VF-42 had operated F4F-3s while aboard Yorktown and that inventory was parked at MCAS Ewa) as can be seen on the "Fighting Three - Account of Aircraft" also produced aboard USS Hornet which lists the 13 aircraft not aboard Hornet. Note that all have side numbers beginning with "3-F" as befitting a VF-3 aircraft (see below). All three documents are originals in my possession.

 

[Skywalker Jin]

This is all somewhat of a mish-mash, and even contradictory, accounting of the personnel and aircraft allocation situation. Suggest a long, slow, careful read of John Lundstrom's The First Team - Naval Air Combat from Pearl Harbor to Midway for the straight dope. And the fighter squadron aboard was VF-3 with 16 of its aviators VOTAD from VF-42; you don't see VF-42 mentioned until after the battle when the parent squadron, VF-3 or VF-42 is noted on the "Fighting Squadron Three - Partial Bag for the Battle of Midway" and "Report of VF-3 Pilots Not Aboard USS Hornet" documents, both produced aboard USS Hornet after June 6 1942 (see below). All the squadron enlisted personnel were from VF-42. All of the F4F-4s aboard were from the VF-3 inventory as can be seen on the "Fighting Three - Account of Aircraft" also produced aboard USS Hornet which lists the 13 aircraft not aboard Hornet. Note that a have side numbers beginning with "3-F" as befitting a VF-3 aircraft (see below). All three documents are originals in my possession.
View attachment 888694View attachment 888695View attachment 888696

I really understand under that emergency case the Navy must have both Yorktown herself and her airpower back to the battlefield. Those after-action reports could match what had been said on Yorktown's(VF-3 was composed of 16 pilots from VF-42 and 11 pilots from VF-3). I had already got that book and I will dig deep into it.
Thank you for your info, Mr Leonard.

 

[Skywalker Jin]

I finally back to this,which indicates Thach's cat on May 29,1942

What confuses me is the squadron insiginia

It seems like damaged,but how could it be? The battle hadn't begun yet.

 

[R Leonard]

Since we know that the VF-3 F4F-4s sported the squadron insignia, if I had to guess I would say that either a circa 1942 overly zealous censor blocked out part of a very well known pre-war squadron insignia or it is simply a matter of sun angle vs camera angle.

To what damage do you refer?

 

[Skywalker Jin]

I finally back to this,which indicates that Thach's cat on May 29,1942View attachment 888772
What confuses me is the squadron insiginia
View attachment 888771
It seems like damaged,but how could it be? The battle hadn't begun yet.

Since we know that the VF-3 F4F-4s sported the squadron insignia, if I had to guess I would say that either a circa 1942 overly zealous censor blocked out part of a very well known pre-war squadron insignia or it is simply a matter of sun angle vs camera angle.

To what damage do you refer?

In fact the description "damaged" comes from Eduard's instruction manual:

 

[R Leonard]

My goodness, that is certainly authoritative, especially since the photos were pre-Midway and Eduard appears to be talking post-Midway.

 

[Skywalker Jin]

My goodness, that is certainly authoritative, especially since the photos were pre-Midway and Eduard appears to be talking post-Midway.

Oh my

In The First Team,it's mentioned that Thach flew those new cats one by one to amuse himself and he trained his rookies by flying close.
So we can imply his plane's exhaust won't be too clean——it really helps when I am planning to make that model.

 

[R Leonard]

They were all broken in. First they get an acceptance test, then, in the case of F4Fs, flown from Bethpage NY to somewhere on the west coast for ship transit to Pearl Harbor. But, yes, all planes were broken in, not wrapped up from the factory.

For example, the F4F-3 assigned to my father in VF-42 began life as 7-F-1 (this before the days of VF-71 & VF-72). He knew that because the Ranger green paint on the tail did not totally cover the black tail of a Wasp aircraft. He said it missed overlap by about an inch to a half inch in places, and he could make out the raised paint of 7-F-1 painted over on the fuselage with 42-F-2 applied over top of that. His theory was that there was something the VF-7 CO did not like so it went back to Grumman for whatever that something was and re-issued, factory paint job over top of the original, as a VF-42 bird.

Thach liked to personally check accept each plane, not all squadron COs did . . . doesn't take long, play your cards right and you could do four, maybe, five a day.

Oh, and I'd note the effect on the squadron insignia to which you call attention is on the starboard side of the in the photo, yet our friends at Eduard show it on the port side; a little odd don't you think? I think they got a little carried away and didn't know what they were looking at anyway.

 

[Skywalker Jin]

They were all broken in. First they get an acceptance test, then, in the case of F4Fs, flown from Bethpage NY to somewhere on the west coast for ship transit to Pearl Harbor. But, yes, all planes were broken in, not wrapped up from the factory.

For example, the F4F-3 assigned to my father in VF-42 began life as 7-F-1 (this before the days of VF-71 & VF-72). He knew that because the Ranger green paint on the tail did not totally cover the black tail of a Wasp aircraft. He said it missed overlap by about an inch to a half inch in places, and he could make out the raised paint of 7-F-1 painted over on the fuselage with 42-F-2 applied over top of that. His theory was that there was something the VF-7 CO did not like so it went back to Grumman for whatever that something was and re-issued, factory paint job over top of the original, as a VF-42 bird.

Thach liked to personally check accept each plane, not all squadron COs did . . . doesn't take long, play your cards right and you could do four, maybe, five a day.

Oh, and I'd note the effect on the squadron insignia to which you call attention is on the starboard side of the in the photo, yet our friends at Eduard show it on the port side; a little odd don't you think? I think they got a little carried away and didn't know what they were looking at anyway.

Your words reminds me that the squadron insignia seems not likely to appear on both sides of the plane, I'll dig deep this.
What's the difference between showing insignia on the starboard side and the port side?

 

[R Leonard]

Both sides, no difference or special significance, just both sides.

 

[R Leonard]

Here's a VF-3 F4F (Ens Bass) landing on Hornet with a little oops . . . squadron insignia on starboard side

Here's a VF-3 F4F (MACH Cheek) on the hanger deck of Yorktown . . . squadron insignia on port side

Hornet F4Fs did not sport squadron insignia during the Midway period

 

[Gilder]

Here's a VF-3 F4F (Ens Bass) landing on Hornet with a little oops . . . squadron insignia on starboard side
View attachment 888953

Here's a VF-3 F4F (MACH Cheek) on the hanger deck of Yorktown . . . squadron insignia on port side
View attachment 888954

Hornet F4Fs did not sport squadron insignia during the Midway period

How on earth did that happen.

 

[Greg Boeser]

How on earth did that happen.

It happened at sea.

 

[Gilder]

It happened at sea.

I admit that I had guessed that. To turn a plane upside down in a below deck hanger with so little damage, with the height of the hanger being little if any more than the wingspan takes a lot of doing.

 

[Skywalker Jin]

I admit that I had guessed that. To turn a plane upside down in a below deck hanger with so little damage, with the height of the hanger being little if any more than the wingspan takes a lot of doing.

Then Tom Cheek is really an ace pilot haha

 

[Skywalker Jin]

Here's a VF-3 F4F (Ens Bass) landing on Hornet with a little oops . . . squadron insignia on starboard side
View attachment 888953

Here's a VF-3 F4F (MACH Cheek) on the hanger deck of Yorktown . . . squadron insignia on port side
View attachment 888954

Hornet F4Fs did not sport squadron insignia during the Midway period

Speaking of Hornet, her performance may be the worse among three carriers. Many people attribute to "Doolittle's Raid dispersed the time they should have for team integration". What do you think?

 

[EwenS]

I admit that I had guessed that. To turn a plane upside down in a below deck hanger with so little damage, with the height of the hanger being little if any more than the wingspan takes a lot of doing.

Not really.

It was the USN practice from at least the introduction of the Lexingtons to service in 1928 until late 1942 to carry spare aircraft "triced" (i.e. hung / suspended) from the hangar roof either fully assembled or partially dismantled according to type. For monoplane types the fuselage could be fitted between the overhead deck beams leaving only the wings / lower fuselage to impact the 17ft 3in clear hangar height under the beams on a Yorktown.

The last USN carrier class designed to trice aircraft into the hangar overhead was the Essex. The Midway class, with the weight of the armoured flight deck to account for, was designed with an aircraft storage area aft of the main hangar. By the time they began to complete in 1945, this was simply treated as additional hangar space.

From looking at the photo, the forward end of the fuselage / cowling is probably more heavily damaged than the tail, which would suggest it fell first. Photo probably taken during the recovery process rather than immediately after the fall. Maybe lowering it onto its back first was the best way of clearing the problem.

This is a photo of the Enterprise hangar deck from Oct 1941. Note the TBD and SBD tricked into the hangar roof in the background.

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/g10000/g17425.jpg

This is from the Damage Report of CV-7 Wasp and explains why the practice was ended.


"Stowage of Aircraft in the Overhead
Bays of the Hangar
47. It has been noted in paragraphs 4, 14 and 39 that
the tricing arrangements for four planes triced to the over-
head in the forward portion of the hangar carried away be-
cause of shock and permitted the planes to crash onto other
aircraft parked on the deck. The plane gasoline tanks could
not have escaped damage and gasoline must haye spread into
the hangar. This gasoline was unquestionably the origin
of the fir6 in the hangar.
48. War experience on other carriers subjected to bombing
attack has demonstrated that fires among triced aircraft
are not only apt to occur but that such fires are very diffi-
cult to control and extinguish because of the overhead loca-
tion. Fires among triced aircraft occurred on both ENTERPRISE
and HORNET, and in both cases were difficult to extinguish.
49. The dangers of overhead stowage for planes have been
recognized since the early days of the present war, and on
21 March, 1942 the Secretary of the Navy approved the design
characteristics for the CVB41 class which s-tated, "reserve
airplane stowage to be provided, if practicable, on the same
level as and adjacent to the ends of the hangar to elimina~e
plane s towage overhead".
50. Overhead plane stowage has been omitted on some of
the vessels of the CV9 class because of the strengthening
of the flight deck required to permit operation of the latest
types of heavy planes. strengthening involved the addition
of girders under the flight deck which prohibited the installa-
tion of tricing arrangements. The removal of tricing arrange-
ments from all other carriers in service or under construction
is now under serious consideration."