Possible corsair request

[Stoney]

Definitely not VMF-312. The photos show clearly that she has the framed canopy, and the checker pattern is MUCH larger than VMF-312's.

I can show you a number of profiles published by Osprey-type books that are wrong.  My thinking is that its some artist taking some liberty with a 312 aircraft.  If he was as detail oriented as we'd like, there'd be a BuNo on the tail.

The only other alternative is that there's some USN VF squadron out there that uses an almost identical paint scheme, which I doubt.

[Saxman]

Stoney,

As I said, the profile is at LEAST correct about the checker pattern and the L54 MoDex number. There are PHOTOS of this bird on one of the sites linked (you have to go to the site itself and pull them up by the thumbnails to see them, you can't link directly to them). I've dowloaded and attached one of them to this post.

[Stoney]

Stoney,

As I said, the profile is at LEAST correct about the checker pattern and the L54 MoDex number. There are PHOTOS of this bird on one of the sites linked (you have to go to the site itself and pull them up by the thumbnails to see them, you can't link directly to them). I've dowloaded and attached one of them to this post.

Ok.  Perhaps shoot an email to the US Naval History fellas and see if anyone can identify the unit/context of that picture.  Perhaps there was a Navy squadron flying a similar paint job then.

(Nice shot of the right rudder necessary for takeoff in that pic!).

[Saxman]

Incidentally, did some quick playing around.

Couple things to note:

1. I don't think the checkerboard goes all the way around, and least on the upper surface. The rear view seems to show that they stop at the cowl flaps.

2. Judging from a comparison of the colors, my guess is that the upper fuselage is rather faded, as the upper fuselage in the skin is as close a match as I've been able to make to a non-faded non-specular sea blue and you can see how significantly darker the aircraft is in the skin as opposed to the photo. This could certainly explain how a tri-color F4U-1A looks like it's over-all in color, as the non-spec sea blue has faded so much that it's blending very closely with the less-exposed intermediate blue on the flanks.

3. Looking at the landing gear doors in the photo and the screenshot, I think that's a pretty good match for what we see (Yeah, I know I need to shrink the numbers).

4. Once again, comparing the vertical stabilizer in the photo and screenshot, the difference between the white checkers, the underlying paint on the stab, and the darker fuselage seems to match very well.

I REALLY start to think that this is an F4U-1A in faded tricolor

[Krusty]

I don't think that's right. It might have once been tricolor, but it's not anymore. You've got the underside colors coming way too far up the sides, because in the photos you can see the tail gear doors (light grey?) and the fuselage all around above them is very dark.

I would make little-to-no distinction between the two upper colors. In those photos it really looks like a single color.

[Saxman]

Like I said, give me a chance to weather it down a bit.

[Guppy35]

It does seem to have light color gear doors, and I'd agree the checks end on top where the cowl flaps stop.  Might be on to something there Saxman with the washed out tri-color scheme

[Saxman]

Closer look it seems that the checks do come up to the top of the cowl, however they're not symmetrical, but more like this:

Port

[X][  ][X]
[  ][X][  ]

Starboard

[  ] = White
[X] = Color

Anyway, I've updated the skin with a significantly more faded non-spec sea blue. Note that this time, the roundel is now darker than the fuselage itself as in the photo. The intermediate blue flanks still stands out more, however it may be due to the lighting in the photos because if you look at the vertical stab, there's a DEFINITE demarcation line between the blue parts of the checker pattern, and the fuselage itself. Also, my non-spec could probably stand to be a bit more faded, as well.

[Guppy35]

Look at the photo from the back right.  Looks like no checks on the cowl from cowl flap over the center to the other cowl flap.

[Krusty]

On the original plane? There are checks! In the head-on pic you can see them clearly. They're a bit faded maybe, but they're also behind the prop blur.

In the tail-on pic they aren't as prominent. Much harder to see, but I can maybe just barely see the outlines.

I'm wondering if they painted over them at some point to minimize glare for the pilot? And that paint faded heavily?

[Saxman]

Ok, last update as far as colors go. I think this is about as close as I can do without a clearer photo to work from. I really think the lighting and shadowing is partially obscuring the intermediate blue on the flanks, but I believe I have the non-spec sea blue as a fairly close match now.

However unless the aircraft is in blue-gray over light-gray, or it's just a trick of the light giving the illusion of light-colored gear doors, she almost HAS to be tricolor in some pattern (perhaps the non-spec sea blue has a particularly low demarcation line?) as I'm unaware of any USN/MC F4U during WWII that carried a non-spec or semi-gloss sea blue upper surface, a white or light undersurface, but NOT the intermediate blue vertical stab, sides, and underside of the outer wing.

[Fencer51]

  I tried looking at the same site Fencer did, and still get the error message.  If that comes back up, we'll know for sure.

I emailed them and the webmaster opened access to the page, when the site came back up this section was still restricted.

A spot check over lunch shows that VC 77 was assigned after commissioning and was assigned FM-1s, TBFs, 1 F4F-4 and 1 TBM.
Same plane loadout in August 1944.

Jan 45 shows VC-77 still aboard with 18 FM2s, 11 TBM-1Cs and 1 TBM-1CP assigned.

Late May 45 shows VC-96 on board with FM2s and TBMs.

Late July 45, in San Francisco no Air Group assigned.

No airgroup assigned early September 1945 and now based in Westpac.

No sign that F4Us were ever assigned to CVE-81.

I believe the paint scheme is a post war training aircraft or a visiting aircraft from a training command on the west coast doing workups.

[Saxman]

My only thought is that for an aircraft assigned to training in the States she shows a LOT of wear consistent with F4Us operating in the combat zone. Particularly, the paint chipping around the oilcoolers, the faded camoflage and how the MoDex number has been almost entirely scraped off the port-side landing gear door doesn't seem to fit with an aircraft that probably had access to indoor storage and maintenance areas, REGULAR maintenance, and wasn't at the end of a long and occasionally unreliable supply chain.

Perhaps some other land-based group made a stopover on the carrier (VF-17 did this at least once with Bunker Hill after being deployed to land bases) or were temporarily embarked?

[Saxman]

I figured there's no better way to get some of these questions answered than go to the source, so I tossed off an e-mail with everything that's been discussed and a link back to the thread to Rich Dann, to see if maybe he has access to some sort of insider information we're lacking.

For all we know, this could even have been the CAG's personal bird.

[Fencer51]

I doubt that CVE's had CAGs.  They were combined squadrons of all types.  Hence "VC" in lieu of "VF", "VT" or "VB".

These listings have records for single aircraft type per unit, so an F4U assigned to a CVE would have shown up and such an assignment is highly unlikely.

I also doubt that the aircraft was from an operational unit just visiting, the time VF-17 did it was because they were needed to cover the Bunker Hill and Princeton while their own planes hit Rabaul.  This was back when we had very few available flight decks.  Definately not the case in February 1944 onwards.

The one possibility is that CVE-81 was used to transport some units back from the front and as a plane transport in August 45 as she returned.  One webpage linked above tells what unit she had embarked on her trip back to San Fran, and I am sure I can track that down as well.