JayW

Soon, I will post some significant progress on the aft fuselage. I await some long overdue 3D print parts for the tail wheel bay, and I may wait to update until I get those parts and prepare and install them. In the mean time, I am hand wringing a bit on the antenna masts. First an abbreviated history of antenna masts for F4U-1A aircraft (not the birdcage versions), as I understand it: All aircraft were manufactured with a tall antenna mast just aft of the engine accessories compartment, about 12 inches right of the aircraft centerline. It appears to me the sole purpose of the mast was for attachment of the long aerial antenna that extended from the mast to the top of the fin, and then back down to the aft fuselage. This mast was notorious for breaking off, and many versions were designed, apparently none completely fixing the problem. A picture: Late in the -1A production run, another tall mast antenna was added aft of the sliding canopy on or near the aircraft centerline on top of the "turtle deck" (not to replace the forward mast, but in addition to). This mast is associated with a change in radio equipment, I believe introduction of VHF equipment as opposed to MHF, and unlike the forward mast, appears to be an actual antenna. And apparently this aft mast had a propensity to break off as well. A pic: Now, I have looked at every picture of VF-17 F4U-1A's I can find, and NONE of those aircraft have the forward mast. There must have been a field modification kit that removed it and supplied a patch for the remaining hole in the fuselage panel. So far so good - my #17 will not get the forward mast. I'd love to know what the patch looks like.... What I have found in my VF-17 search is the presence of the aft mast. Many many, but not all, VF-17 aircraft have the aft mast. And, most if not all of those aircraft were manufactured BEFORE that mast was incorporated into the production lines at Vought. So that mast and it's radio equipment were retrofitted by some sort of field modification kit. Something that created a hole on top of the fuselage aft of the canopy, and added support bracketry to the Sta 218 bulkhead (which comprised the aft wall of the radio compartment behind the pilot seat an seat armor), that in addition to whatever wiring was added for the new radio receivers and transmitters, etc. Even that picture showing VF-17 and the carrier going through the Panama Canal shows (although not very clearly) at least some of the aircraft with aft masts and not forward masts. So they were there early on: And I found more. Many VF-17 aircraft have neither the forward nor the aft mast. The aft mast has been replaced by a "whip" antenna, apparently as a result of those mast breakage issues. The few pictures I have of Hedrick's #17 appear to show the absence of that aft antenna and in its stead a "whip antenna". It is this "whip" antenna I am now interested in. There is no Vought production drawing that shows it, so it must be another field modification. For the life of me I cannot find any definition of it, except fuzzy pictures from relatively far away. Look at this picture of Hedrick's plane: With all the branch debris in the background it is hard to tell, but I think there is a whip antenna there. Certainly there is no mast. Here, #29 is shown, clearly with a whip antenna: Anybody have any information on a "whip antenna" for the F4U, where I can model something accurate? If not, I might just have to add the aft mast. At least I know what it looks like.

1/24 scale. Yes, a very big Mossie. By my calculation it will have a 27 inch wing span. That is right at the wing span of my 1/18 P-47, and that is one large wing span!!! Looking forward to your build (quite a departure from a pure scratch build F8F). BTW - the box picture seems to show the Amiens Prison Raid (Operation Jericho).

Oddly, my nephew in Montgomery Alabama, of all my offspring and those once removed, the one I would not suspect to have any modeling interest, actually has developed an interest. That along with being blown away by the amazing historical events of WW2 especially bold secret missions including those involving aircraft (like Doolittile raid, Amiens Prison raid, Dambuster raids). So his Mom (my sister) consulted me as to what "really good" model to get for him for Christmas, and as a result he will receive the 1/32 Tamiya Mosquito. She was shocked by the price, so I am a bit in the dog house. That will disappear when that present is opened up on Christmas day.

You sir are a superstar. Another great hit coming. I was very pleased to follow along as you did that build.

I could not find anywhere where that was claimed. Horizontal velocity, Corsair wins but not by very much. Roll rate, Corsair wins hands down (Hellcat ailerons had to fight a deep wing dihedral, due to ground clearance for its aft and down sweeping wing fold - I have been told). Outside of that, the two aircraft had virtually identical performance in every way. Not surprising - gross weight nearly identical, engine and props virtually identical, wing span, loading nearly identical. There are notable differences, but climb rate doesn't appear to one of them. Suitability for carrier deck operations - Hellcat wins every time. The long nose of the Corsair due to its large fuselage fuel tank between the engine and cockpit (the Hellcat's internal tank was further aft, although I am not very familiar with its configuration) did not do it well when it came to forward visibility. Both aircraft, and their well trained pilots, and shear numbers, were very bad news for the Japanese Navy and Air forces. I am not sure what the need was for the Bearcat at that time. Perhaps our intell knew of Japanese aircraft on the drawing board that would leapfrog the Hellcats' and Corsairs' performance.... I guess same could be said for the P-51H, which was to the P-51D in many ways what the Bearcat was to the Hellcat. Neither came on soon enough to participate meaningfully in WW2, but were both slimmed down faster and more maneuverable versions of their excellent predecessors. Then came the jets!

Chuck - first time I have ever followed a jet build. And I thought I knew something about F-16's....not a thing. The light configuration is fascinating. For some reason, I find configuration changes on aircraft as they evolve, and modelling of same, very interesting. I like getting it right. So do you, obviously. Landing gear are among my favorite subjects, at least in large scales. In smaller scales, well they just get very challenging! Especially the torque links. Your repair skills (I have seen them in action in other builds you have done) are remarkable. Pretty sure your gear are going to look like shrink ray real deals.

That was a fun article. And I learned alot about the Bearcat. Mostly a fleet defense aircraft - climb up very fast, shoot some enemy down, and come back down and hit the deck.

I'll second that!

Yeah - all that stuff in the dome is for prop pitch mechanism. So the next question would be how does the Aeroproducts prop system control prop pitch.

Hey Jim - I never could figure out why the bearcat (and the Skyraider) didn't have domes on their prop hubs. Got any idea?

Man Gaz - that is just an evil looking fighter! It's got the look and you made it happen (and quickly I might add).

I look at that collection of dozens of models, and then I look at my 1/18 P-38, where I do not own a piece of furniture, or a shelf, large enough for it. It alone swamps any surface I put it on! I am doing the wrong scale! Pretty sure the folks making 1/32 4-engine bombers have a similar problem. That Lancaster.....wow. I still have to remind myself that you have 100% scratch built this Bearcat. Bravo!

Jim - do you have your own printer? If so I have about a hundred questions for you.

WRT scuffing - maybe it's the hot mess I created on my Corsair, but it looks to me like there is plenty of weathering and scuffing, but no real damage to the finish. There just had to be some scraped off paint. I know you didn't do the hairspray thing, but perhaps some silver pencil in addition to scuffing? I'd probably do a terrible job of that, but I'll bet you could do better if attempted. That said - super closeups reveal too much. I am sure this 109 looks great as is, from more normal viewing.

Matt - would have loved to do that. But the smallest scale I could find was 1/12, and it was just too large.