Sea Blue vs. Insignia Blue

I usually stay away from color stuff because it's not one of my areas of expertise and it's fraught with potential for error, which I prefer to avoid. This post is therefore for discussion purposes, not to provide a definitive color statement.

Toward the end of World War II, the complex Navy camouflage scheme for carrier-based aircraft was gradually replaced with an overall Sea Blue color. However, the national insignia was retained intact. This provided examples that directly compare Sea Blue and Insignia Blue. (Note that the colors may not have been accurately depicted in the original that I scanned, much less on your computer screen.)

It was eventually suggested, probably by Grumman, that the Insignia Blue surround of the national insignia was redundant and should be eliminated on all-blue airplanes. It was reportedly deleted well before the official authorization to do so was issued in June 1946.

A red bar was added in January 1947 to reinstate all the colors of the U.S. flag.*

 (This F4U would appear to have spent some time ashore in its recent past...)

I like the color in the picture immediately above but it appears to be lighter and bluer than Sea Blue color chips from Elliott, et al. Here are the current Federal Standard colors (Insignia Blue = 15044; gloss Sea Blue = 15042) according to Colorserver:
http://www.colorserver.net/showcolor.asp?fs=15044+15042

The sea-blue story is complicated by the fact that according to Dana Bell, "There were two completely different versions of ANA 623 Glossy Sea Blue. Citing the instability of the original pigments, in 1947 BuAer reformulated the color and issued new color chips. Modelers have been arguing about this for years, not realizing that some of us have the early chip (on heavy card stock) and others the newer chip (on a metal plate). The newer chip is indeed darker and is also a bit greener."

The new blue paint was also notably tougher and faded less. Note the difference between the two Corsair pictures above.

*Note that action with respect to authorization often occurred in due course. How else to explain this F4U national insignia that still has the Insignia Blue surround and also the red bar?

The picture is obviously too green; here is an auto correction, which looks about right:

 

That the bar is faded may be indicative of it being added in the field with paint at hand.

My impression is that Grumman painted overall-blue F6Fs with paint that didn't fade as dramatically.

Markings: A Cautionary Example

Two F4Ds, same squadron, possibly deployed but maybe not:

My guess is the Skyray at the top of the picture was a replacement aircraft that hadn't been completely marked by the squadron yet. (The presence and absence of the in-flight refueling probe isn't a marking thing but is a similar issue with respect to the configuration of a particular aircraft.) The difference in location of the squadron identification was particularly interesting. It appears three times in the picture (the angle it was taken from puts the marking on the right side of the lower airplane out of view) and each is in a different position longitudinally. The anti-glare panel color probably depended on when the airplane had gone through overhaul. I can't explain the difference in national insignia orientation. I think that at the time it was supposed to be angled.

Note that national insignia orientation wasn't as hard and fast as you might think as exemplified by this letter in the May 1949 Naval Aviation News:

Chris Paulson posted a comment with a link to a couple of F9F-5 pictures from his father's collection. I've cropped and added them to this post for your convenience.

Note the "20" on the nose that's angled nose down relative to the national insignia:

It's a bit subtle, but the placement, size, stroke weight, etc. of the "AE" on the vertical fin and rudder varies:

One of the Panthers is unpainted. See http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2009/12/it-seemed-like-good-idea-at-time-vii.html for the explanation.

WF (E-1B) Update

I've added a brief description of the WF aerodynamic prototype and an inboard profile of the WF cabin from the mockup review to the Trader/Tracer post here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/trader-and-tracer.html

For more on the WF (E-1), also see here: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/10/designation-story.html

WF (E-1) Wing Changes

In a response to a question from Mike Hazlewood (http://www.vagabonddecals.com/)about the changes between the S2F-1/2 wing and the WF (E-1), I created an illustration that depicts the difference. Note that the outboard end of the wing center section and the inboard end of the outboard wing was completely redesigned to incorporate the Grumman sto-wing concept.

I also reorganized the original blog post, http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/trader-and-tracer.html, in addition to incorporating this illustration.

Nuclear Banshees Redux

Thanks to Larry Webster of the Quonset Air Museum, I now have a better understanding of the main landing gear strut extension capability required when the nuclear stores were carried. See my update to http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/11/nuclear-banshees.html

Grumman XF4F-2

4 May Update: I revised the top-view wing-tip shape and added the wing gun ammo doors based on a relook at the wind tunnel photos. I'm not convinced that I got the wing-tip shape correct.
25 April Update: Reduced the chord on the ailerons on the top view
25 April Update: Revised side and top views and added side view.
24 April Update: Revised side view and added top view.
19 April Update: Added annotated side-view pictures of the early and late configurations.

Grumman initially lost the competition with Brewster for production of the Navy's first monoplane fighter. However, the Navy continued to fund development of the F4F and then ordered it into production as well. For a bit more, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/12/grumman-comes-from-behind-to-win.html

Jack Alvrus wrote an excellent conversion article on the XF4F-2 and -3 that appeared in the IPMS Quarterly Volume 4, Number 4. It detailed configuration differences with the production F4F, including several of the changes that were made in flight test. However, the side-view and planform drawings are not accurate in my opinion. The Lloyd Jones multi-view drawing also appears to be suspect as Rick Koehnen discovered when he compared it to published dimensions. However, there is a pencil sketch, almost certainly by a Grumman engineer, that compares the XF4F-2, F4F-3, and an early layout for what was to become the F6F. It is incomplete and contains one major and at least one minor discrepancy, but it provides the foundation for a pretty good drawing of the XF4F-2 configuration.

The major discrepancy is the location of the wing tip. The XF4F-2 had a wingspan of 34 feet; the production F4Fs, 38 feet. The -2 wing tip is clearly located too far outboard on the drawing. I’m not sure where Jones went wrong on his side view.

Dana Bell's F4F monograph is now available (see http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/ref/cw/book_cw_f4f.shtml). He said that it doesn't include much on the XF4F-2 but kindly provided me with high resolution side views of the early and late XF4F-2 configurations, which I have annotated to show the changes made between November 1937 and March 1938.

 

Two subtle difference are the open canopy side brace that was added, probably to minimize canopy buffeting when it was open, and the change to a single exhaust stack located directly in front of the landing gear attach-points fairing, apparently to reduce drag. The gun barrels were also shortened significantly.

As you can see, there were a number of changes made during flight test and it would be easy to mix them up. Note also that the backside of the propeller blades on the March 1938 version has the extended blue section to reduce glare. It also doesn't have the gun sight installed for some reason.

The following side and top views of the final configuration are based on the engineering sketch and the photos. Noting that the aft tip of the -2 fuselage appears to end a bit sooner than that of the production Wildcats, I came up with a drawing that has an overall length, including the spinner shown, of 26’ 5”, which matches the published dimension.

Note that the drawings do not include the wing guns or the bomb shackles. In any event, the details shown are approximately sized, shaped, and located since they were added by reference to photographs.

For excellent pictures of this particular configuration, see http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/643_Test_92_-_XF4F-2. Note that some represent a configuration that was for drag evaluation in the wind tunnel only, such as the removal of the cooling air scoop under the inboard port wing and the addition of a fairing over the main landing gear wheel well.

Another difference between the prototype and production Wildcats was the shape of the sides of the turtleback. The prototype's was definitely concave and the aft edge of the canopy curved to match.

This was changed to be mostly straight in production. Its likely that manufacturing cost trumped any aerodynamic benefit that the concave shape might provided. It certainly simplified the canopy construction and that of the life-raft access doors that were added for production (the original concept was that the raft be stored in a large tube behind the pilots headrest).

Another potential point of confusion with the XF4F-2 configuration is that after its initial Navy trials were substantially completed, it was crash landed following an engine failure.

Grumman rebuilt it with a more powerful engine, extended wings, and new vertical fin/rudder and horizontal tail. Although it retained the -2s Bureau Number, it was redesignated XF4F-3 in recognition of the engine change.

For more on the production F4Fs (and a few photographs of details applicable to the XF4F-2), I can't recommend Dana Bell's latest monograph too highly. It includes large photographs, many previously unpublished, on quality paper illustrating the differences and details among the various production aircraft, including the one-off seaplane, as well as illustrations of the major color schemes and markings.

 I bought mine from Sprue Brothers, http://store.spruebrothers.com/classic-publications-aircraft-pictorial-f4f-wildcat-ap004-p30800.aspx

Modelers' Guide to the Sabre & Fury

Jay Sherlock has produced a companion volume to his AD Skyraider book published by Aero Research.

See http://www.aeroresearchcds.com/book_shelf.htm for price and ordering information.

As you might expect, the bulk of the monograph is devoted to the various versions of the Sabre, including the Canadian and Australian-built ones. Reviews of many of the F-86 kits are provided along with a listing of decals and aftermarket parts. One very useful section is devoted to a primer on Sabre/Fury wings.

At least a couple of pages are devoted to each of the Fury types, listing both the recommended kit in each scale and the numerous changes required to create one from an F-86  kit. There are few illustrations, however, and an occasional error or omission. For example, the XFJ-2 windscreen was not the same as the F-86's. (I also think that the bulges under the wingtips of the XFJ-2 contained cameras to photograph the landing gear and tailhook, not flotation bags.) The FJ-2 inlet was slightly but notably different from the F-86's and the increase in depth of the FJ-3's inlet was in addition to the FJ-2 change. The FJ-3 was originally equipped with the barrier guard on the belly but it was subsequently deleted. The change to add external stiffening to the elevators isn't mentioned. The FJ-4 options list states that the vertical fin of the prototypes was 11 inches shorter than the prototypes (which I wasn't aware of) but not that 18 inches was clipped from each side of horizontal tail. As a result, the information and drawings provided here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/fj-fury.html and here:  http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/04/fj23-fury-redux.html  will still be of use to the modeler, as will the Ginter Naval Fighters monograph for the type being modeled.

I am pleased to report that were a few revelations. For example, I had noted that the guns were removed from some FJ-4Bs and vents added to the aft end of the panel covering the gun bay but didn't know why.

Jay states that the cannons on the left side were removed on some aircraft to allow installation of a back-up electrical generator. Joe Baugher provided details in his excellent series of posts on U.S. Navy airplanes: "During service, some FJ-4Bs had the port pair of 20-mm cannon removed so that a standby generator system could be installed. This standby generator provided power backup in case the main generator failed--without the backup it was nearly impossible to fly at night or under instrument conditions for more than a few minutes with only battery power. At the same time, the standard ejection seat was replaced by a Martin-Baker seat that provided the ability to eject safely at much lower altitudes"

With respect to the cannon deletion, Dave Collier noted in an email: "In the period that I worked on FJ-4Bs (1962-64) our squadron had several aircraft with only two cannon. We were told the mod was part of the Bullpup installation but the backup generator  installation seems to make more sense since you see lots of photos of A/C carrying Bullpups with the port guns installed."

 

Dave also provided the following observation: "In photos of FJ-4Bs late in their service life you will find aircraft with bare metal in the area of the cannon blast tube panel. Paint was removed from this area after panels came apart during firing runs. The bare metal was consider necessary to help detect small panel cracks before severe damage was done. While stripping the panels I found that most had at least five coats of paint."