All the Wildcat/Martlet questions you wanted to ask

[Grey Beema]

3 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

In 1943 Grumman ceased production of F4F and TBF aircraft and handed over complete responsibility for their continued production to Eastern Aircraft - a General Motors car plant in Linden , New Jersey, reconfigured to build aircraft - so that Grumman could concentrate on the F6F. Feedback from the fleet had not been very favourable to the F4F-4, so Eastern produced a variant that reverted to the four 0.50-inch guns of the F4F-3 under the designation of FM-1. No four-gun variants of the F4F-4 aircraft were built by Grumman. It is quite possible that some MAP paints were sent to Eastern Aircraft before the production line then switched to ANA equivalents for both the FM-1 and TBM-1C for British service.

 

Close - but not quite correct. Avenger/Tarpon I aircraft were designated TBF-1B (for British) and were very similar to the TBF-1 for the US Navy but had the domed observation window on each side in the lower fuselage. All these aircraft (British and American) had what is best described as a three-seat cockpit - pilot, radio-operator behind him in a proper seat, and gunner in the turret. Their forward-firing armament was a single 0.30 on the starboard side of the cowl firing through the propellor.

 

The Avenger II was the British designation for the Eastern TBM-1C (equivalent to the Grumman TBF-1C) which moved the radio operator to a position in the lower fuselage immediately behind the bomb bay and filled the space in the cockpit with radio equipment. The forward-firing armament was changed to two 0.50-inch guns, one in each wing. The British did not like the new crew arrangement, so Blackburn rebuilt the second cockpit position to essentially duplicate the original arrangement in the TBF-1. Nevertheless, there were quite a few other detail differences between the TBF-1 and the TBM-1C, both external and internal, Furthermore, Britain did not receive any TBF-1C aircraft, so the different mark numbers related specifically to actual physical differences, not different manufacturers.

 

Vought built all Corsair I and II aircraft but the two types are quite different. The Corsair I is the original "birdcage" type while the Corsair II has the later bubble canopy. Within the two marks there are many variations, but the two designations exist to distinguish two quite different models.  On a side note - the Corsair III, built by Brewster, throws up a puzzle. The FAA never deployed Corsair III's operationally but used them almost exclusively for training British crews in the USA. One reason usually given for this was that the gun mountings in the folding wing panels of Brewster-built machines were too weak to allow continuous firing. The odd thing is that most of the folding wing panels for the later Vought-production Corsairs were sub-contracted to Brewster, and Blackburn (responsible for modifications to British standards) makes no mention in its records of having to strengthen the gun mounts of Vought-built machines!

 

I apologise for wandering off-topic - I could not see where else to put this information.

 

Maurice

 

Thanks Maurice, I found a reference (can’t find it now of course) that the first MkVs were in MAP colours and made the assumption built by Grumman (possibly built by Eastern but under Grumman guidance) and that the narrow range of serials covered the particular aircraft I was researching JV384.

 

I’ll see if I can dig out the reference..

[Graham Boak]

One point to bear in mind is that mark numbers in British service rarely refer to equipment modifications  or canopy shapes.  Usually they are for significant engine changes, although these things are never quite so simple.  It is however worth bearing in mind that changing the manufacturer of supposedly identical aircraft will still lead to problems with spares, as supposedly the same part from one manufacturer may not exactly match that from another, so different supply chains have to be established, and this is another cause for changes in the mark number - to make sure the bit you've asked for will fit onto the aircraft it is needed for.  So I wouldn't rule out the difference between the Mk.I and Mk.II Avenger being basically because of the change of manufacturer.  After all, this was not unheard of in the US - the P-51B and C came from different factories yet were supposedly the same.  F4Fs became FMs.  F4U or FGs or F3As?  To be honest, to me it seems much more likely that the change of Avenger mark number was mainly because of the change of manufacturer rather than the comparatively minor equipment changes.

[Seahawk]

11 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

@Seahawk According to the finishing instructions for G-36B (Martlet II) and F4F-4B (Martlet IV) in the Grumman archives, the wing roundels, both upper and lower, were 40 inches in diameter. It would be difficult to fit a 54-inch diameter roundel on the wings in the position specified (centred on the middle of the aileron) since the larger 50-inch diameter stars contemporaneously applied to US Navy F4F-4 aircraft (centred just outboard of the inboard end of the aileron) could barely fit in that further inboard position.

 

Maurice

Thank you, Maurice for that useful primary source information.  I have confirmed by visually checking that a 54" roundel would indeed not fit at the mid-aileron position Grumman's documents specify (or at least a 3/4" roundel won't fit there on an Arma 1/72 Wildcat wing).  HOWEVER the FAAM photograph of JV735 Q-W I cite (Wildcat 105) clearly shows the upper surface roundel (Type C): I would assess the centre to be aligned with the inner edge of the aileron, or possibly even slightly further inboard) where there is room for a larger roundel (I think I see a slight gap (1-2"?) between the roundel edge and the aileron forward edge).  (This would incidentally be closer to the 1/6 span location standard for the centre of British aircraft upper surface roundels. )  So for Wildcat VIs, I'm sticking with 54" upper surface roundels, although, because glare obscures the leading edge of the wing, I can't rule out 50" as per USN aircraft.  Did something change with the move to Eastern Aircraft/the start of Mark VI production?  Apparently but I really don't know.

[Troy Smith]

11 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

Close - but not quite correct.

11 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

so the different mark numbers related specifically to actual physical differences, not different manufacturers.

No, As @Graham Boak mentions, this is not the way the British worked, which was the point I was trying to make specifically about the Wildcat V

 

Different Mk numbers referred to a major change or difference,  but could cover a multitude of changes you might have expected a new mark number for.....  

Examples, a Lancaster Mk.I and Mk.III vary in the Mk.I had Rolls Royce Merlins and the Mk.III has US built Packard Merlins, even though there are a multitude of progressive introduced changes during production.

Same with the Spitfire Mk.IX and Mk.XVI,  while the change from a highback spine to a bubble canopy does not get a new mark number.

The Hurricane Mk.I has a bewildering amount variations possible which do not seem to have any systematic basis.....

It is, horrendously confusing,  and the subject of many threads on here.   

Usually with the conclusion,  work from a photo, and the best guess otherwise is probably this....   

 

My query in the Wildcat case was regards the Wildcat V ever being built by Grumman,  would have not bee called a Mk.V, as that was what a Eastern Built FM-1 was.  If Eastern ended up with Dupont paint.... but, Grumman were still building Hellcats for the British,  would they have shipped paint for Eastern? 

 

 I know that the US did modify the Avenger for the FAA, and that the British did have a modification centre.

As a brief aside,  do you have in your files and photos or drawings of the British specified or modified Avenger cockpit,  as this is a bit of a holy grail deal,  

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235055801-faa-avenger-2-second-cockpit-mystery-solved-well-maybe-a-bit/

 

There is a a detailed breakdown of British Avengers here, by British serial and their US Subtypes.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235021746-some-questions-on-faa-avengers/#elControls_2731805_menu

As well as @Geoffrey Sinclair  detailed breakdown above. ...

 

 

 

11 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

the Corsair III, built by Brewster, throws up a puzzle. The FAA never deployed Corsair III's operationally

Some were used for training in Northern Ireland,  

11 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

but used them almost exclusively for training British crews in the USA

I thought this was the use of the bird cage Corsair I ?    They were certainly used for training in the USA.

 

Do you have @Dana Bell  Corsair monographs, as there is a lot of detailed information in those.  

 

Sorry this does ramble a bit off topic, and thanks for your earlier contributions to the thread,  they have been very useful.

cheers

T

 

[Seahawk]

13 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

The FAA never deployed Corsair III's operationally but used them almost exclusively for training British crews in the USA. 

 

So the received wisdom goes.  But the Fundekal FD32003 sheet has a number of photographs apparently showing Corsair III JS706 serving as 8N with 1836 Sq in Victorious.  

 

https://fundekals.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FD32003_Inst.pdf

 

Sturtivant does not record this service ("757 Sq Puttalam 4.45; collided with Seafire NN264 while formation flying 13.5.45").  Could be a serial painted up wrong but that seems unlikely and, if so, it wasn't an error for JT706 because that serial was not issued.  Would be interested in hearing what @iang has to say about this. 

 

PS Some examples of Corsair IIIs which made it to training units in the UK : JS479 BH2Q of 718 Sq, Ballyherbert (in USN blues), JS887 Y3D of 759 Sq, Yeovilton (in TSS).

[mdesaxe]

Thank you @Geoffrey Sinclair and @Troy Smithfor reminding me what a poor idea it is to write at 04:30 from memory before I’ve had enough coffee!

 

I ought to have remembered about the TBF-1C in FAA service because some years ago I was able to spend several hours crawling all over and inside what is probably the last surviving Tarpon I – the Avenger in the National Air and Space Museum’s collection, now correctly catalogued as a Tarpon.

 

This aircraft is serialled FN859 (USN BuNo 24085) and has the Grumman plate identifying it as a TBF-1. Currently, it is in storage in a dilapidated condition. Under a fictitious 1943-era USN tri-colour camouflage finish, the original FAA camouflage in MAP colours is visible where the later paint has worn or flaked away. The British roundels and fin flashes also are apparent as ghosts under the later paint.

 

Unfortunately, this is what we bikers used to call a “bitsa” – the port outer folding wing panel comes from a TBM-1C and the starboard panel from a TBM-3 (the fittings for the 0.50-inch machine guns in each wing panel are present but the ports are covered). The original 0.30-inch gun in the fuselage was removed along with its fittings and the slot in the cowl plated over. The aircraft has the appropriate British domed observation windows in the lower fuselage behind the bomb bay. However, the second cockpit does not answer @Troy Smith’s question because it is fitted out with electronic gear appropriate for a TBF-1C, as is the radio operator’s compartment behind the bomb bay. If this is as originally built it throws up questions about TBF-1 production history.

 

This aircraft is slated for restoration in the future but the schedule is indeterminate, as is its final restored state, which apparently is still a matter for debate at the museum.

 

I do have information from Brough about the modifications for the second cockpit but it is buried in boxes in storage, so it might take some time to locate it. I looked at the suggested thread and confirm @Seahawk's reservations about the Wings & Wheels book – the photographs cited are of a TBM-3E (possibly one previously supplied to the French) that has been painted up in FAA colours and fitted out with a vague approximation of the British second cockpit (it is not even correct for the early TBF-1).

 

I promise to keep on topic in the future.

 

Maurice

[mdesaxe]

8 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Thank you, Maurice for that useful primary source information. 

Here is the illustration for the painting instructions for the Martlet IV.

 

 

I'm adding the parallel item for the F4F-4 with 50-inch stars.

 

 

Maurice

 

[iang]

2 hours ago, Seahawk said:

 

So the received wisdom goes.  But the Fundekal FD32003 sheet has a number of photographs apparently showing Corsair III JS706 serving as 8N with 1836 Sq in Victorious.  

 

https://fundekals.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FD32003_Inst.pdf

 

Sturtivant does not record this service ("757 Sq Puttalam 4.45; collided with Seafire NN264 while formation flying 13.5.45").  Could be a serial painted up wrong but that seems unlikely and, if so, it wasn't an error for JT706 because that serial was not issued.  Would be interested in hearing what @iang has to say about this. 

 

PS Some examples of Corsair IIIs which made it to training units in the UK : JS479 BH2Q of 718 Sq, Ballyherbert (in USN blues), JS887 Y3D of 759 Sq, Yeovilton (in TSS).

 

I can't help much I'm afraid. 1836 Squadron Diary for Iceberg does not survive. I do have the individual carrier reports for Iceberg (normally covering an operating period of a week or two). Victorious' Report of 26 May does not list any Corsair losses on 13 May where the pilot was killed or injured,  for either 1836 or 1834 Squadron. Sadly, Victorious' Reports are not as detailed as Illustrious' and Formidable's in terms of aircraft serials/codes. 

[ClaudioN]

On 12/30/2022 at 8:47 PM, mdesaxe said:

I'm adding the parallel item for the F4F-4 with 50-inch stars.

A Happy New Year to you all!

 

Just spotted a curious oddity on that diagram. Whereas the drawing correctly shows 7 red and 6 white rudder stripes, the written instruction states "rudder stripes, 6 red - 5 white".

Possibly an incentive to dig-out all those F4F photos and start counting stripes? 😄

 

US designations vs British Mark numbers:

F4F-3A - Mark III

F4F-4B - Mark IV

FM-1 - Mark V

FM-2 - Mark VI

AFAIK there was no Grumman correspondent to the FM-1. If a designation ever existed, I suspect it would involve a letter suffix to the F4F-4 designation.

The FM-2 was the production development of the F4F-8. The F4F-8 introduced the R-1820-56 engine installation of the FM-2, but initially retained the shorter fin.

XF4F-5 was a 1940 designation for two early production F4F-3s re-engined with a Wright R-1820-40 engine (as used in the Brewster F2A-2 and -3).

 

For completeness, FAA units also flew a few standard Wildcats:

• in 1942, on formation in the USA, Nos. 890 and 892 Squadrons received a total of 16 fixed-wing F4F-3, all taken from the early batch having R1830-76 engines;
• in 1943 the Martlet IVs of HMS Victorious, then operating in the Pacific, were supplemented by a few F4F-4.

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by ClaudioN

[Wez]

On 29/12/2022 at 15:10, Troy Smith said:

I don't have an AS-8.  I have two jars of Tamiya XF-17, one an old 23 ML jar is a deep green blue, the other, bought this year, is much darker and bluer, like a midnight blue.

Neither are 'match' for any USN Sea Blue,  though the 23ml is nearer to the FS15042 standard. 

 

Which is a right pain as if Tamiya paints are not batch consistent, it means quoted mixes for their colours worthless.

Annoying as I made a good visual match with a 50/50 mix the old XF-17 and X-16 Purple (yes, that bizarre Tamiya gloss purple)

I only tried that as I read a @Mike Starmer Humbrol mix that was IIRC 4 part Humbrol Sea Blue to 1 part Humbrol purple, and had a jar of the X-16 I bought cheap.

 

wartime ANA 623 Gloss Sea Blue was memorably described by @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies  as "a deep smoky blue" or if you like a purple-blue dark grey.

 

 

 

Tamiya AS-8 is a dark blue-grey colour, if it has a purplish hue to it, it's very subtle (I have very good colour perception, it's a requirement of my job).

 

I had a rummage amongst the paints and found two unopened tins of Humbrol Authentic Gloss Sea Blue (as well as a couple of Non-Specular Sea Blue), I wonder how they compare?

 

It does seem like a visit to Sovereign Hobbies is inevitable though...

[MDriskill]

I would respectfully suggest a separate Avenger thread is in order. Not only are we wandering off the Wildcat path, but anyone doing a search for all this excellent detailed Avenger info in the future will be very hard-pressed to find it buried here.

Edited January 21, 2023 by MDriskill

[ClaudioN]

Trying one final time to revive the thread keeping to Wildcat/Martlet alone (please...!).

 

I agree with @MDriskill it would be a good idea to move the latest posts on the Grumman Avenger to a separate thread (and maybe, those on Sea Blue as well), if moderators and the OP agree.

 

This photo is taken from the asisbiz.com website:

 

NOTE: the images are used here for "thread therapeutic purposes" alone. If a copyright is involved, I will remove them at once, with apologies.

 

Captioned as "Grumman F4F-3P Wildcat VMO 251 Black 14 damaged on Guadalcanal 1943", I would suggest it is a F4F-4 instead, as it appears to have six guns.

The photo shows interesting details of the intercooler duct and the engine bulkhead.

For comparison, this other photo from the same web site shows very well the different panel layout at the rear of the engine bulhead, associated with the R-1830-76 engine:

 

 

Note that the engine panel with the unit emblem is secured at the top with six fasteners and is slightly shorter, whereas on the photo of '14' above there are seven panel fastener holes. I have never seen this feature reported in any profile of the F4F-3.

Of course, this aircraft (unlike the F4F-4 above) would also lack the small blister on the fuselage side. This difference is another seldom reported feature in profiles. The one notable exception I know of is the side view of Bu. No. 2531 of VF-42 in the book "The First Team" by Lundstrom.

 

From what I could find it seems that, after serving with the initial four Atlantic Fleet squadrons (VF-41, VF-42, VF-71 and VF-72), the original machines with the R-1830-76 engine were employed to assist in forming VF-8 and VF-9, then used either as advanced trainers or with Marine units (such as VMO-251) in the South Pacific. When VF-42 embarked on Yorktown for the Pacific in early 1942 mid-December 1941, most of its aircraft were still the R-1830-76 engined type.

 

Incidentally, the 16 F4F-3 on lease to RN Nos. 890 and 892 Squadrons were also all initial production machines with the R-1830-76 engine (reportedly ex-VF-9, according to Sturtivant).

Edited January 7, 2023 by ClaudioN

[ClaudioN]

Early Martlet camouflage for the FAA is a fascinating topic, and a minor but interesting point is the positioning of the fuselage serial.

 

From what is known:

• the first 44 machines were assigned serials AX824-AX829, BJ507-BJ527, BJ554-BJ570 on arrival in Britain, where serials were applied in mid-fuselage position in eight-inch characters. Lettering style is common to other ex-French aircraft received around the same time (e.g., BJ531-BJ550, a batch of 20 Mohawk IV). There are photos confirming this.
• the next 10 machines were assigned serials BT447-BT456, but were the ship carrying them was sunk by a U-boat on 19 October 1940 and they were lost
• the final 27 machines were assigned serials from a batch of 9000 allocated to the British Purchasing Mission. The full allocation was AL231-AL262 (32 serials), but the first 5 were not taken up, leaving the required 27
• there is photographic evidence (see earlier in this thread) of an AL-serialled machine carrying the serial in the mid-fuselage position
• there is photographic evidence of at least two machines, AL260 and the FAA Museum's AL246, carrying the serial on the fuselage spine in large characters, the same employed by the G-36B and the Martlet Mk. IV
• there is photographic evidence of a few machines, BJ559, BJ561, BJ562, BJ566 and AL257, carrying the serial on the fuselage spine in four-inch characters with the 'Royal Navy' title above (probably, from around September 1941).

Today I had a new look at the colour profiles in On Target Special No. 2, "Britain Alone - June 1940 to December 1941". Chapter 4 deals with early Martlets for the FAA and my attention was drawn to the profile of AL247:B of No. 802 Squadron, reportedly at Donibristle in February 1941. This aircraft is presented in the original Grumman camouflage (that is, Paul Lucas' interpretation of the scheme that has already been discussed in this thread), with the addition of a black port wing. What I noticed is that the serial AL247 is presented in the mid-fuselage position. I assume this colour scheme is documented in some photograph, although no reference is given.

AL246, AL247, AL257 and AL260 all arrived at SAL Prestwick within two weeks, between November 17 and December 1, 1940 according to Sturtivant. Thus, it would seem the lettering style got progressively mixed up with time later. Was there any rationale?

 

I would suggest the large characters seen now on AL246 at the FAAM were peculiar to Grumman and possibly were not seen in the UK until the first (fixed-wing) G-36B arrived in March 1941. Even then, unless an aircraft was refinished (as was the case for AL257), I assume serial position did not change and the original mid-fuselage one was retained on several Mk. Is. In particular, I'd assume this was the case with the well-known photo taken in September 1941 of the three 802 Sqn Martlets 'R', 'K' and 'Q', still in the original scheme.

When repaints occurred, it may have been a matter of who made the work and where, wheter the "regulation" 4-inch RN characters or the "Grumman style" larger characters were used.

 

After the FAAM Corsair restoration, details of this kind were extensively discussed by David Morris in his book "Corsair KD431 - The time capsule fighter". I had been eagerly anticipating a similar book on the Martlet restoration, unfortunately so far nothing like that appeared.

 

Claudio

 

 

 

[ClaudioN]

F4F-3 crashes into carrier island (Wasp CV-7)

Found this on the web.

It looks somewhat unreal, in particular the deck crew look remarkably unconcerned. Is it real footage, or a rather clever fake?

[Black Knight]

The film has been really slowed down. If you speed it up to it normal speed the men in front of the island are actually running

[jimmaas]

....and the footage shows one of the stranger finish/markings schemes of the pre-war USN.  The prewar black tail color for Wasp is in the usual spot, but as discovered by Dana Bell, Grumman received permission to straddle the pre-war finish and the overall gray finish introduced at the end of 1940.  The overall finish was aluminum lacquer (no Orange-Yellow wing upper surfaces), normal section markings (wing chevron, fuselage bands, nose segments) were omitted, and the previous black side codes were presented in white.  There's an example from a similar batch for (Green-tailed) USS Ranger (the various probes are for a test at Langley):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F4F-3_VF-42_at_NACA_Langley_1941.jpeg

Edited January 25, 2023 by jimmaas
add image, minor correction

[ClaudioN]

Thank you @Black Knight and @jimmaas. I had not thought of speeding it up, now it makes sense.

Yes, the colour scheme is interesting. White codes are faintly visible for a moment, but unreadable.

Earliest accident resulting in a write-off occurred on 26 February 1941 and involved Bu. No. 2535 (see Joe Baugher's list). Perhaps it might be this one?

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Martlet I delivery dates according to the RAF, all to RNAS Donibristle except AL252 which does not have a delivery date as such, the date given is when to Scottish Aviation Prestwick.
AL236    13-Nov-40
AL237    23-Nov-40
AL238    09-Nov-40
AL239    07-Dec-40
AL240    13-Nov-40
AL241    09-Nov-40
AL242    27-Nov-40
AL243    08-Dec-40
AL244    17-Dec-40
AL245    11-Dec-40
AL246    10-Dec-40
AL247    02-Jan-41
AL248    13-Dec-40
AL249    13-Dec-40
AL250    02-Dec-40
AL251    13-Dec-40
AL252    29-Oct-41
AL253    02-Jan-41
AL254    27-Dec-40
AL255    17-Dec-40
AL256    27-Dec-40
AL257    17-Dec-40
AL258    30-Nov-40
AL259    28-Nov-40
AL260    04-Feb-41
AL261    27-Nov-40
AL262    27-Nov-40

[ClaudioN]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:24 PM, ClaudioN said:

Earliest accident resulting in a write-off occurred on 26 February 1941 and involved Bu. No. 2535 (see Joe Baugher's list). Perhaps it might be this one?

Found useful information on this site.

The accident involving Bu. No. 2535 occurred at NAS Norfolk.

The most likely candidate as the film subject is Bu. No. 2519, that was written off following a deck crash on Wasp on 11 June 1941.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The aircraft history card for BuNo. 3970 says it had an R-1830-86 engine.  As a reminder it is the first F4F-3 BuNo. after the F4F-3A batch.

[ClaudioN]

On 1/25/2023 at 5:10 PM, ClaudioN said:

F4F-3 crashes into carrier island (Wasp CV-7)

Just a feeling that the tail does not look dark enough for a "black tail" from Wasp. The only possible alternative would be a "green tail" from Ranger, however the carrier is undoubtedly Wasp.

So I spent some time looking up this site for anything of interest. Here's what I found:

15 April 1941        F4F-3 2536    VF-42       pilot: McCuskey, E.S.     USS Wasp at sea          deck crash,                     major overhaul required

11 June 1941        F4F-3 2519     VF-71        pilot: Kinder, G.E.           USS Wasp at sea          deck crash, over side,   stricken-off

So, one aircraft from Ranger (VF-42) did crash on Wasp's deck.

A number of "barrier crash" accidents involving USS Wasp are also listed, as well as "landing accidents", but I think what the video shows is best defined a "deck crash".

 

Whether Bu. No. 2536 is the one featured in the video is anybody's choice.

 

 

[GrzeM]

I'm building FAA Wildcat Mk. V 1/72 model using Arma Hobby F4F-4 fuselage with FM-2 wings (with underwing coolers added) and I'm pretty close to finish it, but still have not chosen the marking scheme.

 

In general I'd like to make it as much related to anti-Tirpitz actions as possible (Tungsten? Goodwood?) but also have to consider decals availablitity.

 

My first idea is "F" from HMS Trumpeter, this photo:

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205157105

...but - what we can see on the wing underside??? Black patch overpainting the invasion stripes??? (Photo comes from late August 1944 (HMS Nabob torpedoed) Or is it some special marking for this operation? So the AA operators won't confuse Wildcat with Focke-Wulf? 

Please help.

 

Could this be the same plane as this one? Serial is similar, but apparently one is JV 579 and the other JV 375 - I'm not sure.

 

Also if you have some cool suggestions of FAA Martlet/Wildcat V markings I'd be glad to consider them - if only it is real to obtain/create proper decals/masks.

 

Thanks in advance!

Edited March 1, 2023 by GrzeM

[Selwyn]

On 2/28/2023 at 7:53 PM, GrzeM said:

I'm building FAA Wildcat Mk. V 1/72 model using Arma Hobby F4F-4 fuselage with FM-2 wings (with underwing coolers added) and I'm pretty close to finish it, but still have not chosen the marking scheme.

 

In general I'd like to make it as much related to anti-Tirpitz actions as possible (Tungsten? Goodwood?) but also have to consider decals availablitity.

 

My first idea is "F" from HMS Trumpeter, this photo:

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205157105

...but - what we can see on the wing underside??? Black patch overpainting the invasion stripes??? (Photo comes from late August 1944 (HMS Nabob torpedoed) Or is it some special marking for this operation? So the AA operators won't confuse Wildcat with Focke-Wulf? 

Please help.

 

Could this be the same plane as this one? Serial is similar, but apparently one is JV 579 and the other JV 375 - I'm not sure.

 

Also if you have some cool suggestions of FAA Martlet/Wildcat V markings I'd be glad to consider them - if only it is real to obtain/create proper decals/masks.

 

Thanks in advance!

You can't see the wing underside in this image,  what you are seeing is the wing topside, its the way the wings fold on these aircraft.  What you are seeing is the camouflage scheme.

 

Selwyn

[EwenS]

2 hours ago, Selwyn said:

You can't see the wing underside in this image,  what you are seeing is the wing topside, its the way the wings fold on these aircraft.  What you are seeing is the camouflage scheme.

 

Selwyn

In the first photo posted, to which I believe GrzeM was referring, you can see the underside of the folded port wing of aircraft F. With the wings folded it is the undersides that are nearest the fuselage with the uppersides facing outwards. There is a very distinct and clearly defined dark area at the forward end of that port wing underside. I don’t think that it is a shadow.

[Dave Swindell]

2 hours ago, Selwyn said:

You can't see the wing underside in this image,  what you are seeing is the wing topside, its the way the wings fold on these aircraft.  What you are seeing is the camouflage scheme.

 

Selwyn

Correct for the stbd wing, but the underside of the port wing is clearly visible, and the inboard third is clearly a dark colour, possibly black. As to why, I don't know. Position is about right for invasion stripes, but there's no sign of them on the upper wing or rear fuselage, so why paint them out on the underwing with black?. The photo can be dated to 22 August 1944 and location in the Barents Sea due to it showing HMS Nabob after being torpedoed by U-354, she eventually made it back to Scapa Floe and was repaired.