Vought Kingfisher ‒ A veritable 'Salty Sea Dog'

[Toryu]

 

My groupbuild challenge will be this worn OS2U-3 Kingfisher. Doesn't it look like the proverbial 'Salty Sea Dog'? The background of floatplane No.3 is inconclusive. I found various suggestions in my references* -

–  According to Darling 2017 p.29 and Groves 2019 the photo above shows the aircraft being launched from the light cruiser USS Detroit (CL-8).
–  A different picture in Darling 2017 p.21 locates it at Kodiak, Alaska, while that same picture in Ethell/Bodie 1997 was alledgedly taken in the Aleutian Islands.
–  The caption of this colour profile by Richard J. Caruana in Darling 2017 claims that it was flown by Lt Steve Corneliussen of VCS-1 aboard USS Detroit in the Aleutians. Pilot name and squadron are questionable - all VCS had already been disbanded by December 1941 - as had the blue-gray/light gray colour scheme. We'll come to that later (see Frame 11).

 

 

After considering markings, historical circumstances and more pictures I concluded that No.3 operated in the Aleutians in late 1943 either as contingent of Cruiser Division One (Dana Bell here) which was active around Attu Island at that time, or as part of a VS-56 detachment from Kodiak, Alaska.

 

* REFERENCES
NAVY AIR COLORS VOL.1, DOLL / JACKSON / RILEY, CARROLLTON, 1983
THE OFFICIAL MONOGRAM US NAVY & MARINE CORPS AIRCRAFT COLOR GUIDE VOL.2, JOHN M. ELLIOTT, STURBRIDGE, 1989
OS2U KINGFISHER, IN ACTION NO.119, DON GREER / PERRY MANLEY, CARROLLTON, 1991
PACIFIC WAR EAGLES IN ORIGINAL COLOR, JEFFREY ETHELL / WARREN BODIE, FRONT ROYAL, 1997
US NAVY AIRCRAFT CAMOUFLAGE & MARKINGS 1940-1945, THOMAS E. DOLL, CARROLLTON, 2003
U.S. NAVY FLOATPLANES OF WORLD WAR II, IN ACTION NO.203, AL ADCOCK, CARROLLTON, 2006
VOUGHT OS2U KINGFISHER, AIRCRAFT PICTORIAL 3, DANA BELL, TUCSON, 2010
VOUGHT OS2U KINGFISHER, WARPAINT SERIES NO.111, KEV DARLING, BLETCHLEY, 2017
OS2U KINGFISHERS IN THE ALEUTIANS, JEFF GROVES, 2019  (https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/os2u-kingfishers-in-the-aleutians/)

 

 

Frame 1 ‒ Kit review

 

Monogram's 1967 product will be my third US Navy model for a recent groupbuild after the SB2U-3 Vindicator (Bomber/Strike/Ground Attack GB - here) and the F4F-3 Wildcat (Revell-Monogram Classic GB - here). It's still the only Kingfisher in quarterscale. My kit comes in the 1999 Revell Monogram boxing.

 

 

Let's start with comparing the mouldings to a scale drawing: Main wing, stabilisers, wheels and prop have the correct size and shape. The fuselage appears 1.5 mm too short (the cockpit needs to move forward to correct this), and the EDO float is not deep enough.

 

Fortunately there are a couple of cooperative producers that have developed excellent upgrades, namely Cutting Edge, from whom I acquired most modification parts while they were still available, and Flightline Engineering. Separate floats, cowling and engine and a full resin cockpit will help improve my build.

 

 

Frame 2 ‒ Fuselage preparation

The first basic operations conditioned the Monogram fuselage for aftermarket treatment -

 

    
-  Cut away float
-  Sawed off cowling
-  Extended cockpit cutout forward by 1.5 mm and leveled humps in front
-  Removed pins etc. inside fuselage
-  Sanded incorrect panel lines
-  Drilled rigging holes
-  Added various small panels
-  Primed, riveted and merged fuselage halves

 

 

Frame 3 ‒ Pilot's cockpit

Interior photos in most publications are based on early Kingfisher versions or museum exhibits. My aftermarket items, therefore, don't in part represent combat equipment. All cockpit elements are from Cutting Edge (CEC 48300) and were modified as follows -

 

 (I wonder how the pilot found enough space in there to steer the aircraft...)

-  Drilled and thinned instrument panel
-  Opened bulkhead structure, removed headrest, bored and glazed round window
-  Different (= armoured) seat from spares box, added head armour and seat belts
-  Detailed cockpit with miscellaneous odds and ends
-  Painted interior with two shades of Dark Dull Green (cf. Vindicator chapter 3)

 

 

Frame 4 ‒ Observer's cockpit

On to the rear compartment -

 

 

-  Opened rear shelf frame structure
-  Repositioned life raft (already done here - initially moulded across the rack)
-  Added ammo boxes and rudder bars
-  Embellished gunner's swivel mount
-  Detailed machine gun (Air Master 48-029 gun barrel)

 

 

Frame 5 ‒ Fuselage assembly

Integrating the aftermarket parts was a real pleasure. All Cutting Edge cockpit components could be eased in through the open front which was much better than fixing them to one of the fuselage halves. With very minor adjustments they fit perfectly inside the fuselage.

 

I had Squadron 9542 aftermarket canopies in my stash but needed a second batch in order to segment the elements for which I bought the Falcon set No.7. Both products are identical and, after meticulous cutting, matched nicely. Other improvements -

 

 

Frame 6 ‒ Powerplant

The Pratt & Whitney R-985 came from Engine & Things, who are now closed for business. Not as delicate as a Vector replacement it can still be crafted into a decent looking engine. The cowling (unmindfully placed upside down on the left photo) and the bulkhead are Cutting Edge parts (CEC 48301).

 

-  Pruned cylindre heads to fit the cowling and added ignition harness and pushrods
-  Detailed the Monogram prop with pitch actuators and a front plate from the spares box
-  Installed surplus exhausts from my Vindicator kit (with sleeves cut from a plastic straw)
-  Reduced bulkhead rim depth to match original profile
-  Patched up cursory oil tank & cooler on the bulkhead (barely visible inside cowling)

 

 

Frame 7 ‒ Main float

As mentioned earlier the Monogram float (1) is too shallow and Cutting Edge's CEC 48317 aftermarket float (2) turned out to be frustratingly short. So I invested again and bought the excellent substitute from Flightline Engineering* (3). The 3D-printed part rests on two dozen support sticks that leave as many small dents on the bottom that I puttied and sanded.
 

* Many thanks to Mark Buchler from Flightline Engineering who sold me the float apart from the full Kingfisher set.

 

Removing the wire fairings (as per original photo of Kingfisher No.3) and drilling rigging holes made it easy to root the wires inside the hollow two-piece float. (Right picture after priming).

 

 

Frame 8 ‒ Wing preparation

It looks like the wing distinguishes itself as the most onerous piece of work. Monogram wants it to be put through the fuselage as a whole, but the slot is now partly obstructed by the cockpit. Cutting Edge provides a custom-made 'wing spar', a smart solution that still requires careful cutting and positioning -

More upper wing detail -

 

Frame 9 ‒ Landing flaps

Monogram's simplistic lower wing is moulded with integral control surfaces whereas the real Kingfisher had slotted flaps and ailerons with quite a gap to the main wing panel (2-3 mm in 1/48). Separating the parts with a cutter was hard physical work due to the thick granite-like plastic of 1967 (I didn't use the Dremel saw for fear of an uneven separation line).

 

           Note the Salmon-coloured primer showing through the light gray flap interior

 

Further improvements of the lower surface -

-  Wing interior lining (curved paper strip reinforced with white glue)
-  Landing flap internal structure and aileron ribs (inserted small shapes of robust paper)
-  Aileron leading edge contour (paper strip and filler)
-  Restored landing light (scratched)
-  Holes for wing tip struts in a corrected position

 

 

You will observe that I work a lot with (different grades of) paper and cardboard. In my inventory it's a ubiquitous, flexible material, quickly cut to shape and made resistive with glue.

 

... and again: scribing, priming, riveting

 

 

 

Frame 10 ‒ Auxiliary floats & Tailplane

Having the choice between the original Monogram wing tip floats and those from Cutting Edge I decided to stay with the kit's parts. Their shape is closer to the real thing, the surface rendition is a little more structured and the struts are easier to fix. Nevertheless, there remain a few issues to be corrected -

 

 

-  Struts separated to reduce spacing and match wing panel lines (see Frame 9)
-  Front struts shortened by 1.0 mm to get a tilted sit
-  Strut-float connection strengthened with a PE strip / metal pin
-  other modifications as shown in the graphic

 

 

The tailplane asked for a few actions, too -

 

-  Repaired a couple of sink marks on the underside of the stabilisers
-  Deepened hinge line and added hinges
-  Primed parts and scribed panel lines

 

 

Frame 11 ‒ Ready to paint?

Completed sub-assemblies laid out for the next step(s) -

 

 

We first need to unravel the mystery of which camouflage colours had been used on this Kingfisher. After careful study of the picture at the top of the post and the similarly weathered specimen below I chance the following assumptions -

 

 

–  All OS2U-3 were factory-painted in US Navy Blue Gray upper and non-specular Light Gray under surfaces as per Commander Aircraft, Battle Force directive of August 20, 1941 (Bell 2010).
–  Specification SR-2c of January 5, 1943 directed that all aircraft be painted in the new tri-color (actually four-color) camouflage scheme (Elliott 1989). This included aircraft already in service. Since my model is dated end of 1943, it was certainly subject to the change. This is further corroborated by the stars-and-bars with a red border implemented after June 28, 1943.
–  While the photos suggest that the underside was re-painted in non-specular Insignia White it can be conjectured whether the Blue Gray was actually replaced by non-specular Intermediate Blue on the fuselage sides and floats.
–  The top wing and float surfaces show a strongly degraded (glossy) Sea Blue coat which was either bleached by salt water and/or washed away so that the original Blue Gray re-appeared.

 

 

Frame 12 ‒ Adding colour

From theory to practice - I try to reproduce these variations using the following paints:

 

–  ColourCoats ACUS06 USN Blue Gray left over from my recent Wildcat build, slightly adjusted to represent intermediate blue or (a re-surfaced) blue-gray or a washed-out sea blue (thus covering all possibilities).
–  Mr. Color Spray 14 Navy Blue for the faded sea blue areas on the airframe top surfaces blended into blue gray.
–  Pigments for further contrast conforming with the photos.
–  Finally, a wash of white oil colour to make the sea dog saltier.

 

Here is the first couple of parts in the salty sea dog dress -

Treatment of the bottom half is less elaborate: Alternate coats of Mr. Color Spray 97 Light Gray and Tamiya TS27 Matt White, applied in thin layers over white primer until an off-white hue emerges.

 

Next I finished the wing's upper surface camouflage. Some colour detail and an oil wash will come later. The outrigger floats are not fixed yet.

Rummaging in my archive I found an unused 25+ year old Super Scale decal sheet (48-342) with the four over-sized stars I needed. My surprise and bliss were even greater when the decals behaved marvellously after so many years.

 

Now back to assembly...

 

 

Frame 13 ‒ Float meets fuselage

I was afraid that the unlucky number brought evil upon this critical phase in the build, but eventually it seems to have worked well. I spent considerable time and brainpower - if I ever had any - on preparing this step. What appeared so complicated?

 

(The half-finished beaching gear is just pushed in to steady the float for the picture)

 

(1)  Pin holes had to be drilled in the right places, and the float had to be firmly fixed and vertically adjusted. It helped that Flightline Engineering did an excellent job with calibrating the pylons to the curvature of the fuselage. I had arranged for the centre pylon to bear the main load of the connection via a metal pin with counter-ring (see Frame 7).

(2)  The rigging had to be entered into the equation. There were double wires on each side of the first two pylons. As on my biplanes I prefer structural (as against cosmetic) rigging. Firstly, real wires look more authentic than 'PE cables' for instance, and secondly they yield a stronger tie. Rigging holes and room for linking the wires were already factored in when I worked on the fuselage. The whole contraption is rock-solid now.

 

 

The sea blue top coat had to wait for the bulkhead which in turn had to wait until rigging was complete, which means we're coming to final assembly now.

 

 

Frame 14 ‒ From assembly to detail

 

Another long session later the main airframe components have been connected. They conformed surprisingly well and only small corrections were wanted. I went straight into some detail on the fuselage -

 

 

 

... and on the underside -

 

* Dana Bell spotted factory drawings that describe this rig as a target tow fitting. Since my Kingfisher operated in a war zone I consider it possible that the device was also used to tow sonobuoys for instance, stowed in two tubular containers behind the observer's position (see Frame 4).

 

... and a few more on top -

 

Finally - canopy, prop, pitot tube and antenna, and...

 

Frame 15 ‒ The salty sea dog is completed

 

 

 

Visit the gallery now.

 

[TonyOD]

We’ll just call you “Colombo”. Great pick.

[TonyOD]

Which kit/scale is it btw? 

[Toryu]

@TonyOD Monogram 1/48 plus extras.

[Bertie McBoatface]

Wat a marvellous photograph and what a challenge to reproduce the look of that airframe

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Toryu said:

After considering markings, historical circumstances and more pictures I concluded that No.3 operated in the Aleutians in late 1943 either as contingent of USS Detroit which was active around Attu Island at that time, or as part of a VS-56 detachment from Kodiak, Alaska.

If you are lucky perhaps @Dana Bell might know,   if this notification does not get a response you could PM him,  I seem to recall he has a soft spot for the Monogram Kingfisher.

The other member would be @Tailspin Turtle

1 hour ago, Toryu said:

The caption of this colour profile by Richard J. Caruana in Darling 2017 claims that it was flown by Lt Steve Corneliussen of VCS-1 aboard USS Detroit in the Aleutians. Pilot name and squadron are questionable - all VCS had already been disbanded in December 1941 - as is the blue-gray/light gray colour scheme. We'll come to that later.

pretty pictures but often quite unrelated to reality.

 

HTH

[Dana Bell]

Hi Toryu,

 

I've wondered about the attribution of that aircraft for a long time - while I don't know with certainty, I'm pretty sure we're looking at an aircraft from CruDiv One, VCS-1.  The division comprised Detroit, Raleigh, and Richmond and was stationed in Alaskan waters for most of 1943.  The photo shows our plane launching from an Omaha-class cruiser, but I can't tell which one.  Detroit was supposed to be flagship and should have carried aircraft 1 and 2 -- if this is Detroit, I don't have a clear explanation of why Aircraft 3 ws on board.

 

The scheme appears to be the Sea Blues and Intermediate Blue over the original Light Gray -- an odd but not impossible combination.  The national insignias still have the red borders (no blue repaint yet), and I can be confirm that this is the same aircraft as seen in the well known color shot in Alaska.

 

For fun, remember that this image was taken around the time field units complained that the blues were bleaching out of their Intermediate Blue paints leaving only red and white pigments - leaving a nice pink appearance.  With as much bleaching as we're seeing here, a pink and blue Kingfisher could be very attractive!

 

Cheers,

 

 

Dana

[Toryu]

@Dana Bell

 

Many thanks Dana! I guess you also read my PM sent to you a few days ago.

 

After intensive study of the picture(s) I, too, came to the conclusion that the camouflage shows a very bleached tricolor type with some of the original blue-gray peeking thru (e.g. about mid-length of the float). Same goes for the underside which I believe has been repainted white (weathered due to conditions), and here also some former light gray may have reappeared. Anyway, it will be a challenge to represent this properly. I've been thinking about a possible methodology ever since I selected this specific Kingfisher example.

 

More to follow as the build progresses. You're heartily invited to follow.

 

Thanks again and cheers, Michael

 

[Col.]

It certainly seems you've picked an interesting subject to reproduce by all accounts Michael

[Alan P]

Hard to imagine a saltier dog than this! Will be happy to see another good old Monogram kit rehabilitated 👍

[danbuoy]

I like the look of this. The Airfix Kingfisher is a kit I want to do at some point. Unusual to see a plane with the star and bar on both upper wings.

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, Toryu said:

Let's start with comparing the mouldings to a scale drawing:

By a person who  who is very prolific, and who I know to be, less than thorough in research due to the sheer volume of work produced, and so I'd be wary of these as a source.  

 

You might want to ask if there are reputable Kingfisher drawings, and also check against known dimensions. 

[Toryu]

@Troy Smith  Thanks Troy. I did check the scale drawing against official Vought measurements (Bell 2010). The print-out is 100% accurate in all major dimensions. It is a reproduction of line drawings issued by the Vought Retiree Club - http://www.vought.org/photo/html/pdown.html. Comparing with photos there are a number of small inaccuracies such as missing panel lines. But no kit, publication, decal sheet or model is ever perfect.

[Toryu]

I was researching more details in the last couple of weeks, and my Kingfisher is now on the catapult, ready to launch.

 

 

Cheers, Michael

[Col.]

Nice start Michael.

[flashlight]

Wow! What a start! I think that you'll be the one finishing the build after two weeks, right?

 

Best of luck with your project!

[Toryu]

On 10/01/2023 at 20:18, flashlight said:

I think that you'll be the one finishing the build after two weeks

 

Hardly so. What you see took about seven days (I started a couple of days early 🤫). My most optimistic guess oscillates around three months. Like on your pick there'll be an awful lot of cutting and too much small detail, not speaking of the terribly weathered camo. I should stop whining or else I get too demotivated...

[flashlight]

Don't worry, @Toryu, you will enjoy every minute of your workbench time seeing your build coming together wonderfully despite an awful lot of cutting, dealing with small details and a terribly weathered camo. Although your scale isn't mine, I'll watch your build to learn, and weathering is one of my weak points, i never get it right.

 

So keep up your good work, mate!

[Bertie McBoatface]

On 1/11/2023 at 3:38 PM, Toryu said:

there'll be an awful lot of cutting and too much small detail, not speaking of the terribly weathered camo

 

They will be the things that make this build worth spending months over. I predict a masterpiece.

[Col.]

That's looking great Michael

[flashlight]

Impressive work, Michael!

[TonyOD]

Great work on the Kingfisher. And that is a splendid little graphic you've come up with!

[Bertie McBoatface]

The cockpit looks amazing. Fitting it through the nose if a great idea.

[Toryu]

On 25/01/2023 at 17:34, TonyOD said:

And that is a splendid little graphic you've come up with!

 

Thanks Tony! I came up with this type of graphics in earlier GBs. They are not too time-consuming to produce and provide a nice overview of relevant aspects. There's always something to impove, no matter whether it's an old Monogram kit or a recent Eduard product. The more modern kits can easily betray you to assuming they're perfect, while with vintage ones you're generally more alert.

 

[Bertie McBoatface]

1 hour ago, Toryu said:

Working hard to move on.

 

Keep up the good work!