Fleet Air Arm Museum Corsair KD431 Mystery...

[Warbirdnerd]

English museum seeking answers to WWII mystery
Search on for Goodyear Aircraft worker 'Smith'

By Mark J. Price
Beacon Journal staff writer

POSTED: 04:28 p.m. EDT, Apr 05, 2009

The name could have been Baumgartner or Delvecchio or Kowalski or Papadopoulos, but noooooooooo. . . .

It had to be Smith.

An English museum is trying to identify the Goodyear Aircraft worker who signed the name ''Smith'' — or possibly ''Smity'' — on an engine panel of a Corsair fighter plane built in Akron during World War II.

Goodyear built more than 4,000 Corsairs for the Navy and Marine Corps during the war. The lightweight, single-pilot planes soared at 400 mph, and had ''gull wings'' that folded up for storage on aircraft carriers.

One such plane has been restored to its original condition at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in the English village of Yeovilton, Somerset.

The Corsair FG1-A — serial number KD431 — was transported to England in November 1944 and used for flight training, but the war ended before the aircraft fought in battle. From 1945 to 1963, the plane was used in training at Cranfield College of Aeronautics in Cranfield, England.

It then moved to the air museum, where it was repainted and put on display for 40 years.

David Morris, the museum's curator of aircraft, spearheaded an ambitious project in 2000. In a meticulous, inch-by-inch process, workers removed the 1963 paint layer and restored the plane's original, wartime finish.

''During the restoration, we discovered many rare and interesting details that link KD431 with the people that built her at the Goodyear factory, worked on her and flew her,'' Morris said in an e-mail interview.

Researchers tracked down Chris Clark, a Goodyear test pilot who first flew KD431 in 1944, and Peter Lovegrove, the Corsair's last known pilot in 1945.

The museum also uncovered a few mysteries.

Restoration workers found a small aluminum plate riveted to the inside of the right engine cowling. The plate seemed to serve no purpose, Morris said. The inside panel revealed the name ''Smith'' or ''Smity'' signed in pencil on the primer paint.

Although Smith is a common name, researchers were able to pinpoint the airplane's manufacturing date to mid-July 1944 in Akron. How many Smiths could have been working at Goodyear Aircraft that month? It's a needle in a haystack, but at least Morris is looking in the right haystack.

''Another unusual factory find is that just about all of the ink-marked instruction stencils on the aircraft have been stamped two times (often obscuring the message of the instruction). The build number of the aircraft is 1871 and by coincidence that U.S. government contract for all Corsairs was contract number 1871,'' he wrote.

''Intriguingly, this number has also been stamped two times into the aluminum sheet of the aircraft, just below the cockpit. Can anyone shed any light on these unusual details and help to complete the research and history of KD431, or of Akron's finest?''

Morris provides more details in his 2006 book Corsair KD431 — The Timecapsule Fighter, which chronicles the plane's restoration. It can be purchased on Internet sites such as Amazon.com or ordered at local bookstores.

Does anyone have ideas about Smith's identity?

Readers can contact Dave Morris at davem@fleetairarm.com or write to him at Fleet Air Arm Museum, Box D6, RNAS Yeovilton, Somerset BA22 8HT. For information, visit http://www.fleetairarm.com.

''The aircraft is complete as far as the restoration work is concerned but the research and history tracking will continue,'' Morris said. ''Someone somewhere will always have a new strand to add to this, hopefully.''

Found it here:
http://www.ohio.com/lifestyle/history/42500507.html

[Glyn]

Never thought of the Corsair as a lightweight soaring bird before!

[PeterA]

A shot from 2004, when the restoration and investigation was initiated.

They were pioneering removing paint layer by layer, as they later repeated on their Martlet (Wildcat).

PeterA

Last edited by PeterA on Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

[TAdan]

Very cool article. I hope they can track the person down.

Just another neat story to go along with the unique restoration of this plane.

[lestweforget]

Oh, I love this aircraft,what a time capsule!! One thing I have always wondered about gull winged aircaft. As far as my limited knowledge goes, the Corsair was given a gull wing for prop clearance (forgive me if I am wrong.) Does this have any effect on the flight characteristics of the aircraft, anything that gull winged aircraft in general share?

[Rogue]

I have a friend that flew JT330 in 1837 Sq.

[Glyn]

Oh, I love this aircraft,what a time capsule!! One thing I have always wondered about gull winged aircaft. As far as my limited knowledge goes, the Corsair was given a gull wing for prop clearance (forgive me if I am wrong.) Does this have any effect on the flight characteristics of the aircraft, anything that gull winged aircraft in general share?

It does give increased prop clearance, but it also is a method of effectively increasing the wing area without increasing the span. As a side effect the wing fuselage junction can be made without the neccessity of a large fairing.

[51fixer]

It does give increased prop clearance, but it also is a method of effectively increasing the wing area without increasing the span. As a side effect the wing fuselage junction can be made without the neccessity of a large fairing.

The Gull Wing allowed a shorter landing gear to be used to get the needed clearance. Compare to the F6F for MLG Length. Both used similar engines and props.
The lack of fairings more had to do with how they decided to build it. F6F lacked fairings as well. Most Navy A/C fighters from that time period didn't but many Army A/C did. The Super Corsair used fairings designed by Bruce Boland and built by Don Pennington. They helped with airflow and increased speed. The WWII aircraft could have benefited from the same.
Although without fairings there were fewer parts to make, less man hours to build and it would take less effort to service and repair.
Rich

[Robbo]

They were removing paint layer by layer as they had on the Martlet (Wildcat).

Peter, surely the Martlet stripdown came after the Corsair? It's still in progress




Some more photos of KD431, a wonderful exhibit in a very good museum.

[PeterA]

They were removing paint layer by layer as they had on the Martlet (Wildcat).

Peter, surely the Martlet stripdown came after the Corsair? It's still in progress

Rob, on reflection I think you are correct. I will amend my post.

A further shot , a bit scruffy, I took at Cranfield College of Aeronautics, around 1958.

PeterA

[mustangdriver]

What a great aircraft to have on display.

[JDK]

Couple of observations:

It was a great job, not a restoration, but a proper conservation job, and an archaeological experiment, breaking new ground for aviation history. A good deal of info, and as we see here, many questions have been raised by this work. (Better than another repaint into the local ace's scheme.)

The Martlet (Wildcat) task was the next one, as Rob, says, still under way. This Martlet was actually ordered by the French, and is this very historic and a very early example.

There (used to be a great) page on the FAAM website on the tasks. Unfortunately the website's been given a makeover and it's now content lite. Grrr.
http://www.fleetairarm.com/en-GB/past_projects.aspx

Talking to Dave Morris, he mentioned a certain famous Texas restorer was most interested to see the aircraft and said that it was great, and vital it was preserved 'as is'.

[PeterA]

Couple of observations:

It was a great job, not a restoration,
.

James,

I would check the definition in your 'Concise Oxford'.

Reinstate, Bring back to right, Re-establish...take your pick.

PeterA

[JDK]

Couple of observations:

It was a great job, not a restoration

James,

I would check the definition in your 'Concise Oxford'.

Reinstate, Bring back to right, Re-establish...take your pick.

PeterA

G'day Peter,

Believe me, I'm aware of the differences. In this (aviation) context, and in the museum business terms it was not a restoration. Davis Morris chose to call it an 'archaeological' investigation, an unusual use of the term, but gives a good idea of the work. It was primarily removal of post-service accumulations, primarily paint, and investigation of the evidence unearthed, finishing by 'conserving' the aircraft for the future and to provide a benchmark for historians and specialists as to what the only fully original Corsair around today can tell us. The degree of restoration intervention (adding things back) was as little as possible - areas of fabric, IIRC.

Regards,

PS - Having dealt with OUP professionally, it's a nice dictionary, but it's no authority I'd recognise (I ditched my Compact OED to a friend when leaving the UK) and the the most 'profitable' 'charity' with the most lavish 'canteen' (read restaurant) for staff in the UK. Not my favourite organisation.

[JimH]

If the fabric work is original there is a good chance my great grandmother had a hand in the covering job. I still have yards of scrap fabric she liberated to make clothing for herself and the family.

Jim