Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Custom Skins => Topic started by: Krusty on March 11, 2008, 03:04:10 PM
-
"The Corsair to your right is new. It depicts an F4U-1D assigned to USS RURDYERD BAY (CVE-81). The large checkers are rather interesting!"
(http://webpages.charter.net/ltdann/checkers.jpg)
A cursory internet search shows that CVE-81 served in WW2. One page even had photos of an F4F/FM2 that flipped over on landing. The profile has white bars on the star, which is one indicator that it was a WW2 plane. The question is whether it's post war or pre-war.
If pre-war, I'd like to request this from our corsair skinners.
-
Do they have the squadron she was assigned to? Search of the squadron designation would be a quick way to determine history.
-
I don't see any mention of it..
Here's the URL
http://webpages.charter.net/ltdann
The guy's name is Richard Dann. Apparently he's done several Squadron/Signal books.
-
USS Rudyerd Bay, commissioned 25 February, 1944. Should have been in the fight towards the end of the war. I'm trying to look up the squadrons assigned to the ship, and aircraft type.
-
I'd take her if it was a skin that made it into combat, but besides focusing on the 1A (just started work on a very famous aircraft that has a unique place in WWII aviation history. Screenshots to come) I'm sure Skuzzy's getting tired of seeing my name pop up on Corsair skins. :D
-
I'm sure Skuzzy's getting tired of seeing my name pop up on Corsair skins. :D
Mate, if you do 'em well and you enjoy it..... fill the bloody list up. :aok
That's a fantastic paint job.
-
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
Rudyerd Bay
An Alaskan bay.
(CVE - 81: displacement 7,800; length 512’3”; beam 65’; extreme width 108’1”; draft 22’6”; speed 19 knots; complement 860; armament 1 5”, 16 40mm., 20 20mm., aircraft 28; class Casablanca; type S4-S2-BB3)
Rudyerd Bay (CVE-81) was laid down under Maritime Commission contract (MC hull 1118) on 24 October 1943 by the Kaiser Shipbuilding Co., Vancouver, Wash.; launched 12 January 1944; sponsored by Mrs. Scott E. Peck; acquired by the Navy on 25 February 1944; and commissioned the same day, Capt. C. S. Smiley in command.
Following shakedown off southern California, Rudyerd Bay ferried planes to Espiritu Santo in April and May; conducted qualification exercises off California into July; then made another ferry run, this time to Majuro. On her return, she embarked Composite Squadron 77 (VC-77) and, on 8 August, she again headed west. At Eniwetok, she joined TG 30.8, the fast carrier forces' replenishment group, with which she arrived at Manus on the 31st.
During early September, she covered the replenishment group as the 3d Fleet supported the Palau campaign. In October, she continued that cover as strikes against the Philippines began. On the 18th, she took on survivors of Houston (CL-81), transported them to Ulithi, whence, in November, she resumed covering operations which continued into the new year.
On 29 December, Rudyerd Bay, with Nehenta Bay (CVE-74), tankers, and other ships, departed Ulithi. In the Philippine Sea until 10 January 1945, the replenishment group shifted to the South China Sea as the fast carriers continued support of the Lingayen assault and conducted strikes against enemy installations and shipping from Indochina to Formosa. On the 22d, they retired, via the Sulu and Mindanao Seas and Leyte Gulf, to Ulithi.
Rudyerd Bay remained at Ulithi until 10 February. She then proceeded to Saipan to prepare for the assault on Iwo Jima. Departing the Marianas in TG 51.17, she provided air cover for the troop transports en route to the Volcano Islands, 16 to 18 February. On the 18th, she joined TG 52.2 and, from then until 8 March, operated to the east of Iwo Jima as VC-77 flew support missions over the contested island and antisubmarine patrols over the surrounding waters.
Anchored at Ulithi from 11 to 20 March, Rudyerd Bay, with VC-96 now embarked, got underway for the Ryukyus in TU 52.1.2 on the 21st. On the 25th, she arrived at her position 60 miles to the south of Okinawa and began launching strikes against enemy positions on Kerama Retto and on Okinawa. With the exceptions of 1 April and 8 April, VC-96 flew daily support missions until 17 April. On 13, 14, and 15 April, the squadron target was shifted from Okinawa Gunto to Sakishima Gunto. On 17 April, Rudyerd Bay rotated to TG 50.8. For the next 10 days, she provided air cover for that group, then returned to TG 52.1 and resumed support missions for the troops fighting ashore. On 8 May, she again joined TG 50.8, which she covered until retiring from the Ryukyus on the 20th. By that time, VC-96 had flown 1,257 missions in support of the Okinawa offensive.
Rudyerd Bay arrived at Guam on the 23d, detached VC-96, and embarked VC-85 as passengers for transport back to the United States.
By the end of July, the escort carrier had completed a shipyard overhaul and had been reassigned to plane ferry duty. On 1 August, she departed Alameda for the Marshalls. On the 14th, hostilities ceased. Rudyerd Bay continued on, discharged cargo and passengers at Eniwetok, then proceeded to Ulithi and the Philippines, whence she moved VC-33 to Okinawa. There, she embarked another squadron for the voyage back to California.
On 8 October, she arrived at San Francisco, underwent repairs and alterations to enable her to carry troops, then joined the "Magic-Carpet" fleet. Into the new year, she brought veterans of the Pacific war back to the United States. On 23 January 1946, she completed her last transpacific run; and, on 18 February, she departed California for the east coast. Transiting the Panama Canal on the 28th, she offloaded aircraft at Jacksonville in early March, and proceeded to Boston to begin inactivation.
Decommissioned 11 June 1946, Rudyerd Bay, redesignated CVU-81 on 12 June 1955, and AKV-29 in 1959, remained in the Atlantic Reserve Fleet, berthed at Boston, until struck from the Navy list on 1 August 1959. In January 1960, she was sold for scrap to Cantieri Navali Santa Maria, Genoa, Italy.
Rudyerd Bay (CVE-81) earned five battle stars during World War II.
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/r9/rudyerd_bay.htm
A son's website on his father's service aboard Her...unsure to it's accuracy.
http://home.sprynet.com/~ernynsv/rudyerd.htm
Hope some of this might be helpful
-
Guess that makes the F4U from VC-77, then?
-
Not looking like it Saxman. The info I have found so far is USN Overseas Aircraft Loss Report for October, 1944 and March, 1945 both of which lists the following AC types lost by Rudyerd Bay:
10,18,44 FM-2 VC-77 Phillipines
10,6,44 FM-2 VC-77 Phillipines
10,18,44 FM-2 VC-77 Phillipines Ens Gerald E. Broomquist
3,2,45 TBM 1-C VC-77 Iwo Jima
3,6,45 FM-2 VC-77 Iwo Jima LtJG Shornstein
3,8,45 TBM 1-C VC-77 Iwo Jima Ens Travis L. Scott
3,8,45 FM-2 VC-77 Iwo Jima Lt Knudson
3,8,45 FM-2 VC-77 Iwo Jima Lt Eber W. Bessett
3,23,45 FM-2 VC-96 Iwo Jima
3,23,45 TBM 3 VC-96 Iwo Jima
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/USN/LLOct44.htm
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/USN/LLMar45.htm
Just got off the phone with a crewman from the Rudyerd Bay who lives in town and served the entire service of the ship. He did not recall any F4U's operating in the two squadrons. He did say they tested with a Marine F4U outfit, but the ship was not well suited for landings due to size. He could not recall the specific squadron markings for VC-77 and VC-96. I have the opportunity to meet with him and look through his photos and ask him any specific questions. Be advised though, he was part of the ships compliment and not associated directly with the squadrons except for cleaning up their crashes aboard deck, he was part of the damage control team. He recalls squadron size as approx. 12 Fighters and 8 TBMs.
-
I have a resource which tells what Naval or Marine squadron was assigned where every two weeks during WWII. It also lists plane types and numbers in service. Unfortunately the website is down right now, I may have saved it at home, I will check.
-
Here's the photo it must be based of off. No date for the image however. Wondering if it was training?
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0308107.jpg)
Another view
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0308108.jpg)
Images from this site:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/081.htm
Looks like operationally, like most CVEs she had FM2s and TBMs
-
Just to clarify the "training" comment. I always look for photos to back stuff up. I don't see any combat F4Us with letter codes to go with the numbers. FF51 that we have in game is based off a September 45 photo so even that one potentially is post-war markings added when it didn't make a difference, kinda like the aircraft codes added to the bottom of ETO birds so folks could ID the guys who were low flying against the rules, or the RAF adding the serial numbers on the lower wings right after the end of the war for the same reasons.
The photos I find of Navy birds with letter/number codes all seem to be either East or West Coast Advanced Training birds.
I'd be the first to admit my F4U knowledge is way down the list, but that letter code and high viz checkers make me wonder if it was a training bird, potentially after the war as well. There are no captions with the photos posted on the web and the other photos from the same guy show FM2s and TBMs as the main birds of that CVE.
-
I didn't think there were many -1Ds in service after the war? I thought those were mostly later models?
Well, I guess I'd personally wonder if this was "just" a training unit, or if they were using an active unit to run the tests, but decided the escort carrier was too small.
In-game, we have a couple of skins that were training unit skins, but that also saw action, if memory serves. If there's any chance this F4u L54 also fits this description, I'd say that's enough to include it in-game.
:pray
-
While I did not ask Mr. Admundson when they had the F4U's on board, I got the impression it was during the war. He did not talk much about post war service. He is by no means an aviation specialist but did ask if they were the 'gull wing' bird. He remembers the avengers and wildcats as squadron AC. The ship did ferry many birds to and from the PTO as well, though that is not the impression I get of this bird from the photos - for what that's worth.
If anyone has specific questions for Mr. Admunson, let me know, he has agreed to meet me for lunch sometime and tell me more about the Rudyerd Bay. I will also be looking at his private photo collection.
-
Krusty,
There were far more 1Ds and earlier models than -4s in the theater by war's end, and there was no true intermediate between the 1D and 4. The -2 was a nightfighter modification of the -1 Birdcage, and the -3 was an test bed.
Also, are we sure this is a 1D? Note that in the photos she has tape right about where the inside panel line of each wing fuel tank would be, and AFAIK the wing tanks were removed in the 1D. While hard to tell for certain, she also appears to NOT have the under-wing pylons, which were permanently attached in the 1C/D and 4, even when flying without ordinance or DTs.
The canopy frame is also the earlier type, which while was present in some earlier 1Ds, most had the full-glass canopy.
-
Looking at the two photos,
http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0308107.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0308108.jpg
It doesn't look like it's using any tape on the fuselage, I don't think that's tape on the wings. It might be some sort of marking, something akin to this in-game skin:
http://www.netaces.org/skins/f4u1d/skin2.jpg
but different?
I agree it doesn't look like there are pylons, but I really couldn't be sure. The angle isn't good, and there is a shadow in that area. I can't say for sure that they're not simply "out of view" for that photo.
Good catch, though.
It's definitely not a -1, but it could be either a -1A or a -1D. What other distinguishing characteristics are there between these two models? How can you tell 2 apart, aside from the pylons?
-
I'd take her if it was a skin that made it into combat, but besides focusing on the 1A (just started work on a very famous aircraft that has a unique place in WWII aviation history. Screenshots to come) I'm sure Skuzzy's getting tired of seeing my name pop up on Corsair skins. :D
A unique 1A? Hrm. Would that be the only aircraft ever to receive a combat award? Not the pilot, the AIRCRAFT...
-
Krusty, Quick glance the pylons would be the quickest way. Unless the rocket tabs on the 1D are also permanent parts of the wing structure, in which case the angle makes it obvious those are missing. Regarding the wings, if you look closely at the white stripe on the port-side wing, you can see that it's intruding on the roundel. AFAIK, aircraft that had such ID stripes on the wings carried them on the opposite wing from the roundel (starboard upper, port lower) and never on the same side as the roundel, much less partially covering it (tape, however, WOULD). Also, the strip stops right where the trailing edge of the upper wing fuel tank panel would be, at the leading edge of the fabric portion of the wing.
Lastly, VERY few 1Ds, and of those only a handful of the earliest, had the framed canopy as this aircraft does. The overwhelming majority of Corsairs with the extra frames on the canopy would have been 1As. I'd like to hear Bodhi or WW's assessment, but those REALLY make it sound like a 1A in the overall semi-gloss sea blue scheme.
Puck,
You mean this?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,229455.0.html
:D
-
That it would be a 1A in that scheme also points to a training bird in my mind. Possibly a Brewster F3A-1 or a Goodyear Built FG1-A.
It's clear where the photographer was to take the photos, again which points to training or a stateside work up. Not trying to talk you out of it btw, just want it to be clear whether it's a combat bird or not.
-
Not sure how to post pics, but check out the folllowing web site I found on another post by Gaboon I believe. Go down to VMF 312 and you will find a similarly painted squadron. They are operating out of the Marrianas I believe. While the tail is not completely painted as in your example Krusty, it is similar, and only has numbers on fusalage.
http://www.web-birds.com/
-
I disagree, Corky. I recently submitted a 1A from VMO-251 in overall semi-gloss sea blue that most definitely saw combat.
-
I disagree, Corky. I recently submitted a 1A from VMO-251 in overall semi-gloss sea blue that most definitely saw combat.
Not saying for sure, just suggesting it points that way. You know more about Corsairs then I do. Does that look like any combat bird you've seen? I'd love to see it proven to be one.
-
That's more difficult to say without knowing what unit she was assigned to, or at least the aircraft's BuNo. Her gun ports are taped, and she shows some pretty typical Corsair field weathering to the inner wing's paint, especially on the first wing panel aft of the front oil cooler facing. One would think that a training squadron closer to home would have had the resources available to keep the pain fresh and not see that sort of weathering.
It's hard to tell, but the number may have been blasted or worn off the port side front gear door. It doesn't appear to be "motion" smudge, as the rest of the aircraft is pretty clear in that part of the frame. That would be pretty consistent with an abrasive like coral dust being blown back over the inner parts of the wings and airframe. Oddly, the landing gear doors (main and tail) look somewhat lighter than the upper surfaces that is NOT consistent with the lighting and shadows. You can ESPECIALLY see it in the tailwheel doors in the front-quarter view, and if you look at the rear view and compare the bottom of the rudder to the fuselage IMMEDIATELY below it, the spaces between the white checks looks significantly lighter. It doesn't appear, however, that she's in tricolor, as she's not showing the same lightening of the fuselage sides and cowling I'd expect but because of the lighting I can't entirely rule it out.
-
I'd say, given the photos on Halo's link, that's probably a bad profile of a VMF-312 aircraft. Plenty of good pics of the Checkertails on that website that would be good skins for some D-Hogs... If it is VMF-312, it would definitely be a D-Hog, as the sea-based only VMF's flew D's or -4's exclusively, IIRC. 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.
-
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.
-
On that note, then, would it be possible to request a VMF-312 skin for the D hog, while we figure out which -1A this other plane is?
-
the d hog skin is already in the process of being done
-
Screens? Can't remember having seen one
-
^-- ditto
Usually folks are supposed to post progress threads, so we know what's being done and what is not.
-
^-- ditto
Usually folks are supposed to post progress threads, so we know what's being done and what is not.
Really? Notice the 109s and Spits that got added? When is the last time you saw an A6M or a N1K1? Probably over half the skins just appear without being posted here. And I am not talking about the updates that some people (me and Machnix for two) did to a few skins this time.
-
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.
-
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,
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!).
-
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
-
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.
-
Like I said, give me a chance to weather it down a bit.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Few things I can add.
We (Our shop) know that many Corsairs served with ID numbers on their fuselage. I have personally viewed several fuselages that had the remains of numbers. I am not able to share the photos of these aircraft as we do not own the them or the rights to the photos.
The front quartering photo of L54 does not seem to be from a low enough to show whether it carried pylons or not. Either way, pylons are easily added and removed.
I have seen the L54 color scheme somewhere else before. I saw it as being ID'd with a squadron. I'll look through some of the stuff I have this weekend to see if it was in my stuff.
One last thing, the gun ports are taped. None of the training birds I have ever seen did not have the blast tubes taped. Nor did they appear to have tape residue.
-
One other thing to add, unless they just painted the main gear doors, the bottom of the aircraft in the photos appears to be a light color.
-
Bodhi,
The doubleish-negative in your last paragraph of the first post threw me. Are you saying that taped gunports would have been a feature found in combat birds ONLY?
Regarding color, are you in agreement that she's probably sporting a tricolor scheme, and that the non-specular sea blue upper surfaces have faded to be very close to the int. blue flanks? Are you aware of any USN/MC 1A/C/D Corsairs that painted the undersides light, but were NOT tricolor?
-
Bodhi,
The doubleish-negative in your last paragraph of the first post threw me. Are you saying that taped gunports would have been a feature found in combat birds ONLY?
Regarding color, are you in agreement that she's probably sporting a tricolor scheme, and that the non-specular sea blue upper surfaces have faded to be very close to the int. blue flanks? Are you aware of any USN/MC 1A/C/D Corsairs that painted the undersides light, but were NOT tricolor?
Saxman,
Regarding the taped ports:
My poor grammar aside, I was saying that the U Birds I have seen that were training birds did not have taped gun ports. I am not sure if that applies to all of them or not, just on what I have seen. It seemed to be more of a concern of individual crews to get one more advantage of removing the turbulence caused by the ports, and keeping their guns clean, so if not fired, they did not have to be removed and the bore cleaned.
Regarding Color:
Yes, I am in agreement with you that that is probably what happened. BUT, I have seen photos of SNJ's in what appeared to be a two tone scheme, so who knows for sure. Maybe they just faded too. One thing is for certain, the sun in the southern latitudes would have blanched most everything exposed to it.
-
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.
LOL I already did that as well yesterday. I didn't go into detail and his reply back was the two photos we have. I followed up with an in depth email, hope he doesn't get peeved...
-
Saxman,
Regarding the taped ports:
My poor grammar aside, I was saying that the U Birds I have seen that were training birds did not have taped gun ports. I am not sure if that applies to all of them or not, just on what I have seen. It seemed to be more of a concern of individual crews to get one more advantage of removing the turbulence caused by the ports, and keeping their guns clean, so if not fired, they did not have to be removed and the bore cleaned.
Corsair landing on USS Wolverine training "Carrier" in Lake Michigan.
http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28209&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18861 (http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28209&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18861)
Other photos from the same source indicate that the corsairs of training commands had letters and numbers such as "F54".
-
vmf312
this is what i was working on
(http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb251/rogerdee-skins/Image4vmf312.jpg)[/img]
-
I doubt that CVE's had CAGs. They were combined squadrons of all types. Hence "VC" in lieu of "VF", "VT" or "VB".
I think they were called CVAGs instead of CAGs when more than just a single CVF squadron was aboard. My uncle was CVAG-35 and CVAG-35/CVF-35 on CVE-28 prior to becoming CAG on the Lexington (CV-16).
-
Heard back from Rich Dann, and he concurs that at the very least, the underside is whte. He didn't say anything about other identifying informations such as BuNo's or squadron assignment. I asked for a follow up on those two points.
-
Corsair landing on USS Wolverine training "Carrier" in Lake Michigan.
http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28209&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18861 (http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28209&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18861)
Other photos from the same source indicate that the corsairs of training commands had letters and numbers such as "F54".
Taped gun ports on that one too it appears.
-
Corsair landing on USS Wolverine training "Carrier" in Lake Michigan.
http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28209&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18861 (http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28209&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18861)
Other photos from the same source indicate that the corsairs of training commands had letters and numbers such as "F54".
I know what the title says, but are they 100% sure that the aircraft in question is actually a training bird?
-
Well it's the Naval Aviation Musem in Pensacola Florida. One would hope that they have documentation for their photos, why guess?
Looks pretty authentic to me..
http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/doncoms/Display.php?irn=18861&QueryPage=%2FQuery.php
Looks like the same deck to me. :D
http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28212&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18864
F4F with same plane code. Same training Squadron? :O
http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/common/imagedisplay.php?irn=28213&reftable=ecatalogue&refirn=18865
Rule #3, always turn left when in trouble. :eek:
http://collections.naval.aviation.museum/emuwebdoncoms/pages/doncoms/Display.php?irn=18868&QueryPage=%2FQuery.php
-
I don't know either Fencer. Too hard for me to tell, as I am definitely not an expert on the codes they used in the day on Naval Aircraft.
The deck in the first pic could easily be any carrier as far as I am concerned....
-
Well the fact they have a date would tend to make me believe it is from their collection and they know where the film came from. It is similar to the other items they have from the Wolverine. So I would say it is authentic. The deck bit was a joke to show the ship.
-
Incidentally, heard back again from Rich Dann, and he doesn't have any squadron information, or a BuNo. on F54.
-
Well the fact they have a date would tend to make me believe it is from their collection and they know where the film came from. It is similar to the other items they have from the Wolverine. So I would say it is authentic. The deck bit was a joke to show the ship.
If they are anything like the services we have dealt with, their records are very very shoddy. Hopefully that is not the case.