Author Topic: Rnzaf F4u-1d (Read 5506 times)

Fencer51 · « **on:** December 02, 2006, 09:54:52 PM »

Doing the following F4U-1D, its RNZAF and that's all I got right now.

Fencer51 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2006, 04:16:22 PM »

Progress shot

Greebo · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2006, 06:10:42 PM »

Its looking good Fencer. One thing I noticed, the photo seems to show the white camo line coming further up the cowling. BTW I found some photos of a plastic kit of this aircraft here.

Odd that it is a D but has the framed canopy of the A.

Fencer51 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 03, 2006, 06:24:49 PM »

Greebo,

Do you think I should put it on the 1A?

Also, thanks I had found the same website. The photo seems to me to show the lower part of the cowling in the same blue as the tail. (roughly) I tried it with the lower portions of the cowling white and am not apposed to putting that back in, just want to make sure it's what we are seeing.

Greebo · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2006, 07:30:13 AM »

The two drop tanks under the wingroots suggest its a D, the A only had the single hardpoint under the fuselage. I'd guess either the factory used up some stock of A canopies on the early Ds, or it was replaced in the frontline after the original was damaged. I'd suggest you leave it as a D.

Squire · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2006, 06:28:35 AM »

Nice skin.

Ya, the FG-1Ds and F4U-1Ds both had some with the earlier "braced" canopy, the braces on the canopy do not prove its an F4U-1A.

The RNZAF also used F4U-1A, and FG-1Ds both in the Pacific.

Since the photo shows 3 drop tanks, and the RNZAF used the -1D, I would say its a D model, with the older canopy.

...Greebo, re "KD431" isnt that also an FG-1D? My info indicates it was.

Greebo · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2006, 08:04:10 AM »

Yeah, now I'm looking for it I can see loads of photos of Ds with the framed canopy.

There's a chapter in the book Corsair KD431 discussing whether it is an A or a D. The conclusion was that it was an A since it has only the centre pylon, not the wingroot ones. Also its build number was 129 aircraft earlier than the first D off the production line.

Squire · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2006, 02:19:29 PM »

Copy that, I think your sources are more detailed than the ones I have on her, was just wondering. Sounds like a late build FG-1A (KD431) which the Royal Navy also took delivery of.

The canopy business does make it more work for history buffs to determine type. I cant beleive they could be so thoughtless!

Krusty · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2006, 05:23:07 PM »

Looking at that photo there's definitely more than 1 shade of paint at work here.

It's not just a fading or washing out of the photo, because the wing in front of the tail has a steady and consistent pigmentation. The tail is definitely 5 shades lighter than the nose. Even the tail down to the belly color looks the same shade.

DYNAMITE · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2006, 11:22:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Looking at that photo there's definitely more than 1 shade of paint at work here.

It's not just a fading or washing out of the photo, because the wing in front of the tail has a steady and consistent pigmentation. The tail is definitely 5 shades lighter than the nose. Even the tail down to the belly color looks the same shade.

I was noticing that about the tail too... it seems much lighter...almost the same as the bottom of that bird.

In any case... she's looking great Fencer... can't wait to fly her!

Squire · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2006, 04:24:31 PM »

The baking Pacific sun, salt air, and the constant use from improvised strips did terrible things to the paintwork, thats why often in b/w photos they look so contrasted. Warbirds rarely got repainted once sent to the combat zone. Some did, some did only on certain parts, repairs ect. For the most part repairing paint damage was not viewed as a priority, even if they had the facilities, which often they did not.

Some of the heaviest weathering in WW2 took place on pacific birds.

Fencer51 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2006, 08:57:00 PM »

Update:

Saxman · « **Reply #12 on:** December 11, 2006, 10:15:49 PM »

Looking good, but I still have the same complaint as on the VF-17 one, where the chipping looks more "spotty" than natural. It's looking rather even here, too.

Krusty · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2006, 10:29:08 PM »

I still don't know... I mean look at this:

I just did a 3x3 average eyedropper sample and scaled it up (used marquee and paint bucket) to show the shades next to each other. I don't think that's just weathering. Dirt and sand being kicked up on the underside is one thing, but a white dorsal surface? Doesn'd add up, as the debris wouldn't reach this area, especially not so uniformly.

In some cases salt water corroded some paint jobs pretty badly into a white color, but again it's only on the dorsal surface, and the belly, ventral tail, and engine cowling lack this (clearly, they are all much darker).

Fencer, what are the odds we're looking at a rather rare paint job? The quality of the photo isn't faded or bleached. It looks clear, but it's showing us very distinct discolorations. I'm of the mind that it's showing a fair representation of what the actual plane looked like.

I'm all for giving it a white shade on the upper dorsal surface! It looks like it fades to blue right around the canopy area.

EDIT: It looks like the same coat of paint on the belly between the landing gears. If you look at the top of the oil cooler intakes in the wing roots you see the same thing, but THERE it looks like paint has worn off to show a color underneath. Could it be that they covered the plain in ASW colors, or something, then painted it blue, or half blue? Or half blue then some of it wore off (on the wings)?

Fencer51 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 12, 2006, 10:25:01 AM »

Krusty,

An interesting take. There are models done with this scheme and they are not showing it that way, yet we what do they know! I agree with your analysis of the colors in the photos. Whether that is a function of sun and the angle of the photo or not is the question.

I will experiment with some options and post them, but it will be a few days.

Saxman,

Thanks for the input, but based upon photos I have seen, I am happy with the chipping here and on the VF17 1A.