Jump to content

VFA-131 Wildcats history help


Recommended Posts

Hello all, 

A question for the hornet mafia. I am trying to skin the first version of the F/A-18c VFA-131 had. However…
 

According to most sources I can find VFA-131 got their Cs in late 1990 and were aboard the Ike during 91-92, possible 93 They then moved to the George Washington in early 94. 
 

The issue is all the photographs I can find online from the 91-92 period show 131 with George Washington written on their tails. Even though the captions suggest they are on the Ike. 
 

Can anyone more knowledgeable confirm if indeed they were deployed on the Ike but had Washington written on the tail? Perhaps it was due to the gulf war they had an urgent deployment and no time to correct the markings? 
 

Thanks!


Edited by roobarbjapan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found two here. Ctrl+F for 1990. The overall livery is exactly the same as the Washington deployment, just with different ship name (same font and placement) and it appears the "NAVY" mark is in white. These are As, though. Everything after these pictures is Cs on the Washington. The Washington's first deployment was 1994, so it's impossible for them to have been deployed on her in 91-92 (the Washington wasn't even comissioned until 92). The picture captions claiming that time period are wrong.

VFA-131-Wildcats-132.jpg

VFA-131-Wildcats-134.jpg

 


Edited by Nealius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nealius said:

Found two here. Ctrl+F for 1990. The overall livery is exactly the same as the Washington deployment, just with different ship name (same font and placement) and it appears the "NAVY" mark is in white.

VFA-131-Wildcats-132.jpg

VFA-131-Wildcats-134.jpg

 

OP, keep in mind that these photos are of F/A-18A's aboard the Ike.

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I’ve seen these pictures. Those are As on the Ike on the 90 cruise. I have a feeling when they got the Cs they were painted for the Washington but either the Washington was delayed going to sea by literally years or the gulf war had something to do with it. 🤔

 

For example this picture is labeled as 92 on the Ike but they are clearly marked Washington. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/S-3B_Viking_of_VS-31_in_flight_with_VFA-131_F-18C_Hornets_1992.JPEG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington wasn't operational during the Gulf War. Shakedown cruise in 92, maiden voyage in 94. Assuming they had a full complement on board, and assuming the picture caption is correct, that image could be from the 92 Shakedown cruise. Else it's from 94 and someone misdated it.

Jet 403 with that BuNo was on both Ike's 91-92 deployment and Washington's 94 deployment, but I cannot find a list of BuNos for the Shakedown cruise.

Did find this:

Quote

In September 1992 CVW-7 initially embarked in USS George Washington for a weapons system shakedown.

 


Edited by Nealius
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


That’s interesting. It could be that the available media is from that 92 shakedown, hence the markings. 
 

Now the question is, would I be correct in giving the skin Ike names to represent the 91-92 cruise 🤔

29 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Washington wasn't operational during the Gulf War. Shakedown cruise in 92, maiden voyage in 94. Assuming they had a full complement on board, and assuming the picture caption is correct, that image could be from the 92 Shakedown cruise. Else it's from 94 and someone misdated it.

Jet 403 with that BuNo was on both Ike's 91-92 deployment and Washington's 94 deployment, but I cannot find a list of BuNos for the Shakedown cruise.

Did find this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tail flash and overall scheme didn't really change between 1990 in the Alphas and the 1992 Charlie media we have, so I assume it would be accurate enough to simply replace the ship name. At that time I'm not sure the Navy had the budget to do complete repaints.


Edited by Nealius
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...