Jump to content

F4U-1C underwing question


Kov1985
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone.

 

I’ve got a double build in the pipeline of 2 1/48 Tamiya corsairs. I’ll do a -1D, and a 1C. One landing on a deck, one on the catapult all loaded up.

 

Anyway, the question…

 

p?i=27167e5070ec8cd1c048c1ba355bf25d

 

Does anyone have any insight on some of the features of an -1C’s underwing?

 

Look at this image. #41 behind has two cannon ejection ports naturally, but #55 in front has what seems like a retrofitted -1D under wing panel with the cannon holes cut.


But they’ve gone an taped them over?? Seems like a great way to jam up the cannons if the empties have nowhere to go?? Taping them seems idiotic at first glance, and I haven’t progressed passed that stage in understanding why that is.

 

Also, these birds have only 2 rocket stubs per wing. Was that a standard feature of the 1C, or just this unit? I can’t find any resources or images of 1Cs with 8 rocket stubs.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May they be taped against rain and removed before flight? That may be clutching at straws a bit and upon reflection I can't imagine that's correct.

 

Also interesting is the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Cavendish alongside an Essex class US Navy carrier.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

 

Also interesting is the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Cavendish alongside an Essex class US Navy carrier.

 

The photo dates to July 1945 and was taken off the coast of Japan. The aircraft are from CVG-85 on the Essex class, USS Shangri La. That air group’s aircraft wore the lightning flash until USN Pacific Fleet marking changed to a letter/double letter based system from 27 July.

 

The destroyer alongside is the Australian manned HMAS Nizam which was operating as part of the British Pacific Fleet. The British TF37, of which Nizam was part, was operating alongside the 3 US carrier task groups of TF38 off the Japanese coast at that time.

 

The ships in the BPF were given new pennant numbers for the duration of their service in the Pacific. Nizam, originally G38, became D15 in 1945 then reverted to G38 on her return to RN control and manning at the end of the year, becoming D38 in 1948.

 

Cavendish was R15 until 1948 when she became D15. She was scheduled to join the BPF and, IIRC, had reached Fremantle just as the war ended, before being ordered back to Ceylon to join the East Indies Fleet instead until returning home in 1946. For duty with the BPF she was allocated the pennant D72 but probably never wore it.

 

Edit- wider angle view here which shows the destroyer better.

https://ww2db.com/images/541e622e8df2a.jpg

 

Edited by EwenS
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 20 mm cartridge cases might have been heavy enough to penetrate the tape (plus an added ejection momentum). #55's wing looks like a regular -1C wing. There are two large ejection holes (cases) plus two smaller ones (belt links).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Toryu has it right, I think. There were two large chutes for the 20mm cases and two smaller chutes for the links on the F4U-1C. The tape would be easily broken by the shell cases and the links. Not sure, but I think what looks like a .50 cal gun port between the 20mm cannon and the stall spoiler on the leading edge of #41 is just chipped paint. See the linked photos of an early F4U-1C - it has the link and case chutes taped over, as well.

 

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Corsair/NAS/pages/Vought-F4U-1C-Corsair-White-177-taken-at-various-profile-angles-03.html

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/aircrafts-2-3/f4u/f4u-1c-front-view/

 

Good photo of an F4U-1C that shows the oval block tread tire as well as the 20mm cannon, fairings, and the case/link chutes

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Maj_Chamberlain_CO_VMF-314_with_F4U-1C_c1945.jpg

Edited by 72modeler
corrected spelling
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers everyone.

 

I think I might just make mine without the tape. Now I do see the chain link ports in that one behind. Thanks for pointing that out.


The tape still doesn’t make sense to me though. I get protecting the mechanism from salt spray (can’t imagine anything else affecting it on a carrier deck) for a long term maintenance routine, but what if some one forgets to remove the tape before flight? That tape was put over panel joins over fuel tanks to stop it from leaking all over the windscreen in flight, from what I can gather it was adhesive  medical tape. That’s not popping off from the weight of a lousy brass shell, that’s gonna jam that cannon up 100% of the time. Why would they do it?
 

I’ll have to “wing” it for size and position of those ports.

 

thanks again for your help everyone.

Edited by Kov1985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kov1985 said:

But they’ve gone an taped them over?? Seems like a great way to jam up the cannons if the empties have nowhere to go?? Taping them seems idiotic at first glance, and I haven’t progressed passed that stage in understanding why that is.

I'd posit that ground crews have taped over the ejection ports because they are not running air ops, you can clearly see the planes are chocked and tied down. There are plenty of photos of planes (carrier- or land-based) being shipped to different theaters of war with taped-up ejection ports (not to mention the rest of the airframe), here's an F4U that's also tied and chocked, apparently doing an engine run whilst in transit.

spacer.png

Here's the famous photo of VF-17 crossing the Panama Canal on their way to the Pacific, these -1A's seem like they don't have tape but instead a fitted cover over the ejection chutes.

spacer.png

Here's an FAA bird, taped chutes and blast tubes. Interesting way to save space on a flight deck, this device is called an "outrigger", photo was taken on HMS Khedive.

spacer.png

Fully taped on the forward machine, partially taped on the rear one.

spacer.png

Here's a photo of a fully sealed F4U in transit, salt water is VERY corrosive stuff. BTW, could this be one of Ike Kepford's birds?

spacer.png

And finally, I found a photo of a -1C with 8 rocket stubs, so I feel free to add all those suckers on your model.

spacer.png

Hope that helps!

 

Cheers,

 

- Thomaz

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TAG said:

Hope that helps!

 

Cheers,

 

- Thomaz

 

It definitely does. I haven’t seen any of those pics before, and I’ve spent an unhealthy amount of time looking at Corsair photos.

 

That makes a bit more sense taping them up for transit.

 

that last pic is good one of a C, Okinawa no doubt. And it’s good to see the 8 rocket stubs there. Opens up my build options a bit.

 

thanks for the reply,

 

cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the wings folded, the open chutes would be much more vulnerable to sea spray on a carrier deck than with the wings extended, so I would think you would see the chutes taped over on a carrier based Corsair more than a land based one. Also, the 20 mm case chutes area lot  larger than the ones for the .50 cal guns, so they would be more likely to need protection from the elements. Just a guess!

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2021 at 08:36, Kov1985 said:

The tape still doesn’t make sense to me though.

 

Somewhere I read about paper being doped over the ejections slots.   Makes a waterproof /dustproof seal,  but a  spent shell goes through it easily. 

eg, this is a desert Spitfire, notice what I presume is paper over the MG ejection slots.

 

15225937513_56972cb278_b.jpgRCAF Spitfire Mk V,  1943. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

The chaps you want are @Dana Bell, and @Tailspin Turtle who are likely to know the right answer.

 

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't got much on the -1C's shell/link ejection chutes, but I can infer a few details from reports on the Corsair's fifties.  At one point there were ground-removeable plugs for the chutes, added to prevent rain from running down folded wings into the gun bays - I'm sure that problem existed before the chutes were produced in late 1944.  I've nothing written about covering the chutes in flight, so I won't hazzard a "best guess."

 

The shot with the right outboard twenty removed may be a maintenance shot - note the the outboard right flap is locked down vertically.  The flap was locked during weapons maintenance, particularly if a gun needed to be removed for any purpose.

 

The mix of rockets and guns proved problematic on the fifties.  Shell casings were hitting the inboard rockets, damaging the rockets and/or getting trapped between the rockets and the wing.  On the -1As and -1Ds the firing rocket order was reversed from launching outboard to inboard to starting with the inboard rockets before firing the guns.  (If firing all eight rockets in salvo, this wouldn't have been much of an issue, but with individual rockets selected it was better to clear the inboard stations first.)  I can only guess that the twenties' casings would have been a bigger problem, and may have led to the complete removal of the inboard rocket stations - but (again) that's just a guess.

 

While the Marines loved the -1C, it apparently wasn't enough to keep the type in widespread service.  Of the 200 built, 47 were converted back to -1Ds.  While I couldn't see the OP's original pix, this might help explain what was going on with the mixed wing configuration?

 

Enjoy the conversion - I look forward to seeing the results!

 

Cheers,

 

 

Dana

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
20 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

Looking for something else but ran across this shot with what looks like taped over chutes but obviously not in transit!

 

Well, it may be the end of a transit run... in more than one way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there any indication that the aircraft depicted in @Phoenix44'Phoenix44's image was returning from an operational sortie during which the enemy was not encountered or engaged?  Ifcso the cottaging over of ejector chute openings could have been SOP.   I'm fairly sure that with the amount of energy involved in firing the cannon at over 100 rounds per minute the cartridge cases and links would pass through the tape reasonably easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't know the correct terminology, something to do with ballistics maybe, but the gas created when a round is fired has to go somewhere.  Wiki gives some number values of the .50 cal round as being in the vicinity of 53,000 to 60,000 psi.   So if initially both  the chutes and barrel openings are covered,  if not instantaneous, those tapes should give way to pressure and casings?

 

regards,

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JackG said:

I wouldn't know the correct terminology, something to do with ballistics maybe, but the gas created when a round is fired has to go somewhere.  Wiki gives some number values of the .50 cal round as being in the vicinity of 53,000 to 60,000 psi.   So if initially both  the chutes and barrel openings are covered,  if not instantaneous, those tapes should give way to pressure and casings?

 

regards,

Jack


Goes out the end of the barrel after the round, the gas created by the firing is what propels the round.

The round will clear the barrel covering, or to be exact, the air in the barrel that's been compressed by the round moving through it will pop the covering shortly before the round gets there. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Adam Maas said:

Goes out the end of the barrel after the round, the gas created by the firing is what propels the round.

The round will clear the barrel covering, or to be exact, the air in the barrel that's been compressed by the round moving through it will pop the covering shortly before the round gets there. 

The question was about covering over the spent shell ejector slots,  and if the ejected rounds have enough force to punch through tape or doped fabric? 

I posted above about RAF use of paper doped on,  which would seal, but break easily.   As seen on the desert Spitfire above. 

Doped paper would be no problem. 

 

No one seems to know what the USN used to cover the ejector slots,  though they are shown with a covering, and the question is what was this.   I know tape of some kind was used on F4U fuselage fuel tanks,   was this WW2 duct/gaffer tape? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

The question was about covering over the spent shell ejector slots,  and if the ejected rounds have enough force to punch through tape or doped fabric? 

I posted above about RAF use of paper doped on,  which would seal, but break easily.   As seen on the desert Spitfire above. 

Doped paper would be no problem. 

 

I was specifically answering the question I quoted, about how the combustion gasses exited and whether or not they'd contribute to punching through spent shell ejector slots (which is no, because they exit via the barrel, not the ejection slot of the gun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

t'm working on another Corsair project at the moment and found some of my documentation on sealing those blast tubes and ejection ports - the tape and plastic inserts were to be removed before flight.  There's even a service bulletin about a decal message under the guns ordering the blast tube tape's removal before flight.  Unlike other aircraft, the Corsair doesn't seem to have carried any of the tape in flight, or at least it wasn't supposed to!  And while I had always thought the tape was a protectin against dust and dirt, the bulletins only mention rain water collecting in the folded wings.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Dana

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...