The Ship Model Forum

Section of the stern and bow not to far apart and the midships section of the ship 4 miles away from bow and stern,

VF-2 F4F-3 "F-5"March 8 2018 at 3:17 PM
Brandon S. Wood (Login BuNo02100)
HyperScale Forums


Sorry for this wall of text, but the F4F-3 found this week (along with the other aircraft) is one of my primary areas of research, or at least an off-shoot of it. I mainly work with Marine Aviation records for the early war years with a focus on F4F operations, but the overlap often allows me to indulge. Hopefully some of what I am posting will help others in the future as they try to unravel some of the questions they may have about the aircraft recently discovered. The information I have gathered over the years from the various archives in the D.C. area help supplement the seminal work by John B. Lundstrom covering naval fighter activities for the first six months of WW2.

For fans of early-war US naval aviation, the news of the discovery of the wreck of the U.S.S. Lexington (CV-2) was some of the most exciting news since the discovery of the U.S.S. Yorktown (CV-5) almost 20 years earlier. Not only had the remains of the carrier been located, but no less than 11 of her aircraft were found as well. The crystal clear images that soon started flooding our computer monitors and overwhelming many of us was almost too good to be true. Unlike aircraft aboard the three American carriers that took part in the Battle of Midway a month later, the aircraft aboard Lexington during the Battle of the Coral Sea were not as well documented. Photographic evidence was scarce, consisting primarily of long distance shots or poorly lit and exposed photographs that provided little in the way of detail. Due to this, historians, artists, modelers and enthusiasts were forced to rely on their own judgement and often faulty research when it came to depicting how aircraft from Lexington’s Air Group appeared during the desperate battle.

Part of the confusion as to how the aircraft appeared stems from the change in markings that were occurring at that time. Regulations related to markings are taken as gospel by some as to how an aircraft appeared at a specific moment in time, while others understand that is not always the case. Photos taken shortly before the attack on Pearl Harbor and early war photos of aircraft assigned to Lexington clearly demonstrate how her aircraft appeared the first few months prior to Coral Sea. The issue has been further confused by public relations photo shoots that occurred after the battle. One of the more well-known photos is that of Lt(j.g) John Leppla and John Liska, ARM2c from VS-2. This pilot/radio-gunner duo were credited with shooting down 5 enemy aircraft during the Battle of the Coral Sea and the need for photos of heroes to help boost the morale of the public has caused many scale modelers to incorrectly depict their aircraft for over 75 years. Posed with an SBD-3 repainted to look like their assigned aircraft, it carried a full side code (2-S-12), kill markings and the squadron insignia.

So, about that F4F-3. Photos of this aircraft literally took my breath away. Prior to their posting on the internet, I was somewhat sure of how most of the aircraft aboard Lexington were supposed to look. A short movie clip that is often included in documentaries, but wrongly attributed and not associated with the Battle of the Coral Sea shows VB-2’s SBD-3s with black side codes. I really hope we get a glimpse at a VB-2 SBD-3. Photos of VS-2 SBDs have been around for a while and indicate they carried white side codes, same thing for VT-2 and their TBDs. The removal of the squadron number was also a given, and not surprising since these three squadrons had been active participants in the combat zone and that had been one of the first markings associated with the pre-war regulations to go for security reasons. But that F4F-3, I would have never have imagined it was still carrying the markings of VF-3.

The fact that Lt Noel A. M. Gayler had been transferred to VF-2 before the battle has little to no bearing on the fact that the aircraft he was assigned while with VF-3, most likely for a public relations photo opportunity was the one found on the sea floor. It would not have "followed" him over to VF-2. Aviators flew what aircraft was available, not the one assigned to them in the squadron files for organizational purposes. Attempting to state that Gayler flew this aircraft on every mission in which his record was displayed on the fuselage is irresponsible at best. We may never know if he actually ever flew this specific aircraft, but he very well may have. The only thing that we can state, at this time, is that his name and record was applied to this aircraft. I understand the desire to tie a specific aircraft to a specific aviator, I attempt it all the time in my own research and work. But that has demonstrated to me time and time again that very few navy or Marine aviators flew the same or their assigned aircraft on a regular basis in the early part of the war which is my primary subject area. Stating that Gayler flew this specific aircraft on the missions he had recorded on the fuselage of “F-5” clouds the historical record and will result in errors by others at a later date, regardless of their discipline, be it scale modeling or illustrator.

To further confuse the issue, we know that the F4F-3 that was marked as “F-5” and assigned to VF-3 during February 1942 was lost 4 March 1942 as it was being ferried over to VF-42. I know that it has been posted that it is BuNo 4009, which carried the side code “F-5” for a while, but it is not the F4F-3 marked “F-5” sitting on the bottom of the Coral Sea today. Until we know whether photos of the vertical stab and rudder were taken, we may never know the exact Bureau Number of this aircraft, only a range based upon the official navy loss list, aircraft history cards, and characteristics of the aircraft itself. Further adding to the possible confusion is that the induvial aircraft number (5) appears to be applied over then fresh paint covering up its previous number.

So why does an aircraft assigned to VF-2 carry markings from VF-3? Time and necessity. When the war started, VF-2 was still flying the Brewster F2A-3, the only navy squadron still saddled with the type. In order to replace the F2As with F4F-3s as quickly as possible and provide a reserve for the other squadrons, the Marine Corps fighter squadrons were stripped of their F4F-3s and VF-2 was put ashore in Hawaii to train on the new type after they arrived. While they were ashore, VF-3 took their place (and glory) when Lexington was in the South Pacific. When Lexington returned to Pearl Harbor, VF-2 resumed its place in the Lexington Air Group but several events occurred before they made their way to the Coral Sea.

When VF-2 was assigned F4F-3s, they received the F4F-3A model. Equipped with a Pratt and Whitney R-1830-90 engine and single stage supercharger, these aircraft had been ordered by Greece but taken over by the navy when that country was overrun by Nazi Germany in 1941. Lacking the higher altitude performance of the F4F-3s equipped with the R-1830-76/86 with two-stage superchargers, it was considered inferior to the standard F4F-3. When VF-3 returned to Hawaii in April, they turned in their F4F-3s and received new F4F-4s. The F4F-3s previously assigned to VF-3 were then transferred to VMF-212 which was preparing to deploy to the South Pacific and was still flying F2A-3s. Just two/three days after receiving the F4F-3s from VF-3 though, VMF-212 was ordered to swap with VF-2 so the navy squadron would have the better aircraft.

Assigned to VMF-212 for only a few days, there was not enough time to repaint the markings on the aircraft. With the need to get underway, the few days VF-2 had after receiving the F4F-3s from VMF-212 resulted in at least one F4F-3 still wearing its VF-3 markings. Were all of them still carrying these markings, I can not say and proposing it would only be a guess, albeit a good one. For those that are interested, VMF-212 took several F4F-3As to the South Pacific (New Caledonia and Efate to be exact) still wearing VF-2 markings. How’s that for confusion?

I am looking forward, as are many of you to more photos and if the BuNo of “F-5” can be verified, we can then start matching up its actual war record. Good times my friends.
Respectfully,
Brandon S. Wood

James - I added the photos. These are incredible. As someone noted in the comment on Petrel's FB page, the paint on the shields for the 20mm outboard of the funnel has been stripped away from the heat - you can see the scorch marks on the shielding and the notes from the yard that were under the paint. Amazing.

I'm hoping that further images show the configuration of the island, especially the flag plot, and of the degaussing cable (or whatever is left of it).

Is it just me or is the flight deck side of the splinter shield (picture #2 from above) higher than the outboard side? See where it is folded down.

Wish they would post a pic that shows what the supporting structure under the forward 1.1 mg looks like.

Wish they would post a pic that shows what the supporting structure under the forward 1.1 mg looks like.

Is it just me or is the flight deck side of the splinter shield (picture #2 from above) higher than the outboard side? See where it is folded down.

So we are still left with nothing definitive but it seems the guesses and lucky pics here and there are what we have to live with. Still, it's more than what we had before so there is some progress even if it's only a little.
James

One thing I have wondered for some time is where did the idea of the 1.1" "cattle pens" shape come from.