Historical authenticity... is it important to you?

[lmritger]

This isn't a poll, but more of an open discussion. I've gone on record over on the FlyPast board as saying that the paint job applied to Tom Blair's new FlugWerk 190 looks like crap, but the majority of posters on that board do not seem bothered by the completely inaccurate paint job.

Standing in stark contrast to that approach is the work of our own Gary Austin, who is poring over old books and documents trying to make a proper, authentic B-24A out of "Diamond Lil". We've also got tons of other recent restorations which have gone that extra mile to make sure the aircraft is as close to correct as possible. Even Harold Kindesvatter (sp?) did his level best to make his Buchon look like a proper mid-1944 Reichs Defense Bf 109G from JG 27.

So what say you, WIXers? When you see a warbird or a recreation, are you disappointed if it's in an inaccurate scheme?

Lynn

[Jerry O'Neill]

Yes!
Jerry

[Ollie]

If it looks good, why not?

My Focke-Wulf is dressed up like a 190, our Harvard is disguised as a Typhoon and our T-34 wears RCN colours.

Are those paint schemes crap? Nope. Are we happy with them? Yeap.

Paint it pink if you want, it's yours.

[Edward Soye]

Lynn,

I can appreciate that private owners put up big bucks to own these planes can ultimately do with them as they wish. When it comes to a museum or other volunteer organization owning them, then there many be a limit to how authentic a restoration can be in fine detail due to resources of time and money.

When it comes to paint schemes I think its one of the relatively easier things to get right. Around the museum I work at our Fokker Triplane wore inaccurate colours for decades and it always bothered me. So when it came time for a new paint/fabric job I decided that I should step up and take a lead on the project so we end up with something suitably authentic. I, along with another like minded fellow, essentially recovered and repainted the bird, and along the way did the research and contacted the right people in the field to come to some consensus of what represents an authentic paint scheme based on surviving records/photographs/accounts.

So I guess that says how strongly I feel about trying to get a paint job "right" in terms of historical detail. However, like I said at the beginning I also understand that the ultimate in authenticity isn't always practical or what an owner is looking for.

One other note, I suppose to be bothered by an inaccurate scheme you have to know its wrong. Heck I don't know enough about WWII German schemes to know the 190 was wrong, but now that you've brought it up it irks me a bit and I'm going to have to look into it. So that raises the question of how much owners/operators of historic aircraft have a role in education. This typically is understood to be a role of museums who operate/display old planes, but it doesn't seem appropriate to saddle private owners with this responsibility if they don't wish to take it on - fortunately many do!

Long story short, I'd like to see all these planes in historically accurate schemes!

Cheers

Edward

[retroaviation]

As far as our project with AM927 goes, Edward just hit the nail on the head in his post when he said, "When it comes to a museum or other volunteer organization owning them, then there may be a limit to how authentic a restoration can be in fine detail due to resources of time and money."

That is exactly the case with my daily work here. I try very hard to guide myself and our volunteers to put the Liberator back in it's original B-24A configuration. However, there are simply some items that cannot be fabricated here, whether it be time or money related. We often times have to modify an original part in order to make our daily operation safer or more user friendly than the way the factory designed it. Consolidated only figured on one way passengers weighing on the average of the 250-500 pound range. They didn't care one bit about the comfort of tourists and how to move them in and out of the airplane with ease. On the items that cannot be duplicated to it's original form, I go by an old saying that y'all have heard me mention before......."If it's not original, trick people into thinking it is." The point being that even if I'm modifying a certain item, I try to give it the most original "look" as possible. Sometimes it works out all right, other times it doesn't.

Just my two cents worth,
Gary

[Michel Lemieux]

Both are correct.

And AOK in my book.

And both look awesome in the sky anyway

Purely the choice of the owner. Period

Reality is, it's their money at the end of the day.

Case to the point, ( Like Ollie said ) Red Bull.

However, I do have a personal feeling / liking for proper historical markings......WITHOUT the glossy paint

My 2 Canadian cents anyway.

[Ollie]

Ok then Michel, no ride in the Focke for you!

I always liked the civilian paint jobs. Onmark A-26's and Cavalier P-51's I think were nice. Everyone has their own taste. Invasion stripes are on everything. I'm just happy to see them fly and thanks to the owners who keep them going. I would rather see a bad paint job flying then an accurate paint job in a museum.

Steve

[EDowning]

Check out the following thread....

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 62&start=0

We had a lot of discussion on this sometime back and some very thoughtful posts gave much perspective to this issue.

[Edward Soye]

Eric,

Thanks for the link. In my first comment on the subject I made a nod to owners like you who put so much into their airplane but probably didn't really acknowledge the value of that contribution enough. I was more trying to get across my own view on what I’d probably do with my own airplane (should I ever be fortunate enough to get one) and what I’d like to see done in the organizations I’m involved with.

That being said, regardless of the paint scheme, people like you who put in the time, effort and resources to keep these things flying and show them to the public deserve huge credit. Sorry if that didn't come through on the first go.

So to you and all the other owner/operators out there - thanks.

Sincerely

Edward

[Randy Haskin]

I'd rather see an inaccurate scheme flying than an accurate one on the ground.

[vernicator]

I know the scope of this thread is all about flying warbirds and the paint they wear but...

Ever since this CF-5 went up beside highway 401 near CFB Trenton in Ontario, Canada I can't help but cringe when I see it. At no time did a single seat CF-116 ever wear the silver paint scheme they applied on this aircraft. This was the paint scheme reserved for the two seater CF-116D's. It seems mind boggling that a museum would go through so much effort to make such a stunning display (even the nav lights get turned on at night) only to have it be so historically off the mark. Would it have killed them to do a little more research?

Here's a link to the picture:

http://www.roadsideattractions.ca/popfiles/trentoncf5.htm

[K5DH]

I always prefer historically accurate markings on an operational warbird, but I can still appreciate an inaccurate military-looking paint job, or in some cases, even some tastefully done civilian livery. Some jets look really sharp in civilian paint. I do feel that static-only warbirds should be painted accurately, unless there's some valid reason for doing otherwise, such as with a famous postwar air racer or a ship that was used by a civilian pilot for some record-setting flight.

Restoring a vintage aircraft with a high degree of historical accuracy is not always possible due to limitations on budget, manpower, parts availability, and so on. When I'm giving tours of the B-17 and a guest points out things that need work or are not "wartime correct", I politely offer them the opportunity to donate the money, labor, and parts to make it "right". That usually stops their criticism dead in its tracks. Once in a while, we do get a new volunteer that way!

[Chicoartist]

Well, my take is that it's the first order of business to get the thing in the air. I think we all can agree on that.

Once that's done, if you're going for a military scheme it takes almost the same amount of effort and cost and cans of paint to paint it inaccurately as picking out a nice "accurate" scheme and doing it that way ... why bother doing it "wrong" if you're going for a military paint scheme? If you're intent is obviously a sharp civil scheme, as with the nice Mustang paint jobs of years past, then go for it ... some of those P-51s were very attractive!

You can't tell me good reference info these days is hard to find, or that historians like me won't go out of our way to help - I've done so for a recent Mustang restoration. I have no idea (yet) if they used my info or not, but I got an email a while back from a prominent restorer, and I was asked about accurate 4th FG schemes. I supplied "best known" info and let them decide - but the point is if paint is applied, it takes little to no additional effort to "do it right".

I've seen the shots of the Duxford Fw 190 ... hell, it looks good to me, and I haven't researched it, but if the markings are "inaccurate" ... why? I have a hard time believing a person who obviously appreciates these machines would put that much money on the table to obtain a rare (even if it's "new-build") plane, just to "make up" markings (if that's what they did).

And, forget any potentially "significant cost" of carefully applying the paint "perfectly" and "accurately" ... if you can afford the ride these days, a more costly paint job shouldn't faze you. It's not a zero-sum game: you can have a beautiful machine painted accurately with hardly any bother.

Hey, sure, I understand and appreciate the fact that you paid for it with hard-earned dollars out of your pocket, and the machine is your property to do as you wish, and at least for now you can paint it any way you like, but don't expect me to oooh and ahhh when you taxi by ... if that means anything to you.

Wade

Last edited by Chicoartist on Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[RickH]

If an aircraft is privately owned then its up to the man paying the bills how he's going to paint it.

However, if an organization is holding themselves out to be an educational effort then they owe it to the people they are allegedly educating to get it right. Otherwise they are just passing on myths and inaccuracies.

Much like the post on the Mauler thread, why is that Mauler wearing that early insignia with the meatball ?