Solomons-based Corsairs - open cockpit flying?

[Franek Grabowski]

Well, I am not sure what the fuss is about? Wade put his sketch here to get some comments and improve his work, otherwise why he would need to do that?
Concerning artistic licence, yes, obviously it is not always possible to keep painting fully realistic, but the general rule is way off any realism (no pun at Wade). Have a look at original Memphis Belle movie and distance between bombers. Have a look at combat reports (not the special selection of guncam films) and the distance to the target. If reality is 250 meters, artistic licence would be 100 meters but not 10 meters.
Finally, about the weather, Wade, I would really suggest to ask a veteran about the sketch. The comments may vary from it was as it is, through clouds were distinctive in their lighting to I have never seen clouds in Salomons, but they always will be the comments from a man who was there.

[chicoartist]

From this (for direct comparison) ...



After one aborted attempt, I reset the DG and am now much happier with the "direction" this one is taking.

The background of the first (6-inches wide) color study was in a dominant lower key, to help "pop" the Corsair, but I just didn't like it (I'm trying to be the best Wade Meyers, not the second-best Bill Phillips!), so I grabbed a 9 x 12 canvas panel I had primed a while back, used the 9" side as the width, and cut off the "height" at the same aspect ratio as the final planned 24 x 32 canvas.

This study is 6.75 x 9 inches, oil on panel. I'm counting on the red surrounds to the national insignia (and the red prop hub) to add a bit of color. Notice that the wing insignia is sans red surround. I'm going to let the paint dry a wee bit before I smear some red in there.

The final art will have both canopies OPEN (I think). I hope to get a bit of "driver" in there with his sleeves wind-whipped.

It's tough for me to do, but these smallest of studies are part of the "weeding-out" process - thank goodness I didn't invest much time in the original (aborted) oil study - best to figure things out before I'm too committed . . . thus, the emphasis here is on basic color and value - not detail. The best way to avoid getting too involved with detail is to make them quite small:



Wade

[JACK COOK]

re: the tape. There's no such thing has a sure thing!

[R Leonard]

Tape? We don' need no steekin' tape.

Rich

[chicoartist]

Several places in my Corsair-specific refs mention that they generally used "medical tape", and that it was pretty much changed daily, so any combination of "white striping", or lack thereof, is possible.

Same for the wing tanks -- I used to think those were some kind of "dive stripes", but like the fuselage tank it's a poor-man's sealant for the 60 some-odd gallon integral wing tanks unique to the -1 and so-called -1A.

Jack's color shot above looks, to me, like they've had MAJOR leakage all over the bottom of that closest wing. I've flown light aircraft that have had minor fuel leaks - closest I've come yet to "puking" - the smell will get to you if you're anywhere near the source.

I don't know if the Corsair jocks could smell the fumes, but if they could, I know it wasn't a pleasant experience!

BTW, anybody out there seen any reason why the fuel cells leaked so badly in the -1s? Seems like they would have figured out by then how to not have that problem ...

Wade

[R Leonard]

Well, now I have to ask, in F4Us, to exactly what wing tanks are you referring.

Rich

[chicoartist]

The -1s and -1As had built-in (internal) wing tanks of around 60 gallons - one in each wing. They were located just forward of and outboard of the gun bays. Look carefully at your refs - you can see the raised "handle" for the filler cap on both wings. So, the -1s and -1As had built-in fuselage and wing tanks, there being no provision for "drop tanks", as you know.

The -1D, IIRC (not sure about the -1C at the moment -- not near my refs) did away with the built-in/internal wing tanks; the -1D introduced the wing pylons. I can only assume that they figured that they didn't need provision for drop tanks AND built-in wing tanks.

I'm still trying to find a diagram of the actual size/shape/width of the -1s integral wing tanks ... I see the caps, and I see the tape sometimes covering seams like on the fuselage tank, but the caps are located outside (inboard, IIRC) of the taped seams ... not that it matters to my art (I'm not BUILDING a real Corsair!), but I do get curious about such things!

Wade

[Ruy Horta]

Where do does "studies" end up?

Just curious

[chicoartist]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Where do does "studies" end up?

Thanks for asking!

The answer is: hopefully on a distinguished collector's wall!

This piece will be available if anybody's interested. The small pencil study above will be as well. These smaller pieces look nice once professionally framed.

Email me directly at: chicoartist (at) yahoo.com for details. Put the @ symbol in the appropriate place.

Wade

[R Leonard]

Well, live and learn, I guess. I knew the XF4U-1 had provision for wing tanks along the wings' leading edge outboard of the fold. These were eliminated with the addition of the two additional .50 cal. machine guns per wing and their requisite ammunition storage in the production F4U-1’s (also when the internal fuselage tank size was increased). Then, of course, on the -1’s there was the fabric covered areas out board of the gun and ammunition compartments. Where were these tanks located?