[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Re: Profile and absence of main float struts and biplane upper wing match SO3C only
As seen in this photo: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=797
A portion of the filet of the vertical stabilizer is still visible with the rear canopy in the forward position. Further, there is a definite notched appearance in the rear fuselage.
In the under-tow photo, the filet is not visible and there is no notch in rear fuselage. The rear fuselage does appear to have a turtle deck.
As for the float structs not visible, they were masked by the wing float such as in this photo: http://www.histomin.com/Aviation/Classic%20Aircraft%20Between%20the%20Wars/Curtiss%20SOC-3%20Seagull/gpclassics%20Curtiss%20SOC-3.htm
Readily available illustrations of SO3Cís match the photo of Chicago being towed on 30 January. Since youíre going by this photo, then you also see on it the absence of struts on the aircraft aboard Chicago , when those struts are very visible on the towing cruiser in the same photo. Same for the biplane upper wing. Those absences disqualify Chicago ís aircraft as SOC Seagull. You know this.
The vertical stabilizer resembled that of the SOC rather than the SO3C in the under-tow pix.
A small part of the filet would still be visible on the vertical stabilizer even with the aft canopy in the forward position. It is not visible in the pix.
You're aware that if the SO3C aft cockpit canopy was open, its profile matches the photo of USS Chicago being towed. The SOC had conspicuous struts from her main float that are visibly not in the photo.
What is your source for the date of your photo of the cruiser with the SOC Seagull biplane on the catapult?
The image crops I posted above were dated the 29th of January and the 30th of January.
Here are a couple of additional shots-
Here we see Chicago down by the stern and coming under tow from the Louisville
Here is the full size image cropped
Here is another crop of previous image but with some adjustments made to hopefully bring out the details. They look to be SOC's based on the profile of the fuselage rising above the base of the tail fillet where as on the SO3C it was almost a flat profile. I belive that the upper wing is also visible meaning it was the Bi-plane SOC vs the Mono wing SO3C. That coupled with the profile of the tail just not seeming to be large enough to be that of that SO3C.
On PG 250 of Larkins' book, it is stated that SO3C's 4799, 4848 & 4862 were assigned to Chicago on 10/19/42. There is also a note in his text that "Length of assignment averaged only about two months". What is interesting is that Chicago would only have been just getting underway to repair her Savo damage as images dated 10/15/42 show her in drydock still with temporary bow repairs and it being a month later before it was completed. Seems odd to be assigning a new aircraft squadron to a ship that will be in the yard for another 2 months.
What are the dates of your photos?
SteelNavy.Com Home Page