I'd like to drop in my two cents, for what it's worth.
There is a great subjectivity to each person's interpretation of history and that can be problematic in trying to leverage accuracy and presentation. Ask yourselves, just what is being accomplished by keeping these old aircraft flyable?
Warbirds (as in, flyable ones) are not exactly a shining example of historical accuracy. Military equipment has never had a reputation for being built to last, and warbird aircraft are no exception, yet we have airframes out there that have been flying now for over sixty years. So, we end up with massive engine modifications, inaccurate paint sprayed everywhere for corrosion control, and huge portions of equipment removed entirely just to save weight. Then, to top that off, in the interest of attracting paying customers, many warbirds have been modified to comfortably sit passengers - turning old aircraft into flying versions of a novelty festival ride. Think about how many B-17s out there have dummy turrets (or no turrets), contain extra seats added to and fro, and are sprayed from stem to stern green on the inside. Taigh Ramey and others who strive for maximum restoration (turrets, radios, etc.) are not the norm; at least, not yet.
When you look at these shiny birds objectively, it's hard not to conclude that the only really accurate aspect to them is that they fly. Granted, I'm not one of those who feel that their postwar lives are worthy of much rememberance - no matter how monotonous it may get, I don't think you overstate the importance of 60 million dead. No matter how beautiful they are and how cool they sound (they are and they do), we cannot forget that they are pieces of military equipment from a bygone era. That's just a difficult image to convey at an airshow.
I recall a history program where the presenter was chatting with a British Medieval historian: the presenter laughed as they practiced chopping melons and sticks with an executioner's axe. When the historian put a hog cadaver up on the block, the presenter got serious and mumbled, "this isn't fun anymore" as he tried in vain to chop through the bloody carcass.
Those of you who who have served know well that the military is not a pretty place, and those of you who have seen combat know that war is not something to be taken lightly. That said, I cannot help but agree with Mark in regard to the current "Madras Maiden" markings. It's not the ficticious name that I find disrespectful, but moreso, the lack of concern for the aircraft's origins. Paying tribute to veterans of the 1940s, noseart was applied that any layman would instantly identify as a modern-day Daisy Duke knockoff. Ficticious squadron codes aren't nice either, but that only means that you lose the opportunity to explain how such markings worked during the war. Yes, I realize that other warbirds have had similar treatments (Diamond Lil comes to mind) but that just means that they are equally as guilty.
If my post comes off as rude or mean spirited, I do apologize as that was not the intent. I will say, however, that Matt's suggestion of Shirley Jean was, in my opinion, rather ingenious - though I might suggest finding a Pathfinder aircraft, as it was my understanding that Chuckie originally carried a Mickey set.
Hoping to help, I found this pic of the Vargas pinup that Shirley Jean was based on:
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
