Tailspin Turtle

Here is a link to a link to a Roden AJ-1 review: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2023/01/roden-172-aj-1-savage-review.html

No and my guess is that it was unique to that unit. Strictly speaking, that was a target tow/control scheme and as far as I know, the bug smasher was never used for either one of those requirements. It seems likely that the unit just repainted the one that they were provided for logistics support to match their JDs.

Here's an interesting video of setting dihedral on a Piper Super Cub, with one method being to measure the dihedral with respect to the lower surface of the wing: https://youtu.be/uUayKl7dhug

Unfortunately, the rigging instructions quoted don't include how the dihedral is measured, although my guess is that it's the upper surface of the wing, probably along a spar. Aerodynamicists prefer it to be defined with respect to the chord line, which is somewhere in between the upper and lower surface of the wing: that's what it generally is when given in specifications. For those who might want to know more about that (you need to scroll down to the A4D dihedral example) or see some deceptive appearance of non-existent dihedral/anhedral in photos and drawings, see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2014/03/anhedraldihedral-and-wing-sweep.html

Only the student in the front right seat in cabin had the periscope sight. The other student positions, including the one on the flight deck, had only the radar repeater scope.

Yes - more here on that: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/accurate-three-view-drawings.html

The odds are very good that whatever Trumpeter says is there is incorrect. I've updated my TA-3B post with some more illustrations: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/09/ta-3b-skywarrior.html

Unless the copy was done by taking a picture, any distortion is likely to be unequal "stretching" of the document by the reproduction and/or printing process. This is easily checked by determining the scale consistency of major dimensions both horizontally and vertically. With respect to the multi-view drawing above, that is easily done even though the dimensions are not shown by comparing the overall length of the top and bottom views. They should be the same.

Note that the left rear seat in the TA-3B cockpit was now facing forward: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/09/ta-3b-skywarrior.html

https://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/articles/air-zoo-founder-sue-parish-and-her-pink-p-40-warhawk.php There are more pictures on the web.

For what it's worth, the raised surface on the side of the vertical fin below the fold joint was actually attached to the horizontal stabilizer; it covered the opening in the fin when the stabilator was at extreme ends of its trim range (it's more obvious on the A4D). As a result, of its movement with respect to the fin, the area over which it moved was to varying degrees scrapped and/or dirty. It definitely wasn't corogard. I didn't seen the fin scrapped clean of paint in a glance at some photographs of the area but it's certainly possible. In any event, it might be a bit more realistic to grunge up the "bare metal" you have depicted here to go along with the excellent build and paint effort you've expended so far.

A bit late to help out with this but in the event that others follow your example, this provides some EA-6A information: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2023/02/grumman-ea-6a-intruder.html

Corogard on all the leading edges was pretty standard. The problem is, it doesn't photograph well; the contrast is very dependent on the lighting and how fresh it is. I'm not surprised that in some photographs it is virtually indistinguishable from LGG. See https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/01/corogard.html. My post specifically for the A-4: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2017/01/corogard-on-a4d-4.html

That's possible (the AU-1 was originally designated the F4U-6) but my understanding is that the Marines had wanted AD Skyraiders. The Navy stated that their requirements would have priority and they would have none to spare to equip Marine squadrons for at least a year or two. So the Marines opted for an AD light as a placeholder. Plus Vought needed the work. Both scenarios might have been in play. The services, particularly the Navy (which developed and purchased airplanes for the Marines), were not above hanky-panky in initiating new programs, e.g. as a derivative of an existing aircraft (the swept-wing FJ-2 of the straight-wing FJ-1 or the F8U-3).

I've created a Grumman EA-6A post that's still a work in progress while I ping one of my subject-matter experts but it should answer the question: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2023/02/grumman-ea-6a-intruder.html