CAF Logo

[Obergrafeter]

That picture of the Spirit of St. Louis is sick. I love it! My point exactly. For those of you not in the CAF this idea was shall I say an unfunded mandate that was sent down to the wings just recently with no time for discussion and rebuttal. I hope those aircraft that have complied have done so with removable paint. Those not familiar need to know that the under horizontal stabilizer logo has been around for years. My personal opinion is that should be enough...(don't want to influence the poll). I would rather see a removable bill board indentifying type of aircraft, uses, # built, etc. along with the owner. This has been a pet peave of mine for years as the general public has no idea what they are looking at, and furthermore could care less who owns it. Hey SNJ-5 I think I stirred one up this time. Whats the record for most posts in a single day?

[Django]

Does anyone have a shot where you can see the side of the plane rather than a close up of just the logo? I think I can tell just how large this is... but I want to make sure before I vote or comment.

[Eric Friedebach]

For those of you not in the CAF this idea was shall I say an unfunded mandate that was sent down to the wings just recently with no time for discussion and rebuttal.

Just a quick note here since I’m short of time right now. Some of you may not realize that I’ve been Operations Officer for a CAF Wing for many years. I was talking with the VP of Safety, Maintenance and Operations down at HQ over the weekend, and the subject of logos on the aircraft never came up. If this is a mandate, unfunded or not, that would be news to me. As I understand it, this is a voluntary program.

Also, the usual caveats of my opinion being my own apply here.

[K5DH]

I don't like it at all. I am also not a fan of the CF putting sponsor names outside. Why go through the trouble of putting the correct paintscheme on the aircraft, just to mess it up with stuff like this.

I agree completely with Mr. Mustangdriver.

Someone else suggested having signs that can be put out near the airplanes at air shows and tour stops. They already have them. The Collings Foundation would have to add signs with sponsor names and such, but that shouldn't be a big deal to accomplish. If CAF's aim is to generate interest in the organization and to promote membership, they could easily put out "Who we are and what we do and why you should join us" recruitment signs in addition to the normal aircraft description signs. That would actually be a very good idea for any warbird preservation organization.

I've seen a number of warbirds at shows and tour stops wearing the logos of financial sponsors (usually decals). I'm not a fan of that either. The logos are typically too small to be visible from any distance, but they sure mess up static photos. They should be placed on "We'd like to thank our generous sponsors" signs that stand next to the aircraft.

Dean the opinionated

[CAPFlyer]

Just to give you another perspective (that of other CAF members) - the "tatooing" of the CAF aircraft has been very well received at the Summer Staff conference and from the number of decals being handed out was any indication, you'll see a lot more of this. Technically, this is a mandated item and e-mails were sent to all Wing Leaders and Operations Officers at least a month ago (if you didn't get anything Eric, I'd check with HQ and make sure your E-mail is up-to-date or ask your Wing Leader about it). A separate e-mail was sent to CAF members with aircraft about a "Member Owned" version of the decal. That has also received a lot of support as well and was actually requested by several members, including Neils Agather.

In addition, there were pictures at Summer Staff of the logo on several aircraft (including 'Red Nose', 'Gunfighter', 'Ready4Duty', and a couple of L-birds) and it looked fine. You can see it in a properly framed photo, but I don't think it detracts from the overall paint scheme, in fact one of the points that was made was that the logo was going to be made to compliment the paint scheme so it'll be evident, but not glaring. Thus, you won't see a bright yellow logo on Fifi, instead you'll see a black one. On 'Gunfighter' it was a dark grey that was visible but complimented the OD color it was on top of.

[RyanShort1]

Well, considering the accuracy ratings of their paint schemes in general - a certain Wildcat comes to mind, as do several other aircraft - I don't see how it can detract too much from historical authenticity anyways! Maybe they should have a "historical paint scheme" exemption...

Our L-5 - formerly "Warbug" has a leftover paint scheme from the CAF (it may have been personally owned, but it was operating with CAF folks) that I personally consider quite hideous. See my avatar .



Ryan

[Randy Wilson]

Like CAPFlyer, I was at the CAF's Summer Advisory Board in Dallas the other weekend. I agree that there seemed to be no real complaints about the proposed "branding" of the CAF aircraft. This is an attempt to raise the awareness of the air show and warbird public about the CAF, and also to help increase CAF membership.

Locally, in our High Sky Wing, we did and do have some concerns about the branding, my own included, but have worked to ensure that the size, color and location were not in conflict with historic markings of any of our planes. I think other units can find similar solutions if they try. Don't forget that we were much more "branded" in the "good old days" of the CAF when we wore red white and blue paint schemes (and others) when we could not paint our planes in authentic WWII military schemes.

I will try and post a few images of our own planes with the "branding" applied but you can also look at the newly online images from the CAF's participation at EAA AirVenture 2008 here:

http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/gallery/airventure2008/index.html

There are a few images showing the branding applied to a couple of CAF planes (SB2C and PT-26 come to mind) and one member owned plane, an L-19. I'm waiting to get more images and we will post daily images for the rest of the week, just as we did with the CAF at Sun 'n Fun earlier this year.

Randy

[Django]

Ok, from someone who deals in "branding" every single day...

Without seeing the whole plane, I like how it is lower contrast on Ol 927. And I am ok with the more eye catching logo and tagline opposed to the previous "Commemorative (Condfederate) Air Force typography on the tail. But on the examples in the link, I think it is too distracting. From a branding standpoint, they should all be in the same (or at least similar) location in consistant tones to the aircraft paint scheme. If it is going to be done right, then each aircraft's livery should be considered... not just print up a couple sizes in the same color and place them willy nilly on the aircraft.

Looks like the one is right under the cockpit. Yuck. It jumps out like a sore thumb. Same thing on the yellow band on that aircraft. How does that placement not interfere with the markings?

If the CAF wants to brand them in an effort for more awareness, then great, but so far the effort is falling short, IMO.

[Eric Friedebach]

CAPFlyer, thanks for the clarification. You’re right, I never received that email.

Eric,

Can you please explain why it is a good thing to promote CAF as a brand? I'm not up to speed as to how this helps. I'm sure there are good reasons...I just personally don't know the benefits, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

Thanks!

Sasquatch, I think the short answer here is that the general public has no way of differentiating CAF aircraft from all the other ones out there, be it on an airshow ramp or a picture in a magazine. Yes, there can be signboards by the aircraft and captions in the photos, but I think a majority of folks don’t pay attention.

By promoting the CAF as a brand, we’re letting folks know that these aircraft are maintained and flown by volunteers in an organization that anyone is welcome to join.

[Jack Cook]

There's a right way and a wrong way for everything.
IMHO the SB2C looks awful
At the Fresno B-25/Doolittle reunion they gave everyone great big
Chevron logos to put on the 25s. The forward thinkers put them under the stabs
or between the wing and the bombbay. They rest like
us (not me!!) plastered them under the cockpit!! I hated it then and I
hate it now

[CAPFlyer]

Ok, from someone who deals in "branding" every single day...

Without seeing the whole plane, I like how it is lower contrast on Ol 927. And I am ok with the more eye catching logo and tagline opposed to the previous "Commemorative (Condfederate) Air Force typography on the tail. But on the examples in the link, I think it is too distracting. From a branding standpoint, they should all be in the same (or at least similar) location in consistant tones to the aircraft paint scheme. If it is going to be done right, then each aircraft's livery should be considered... not just print up a couple sizes in the same color and place them willy nilly on the aircraft.

Looks like the one is right under the cockpit. Yuck. It jumps out like a sore thumb. Same thing on the yellow band on that aircraft. How does that placement not interfere with the markings?

If the CAF wants to brand them in an effort for more awareness, then great, but so far the effort is falling short, IMO.

Couple things off this -

1) Location can never be consistent if it is to be visible. No two airplanes in the CAF are alike. Even though we have several of the same type of airplane, none are painted the same way, so if you tried to "brand" them in the same location, you'd interfere with some paint schemes and not with others. That's something pointed on later in the paragraph. Placing the logo under the horizontal stab is sure to keep people from seeing it from 75% of the locations on the airplane ensuring that they don't know who's plane it is. This is a problem with the current way they're branded. Even the R4D with its "Confederate Air Force" patch on painted on the tail, we still get questions of "who's is this"? Point being - if it's not immediately apparent who's it is, they won't look to find out.

2) The L-4 logo was the choice of the owners who are CAF members. They chose to put it there and use that color.

Again, I can't say it clearly enough -

Each logo is being done for a specific airplane and specific paint scheme.

They may look similar in color or size, but when the decals were handed out at Summer Staff Conference, each one was labeled for a specific aircraft. Not a specific aircraft type, a specific aircraft. The size might be the same for all of the same aircraft type, but the color was done based on the scheme of the airplane it would go on and thus was specific to each bird. I personally saw 4 shades of "white" and 2 shades of silver when I was there for different aircraft for this reason.

I don't want to sound like I'm harping here on anyone, but I think that looking at a 400x600 image doesn't do justice for the effort that the HQ girls are going through to try and do this as well as they can and still meet the goal - identify the CAF as the CAF whenever someone sees the airplanes. If they don't, then we're just another face in the crowd that we've been forever and gave rise to Steve's line (and the poster) -

"The Air Force You Never Knew Existed."

[TAdan]

Well after seeing the logo on the Helldiver... I've gotta give a negative vote for the current logo decals. I would rather see them tucked under the tail, or in more subtle colors...

I think it is a good idea...the execution was just a bit off IMO.

[Jack Cook]

Nice B-25J Ugly freaking logos!!! JCW driving BTW.

[Steve S]

Their ariplanes - their rules. If you don't like the logos step up and donate enough money and they will go away.

[k5083]

Or, if you don't like the logos STOP donating any money and maybe they will go away.

August