Where are they now?

Great period article Harald, I wonder if Black6 is in any of those pics?

Yes, it is. Since posting the article, I’ve learned that the 109G is, indeed, Black 6. I wonder if any of the other aircraft pictured in the article are still extant. Does a Henschel Hs129 survive?

Harald

From Tuskegee Airman Alexander Jefferson’s book “Red Tail Captured, Red Tail Free,”

– Most missions of the 332nd Fighter Group were bomber escort, but some were strafing missions.
– To match groundspeed, the fighters would zigzag back and forth over the bombers. They escorted both B-17s and B-24s: “We much preferred B-24s because the B-17s were slower, and we had to stay with them longer, which meant we used too much of our precious fuel.”
– On a mission to a distant target like Ploesti, there would be a prearranged rendezvous point where one fighter group would hand off to another. On two occasions Jefferson had to land and refuel on the island of Vis off the coast of Yugoslavia when the second fighter group showed up late, leaving him with insufficient fuel to return to base.

He describes Vis as a real boneyard, as many damaged aircraft also landed there. I wonder if any wrecks remain?.

Harald

The Hellcat had a range at 15,000 ft and 400 gallons of fuel of around 1100 miles and the Corsair at cruise and 536 gallons of fuel could go 2100 miles at 5,000 ft (obviously not the operating height of the bombers for either plane) but the RANGE was there in some cases…

I suspect those numbers are for aircraft operating without drop tanks, correct? To be successful in the Pacific, a fighter needed to have decent range. After all, safe landing spots, even emergency ones, would be few and far between. Also, I expect that bomber escort duty, as opposed to just interceptor duty, would have been factored into the design criteria right from the start. Compared to the land-based European fighters, the Lightning, Corsair, and Hellcat all had superior range. Likewise, if I can believe William Green, all the modern Japanese fighters, i.e., those with closed canopies and retractable gear, also had service ranges on the order of 1000 miles.

I hadn’t really thought of the political aspects of the question (Army vs. Navy, etc.), though that certainly would have come into play. And the logistics of supporting another type of aircraft could have been presented as an argument against if one were looking for same. Finally, I suppose the US Navy needed all the Hellcats they could get in the Pacific. It is interesting to speculate, though, how the Hellcat would have performed in the ETO. The Mustang was faster, to be sure, but was the Hellcat more maneuverable, given the influence of the Japanese it was created to oppose? BTW, I did check the Fleet Air Arm Archive website, which confirms that British Hellcats from 800 Squadron downed an Fw-190 and two Bf-109Gs over Norway on May 8, 1944, during an attack on the Tirpitz. One Hellcat was lost to the Luftwaffe and one to AA fire.

For the one year plus that I have been lurking on this forum, I have been struck by how rarely the Hellcat comes up in discussion. The Corsair has a couple of champions, and with this being a UK-based forum, discussions about the ETO naturally predominate, but there has been significantly more discussion about the Brewster Buffalo, of all things, than about the Hellcat! It just seems strange to me, considering the Hellcat’s large numbers and outstanding combat record.

Harald

The camouflage is certainly unlike anything that might have participated in the Pearl Harbor attack. From everything I have read, the JNAF did not start using “land-based” camouflage until they had essentially run out of aircraft carriers. As the war progressed, however, I believe that a lot of camouflage was applied in the field, in which case there would certainly have been varying degrees of care and artistry in the application, and not a lot of uniformity from one airplane or one unit to the next. Here is what a fellow named Richard M. Bueschel had to say in a booklet entitled “Japanese Aircraft Insignia, Camouflage and Markings” (1966):

“During the war years the coloration of Army aircraft went through a series of evolutionary changes. Most Army fighters serving in China in 1937/1942 were silver-grey or natural dural with insignia and markings providing bright touches to the monotone aircraft. Sand-and-spinach green and brown camouflage with sky blue or light grey undersurfaces; all separated by blue lines, appeared on some bombers in 1938/39. Many of the Army aircraft were still in natural finish at the time of Pearl Harbor and remained so until replaced by newer types. As the scope of JAAF operations expanded throughout Asia and the Pacific various types of camouflage were adopted. The early forms used in 1941 and 1942 consisted of olive upper surfaces and natural dural, light grey or light blue undersurfaces. In late 1942 and 1943 a stippled or snake-weave form of camouflage was applied by spray painting light green, dark green, olive or brown in patches and snaky lines over natural dural. Undersides were left natural dural or sprayed light grey. Black or dark blue anti-glare panels were later added forward from the cockpit and yellow inboard leading edges were added for IFF identification. Most of the aircraft in JAAF use in the last year of the war again reverted to the solid drab upper surfaces with black anti-glare panels, natural undersurfaces and colored spinners, the latter usually red. A growing number were left in natural dural all-over with anti-glare panels and orange or yellow leading edges.”

Regarding JNAF aircraft, he had this to say: “Japanese naval aircraft underwent a fundamental change of mission during the Pacific War years, and the change was reflected in the colors and camouflage applied to these aircraft. When war began most JNAF aircraft were in the “Sea Colors” used in China consisting of black or blue and red cowling and vertical tail markings on natural dural or light gull grey aircraft. Some of the land based bombers and attack planes, such as the D1A2, G3M2, and G4M1 types made use of olive camouflage with light grey undersurfaces, but the fighters and carrier attack planes remained all dural. The exceptions to this rule were the float aircraft operating out of camouflaged inlets in the South Pacific which were painted sea blue or light olive with light blue or grey undersurfaces. After the battle of Midway, the JNAF fighters and attack aircraft were used more and more from land bases, until the standard JNAF dark green “Land Colors” and black radial cowlings were ultimately used on all Navy combat aircraft. In some cases dark green stippled camouflage was applied to “Zeke” land-based fighters. Under-surfaces were natural dural or sprayed light grey. This standard coloring appeared in 1942 and continued throughout the war. A natural dural cut-out was left on the fuselage just forward of the stabilizer to allow room for the stenciling of the serial number, makers name and aircraft type number in black on each side. Trainers, ordiginally painted a vivid orange/yellow, were also camouflaged in the same manner in the later years of the war.”

There is one photograph of an Oscar in stippled camouflage, but it is so poorly reproduced that I don’t think you would learn much if I scanned it.

Hope this helps.

Harald

To add to the above regarding PVA glue. Apparently they’re not generally suitable for guitar building as they have a tendency to creep over time. Not ideal on a wingspar, at a guess. Melv, comments?

I don’t know much about guitars, but I have been told by a cellist friend that the glue on a string instrument like a violin or cello is always weaker than the wood (think Stradivarius or Guarneri) so that if anything breaks, it is the glue joint, not the wood.

Harald

Love to see them, John