New Corsair restoration at OSH?

[Rob Mears]

Here's a good example of the factory dark blue under the outer wing panels...



...and how about these two-tone examples in the Gilberts. With the number of mission marks on the plane in the foreground, it makes me wonder if the paint might have been freshened up in the field.

The bombs in the foreground are almost exclusively the type I see slung under the F4U-1A in period shots. Does anyone have any WWII-era photos of Navy types carrying a 1000lb'er like the one under BuNo.92489?

[Matt Gunsch]

Congrats to John and his crew. I guess I could say I knew him when.............
Oh and Rob, that is NOT a bomb, read the stenciling, it is a depth bomb, practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Depth-bomb.jpg
http://uxoinfo.com/uxoinfo/newsletters/84Apr_2008.htm near the bottom of the page

[Chappie]

Fantastic airplane! I saw a couple photos of the Corsair in rhe newest issue of Air Classics. I hope they run an article soon, I would love to hear more about how they chose this scheme with Lindbergh's name.


Chappie

[k5083]

Rob, neither of those pics conclusively shows dark blue outer wing panels. In the first pic they are in the shade, which can account for them looking darker than the brightly lit intermediate blue on the fuselage. The second pic is too poor, and possibly too heavily retouched/colorized, to figure out what is going on.

August

[Django]

Rob, neither of those pics conclusively shows dark blue outer wing panels. In the first pic they are in the shade, which can account for them looking darker than the brightly lit intermediate blue on the fuselage. The second pic is too poor, and possibly too heavily retouched/colorized, to figure out what is going on.

August

I disagree. The tone of the intermediate blue would not be that dark in shadow. Compare the dark blue on top of the wing at the leading edge at the fuselage to the white underside. It's the same level of contrast in the tone.

As for the National Geographic photo, their color shots were generally flat color like that. It may not be the best example, but I think it is believable as well.

[Rob Mears]

Here's the only photo I could find of Lindbergh doing his thing in an F4U-1A. Either BuNo.18000, 50000, or 56000 I'd imagine, if the side number in fact reflects the Bureau Number. Can't quite make it out on the tail.

[k5083]

Rob, neither of those pics conclusively shows dark blue outer wing panels. In the first pic they are in the shade, which can account for them looking darker than the brightly lit intermediate blue on the fuselage. The second pic is too poor, and possibly too heavily retouched/colorized, to figure out what is going on.

August

I disagree. The tone of the intermediate blue would not be that dark in shadow. Compare the dark blue on top of the wing at the leading edge at the fuselage to the white underside. It's the same level of contrast in the tone.

As for the National Geographic photo, their color shots were generally flat color like that. It may not be the best example, but I think it is believable as well.

Well, that's okay. Disagreement is fine. What I notice is that the white, in shadow, appears darker than the intermediate blue in sunlight; whereas the lower outer wing panels in shadow appear no darker than the dark blue upper surfaces in sunlight. You may be right, and what I notice may be because of film/print contrast limitations or other issues. But given that Navy specs never called for dark blue outer wing panels -- I think we can agree on that -- and therefore any such panels would have been a goof-up, I would need more conclusive evidence to believe there was such a goof-up.

August

[gregv]

Interesting photo; imho this is a colorized b&w pic though. I am wondering if the lack of contrast between the intermediate and darker blue that we would expect to see on the fuselage is the result of the extreme fading that took place in the harsh conditions of the South Pacific. If so, it would make sense that the artist colorizing the b&w image only used one shade of blue because that's all he/she could see.

Amazing restoration!

greg v.

[John Beyl]

First off, well done John. You and your team did an incredible job on this airplane! Once I saw it, there was never any doubt in my mind it would be the Grand Champion this year. I hope you Nancy take a couple weeks to decompress and enjoy what's left of the summer.

At dinner on Friday night John explained to me the blue on the underside of the outer wing panels was indeed done so for camo while the wings were folded on the carrier decks. You imagine how visible a couple dozen sets of white wings would make a carrier deck...not that carrier is known for it's stealth on the oceans surface!

The bomb rack is indeed a Brewster rack and is the only original known to exist.

The airplane will be delivered to John O'Connor in Illinois directly following the EAA.

John

[C VEICH]

At dinner on Friday night John explained to me the blue on the underside of the outer wing panels was indeed done so for camo while the wings were folded on the carrier decks. You imagine how visible a couple dozen sets of white wings would make a carrier deck...not that carrier is known for it's stealth on the oceans surface!

Hi John,

Their was never any question about whether the outer wing panels were painted blue on tri-color Corsairs. The question is whether they were ever painted dark blue rather than the more normal intermediate blue. I don't think white would have ever been used unless somebody really mis-interpreted the paint specs. I have to agree with Django regarding the b&w photo posted by Rob Mears above. I find it hard to believe that the underside color of the outer wing panels is intermediate blue in shadow. Looks like the same shade of dark blue as the top surfaces to me. Just my .02 cents of course!

[mike furline]

Lower wing paint.

[k5083]

Wow, Mike's pics are even more confusing!

At first glance it looks like the underside of the wings might be dark blue, then you notice there is a demarcation where the top color wraps around a few inches onto the bottom, which is clearly lighter. Also there is too much contrast between the wing underside color and the US insignia blue for the wing underside to be dark blue. Could be either intermediate blue or faded dark blue. One thing that does seem certain is the evidence of both field repainting and a lot of fading.

The second pic actually seems to show a strip of intermediate blue along the inboard wing leading edge between the dark blue and the white, and then intermediate blue outer undersides. A fascinating variation.

Interesting pics!

I agree with Greg, I think the National Geographic pic is colorized black-and-white, not just primitive color.

August

[Aircraft Mech Paul]

Hi Guys,

I realize that I have been away for a long time, but a NEW Corsair rebuild is just too sweet for my mere words. My kudos to the gentlemen whose time and effort did this magnificent rebuild !

Paul

[mike furline]

Wow, Mike's pics are even more confusing!

At first glance it looks like the underside of the wings might be dark blue, then you notice there is a demarcation where the top color wraps around a few inches onto the bottom, which is clearly lighter. Also there is too much contrast between the wing underside color and the US insignia blue for the wing underside to be dark blue. Could be either intermediate blue or faded dark blue. One thing that does seem certain is the evidence of both field repainting and a lot of fading.

The second pic actually seems to show a strip of intermediate blue along the inboard wing leading edge between the dark blue and the white, and then intermediate blue outer undersides. A fascinating variation.

Interesting pics!

I agree with Greg, I think the National Geographic pic is colorized black-and-white, not just primitive color.

August

The second pic is an FG-1A at Pax River(Mar. 15, 1944). Paint is most likely factory applied.
It also has an odd type tail wheel assembly, perhaps an experimental "tall" tail wheel assy.

[JDK]

I agree with Greg, I think the National Geographic pic is colorized black-and-white, not just primitive color.

Lots of zero marks for observation being racked up here.

What's that little word on the lower right of the image? "Kodachrome"? Gee.

Certainly given the print process of the era I'd be cautious of ascribing definitive colo(u)r values to that version of the image - however given that the National Geographic give it as being a particular protected proprietary brand of colour film, rather than even just claiming it as an 'original colour photograph' I'd rule out 'colo(u)ris/zing'.

Regards,