Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:23 am
mustangdriver wrote:the way the gear doors and camo should be.
What’s so different between that photo and what's on her now (aside from the gloss)?
I for one am just thankful that we have a flying example in existence thanks to the Commemorative Air Force.
Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:34 am
I too am happy that they saved this example, don't get me wrong. But yeah the camo is off. They took hard edges rather than the soft edges that should have been used to blend the camo, also where the colors meet are in the wrong areas. basically there should be more of the intermediate blue in view on the sides of the aircraft rather that the dark blue.
Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:59 pm
You guys are either even more picky about camouflage than me or not aware of the variations that existed in SB2C camo. Early SB2Cs had a camo pattern very similar to the CAF's paint job -- you could argue that the demarcation line forward of the wing is 1 or 2 feet too low, but that's about it -- and the softness of the demarcation lines is not much different from those of many Helldivers.
My own personal peeves about the CAF SB2C paint scheme is that the intermediate blue is too bright (compare to the same color as interpreted on the CAF's SBD or Duffy's Corsair) and, most of all, that the US insignia is incorrect. The dimensions and proportions of the basic US insignia have been exactly the same from 1943 to the present day, and the information has been readily available all that time, so it takes real determination to get it wrong. But I guess we each have our own picky points. I certainly agree that this is one of those aircraft that is so rare and challenging to maintain that a lot of errors can be forgiven.
August
My own personal peeves about the CAF SB2C paint scheme is that the intermediate blue is too bright (compare to the same color as interpreted on the CAF's SBD or Duffy's Corsair) and, most of all, that the US insignia is incorrect. The dimensions and proportions of the basic US insignia have been exactly the same from 1943 to the present day, and the information has been readily available all that time, so it takes real determination to get it wrong. But I guess we each have our own picky points. I certainly agree that this is one of those aircraft that is so rare and challenging to maintain that a lot of errors can be forgiven.
August
Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:31 pm
Does the medium blue look that way in person or is it the photo? We did a lot of research for our PBJ and our paint will be as authentic as possible. In our research we found no two color photos alike. You can’t trust the color in a photo. You have to go with the color codes. The color codes are available. Gloss is also a problem. Flat would be the most authentic but is a nightmare to keep clean. We compromised with semi-gloss.
There has been a lot of talk on WIX about authenticity. I think you should try your best but everything is a compromise. I give these guys an A for effort.
Dan
There has been a lot of talk on WIX about authenticity. I think you should try your best but everything is a compromise. I give these guys an A for effort.
Dan
????
Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:33 pm
I for one am just thankful that we have a flying example in existence thanks to the Commemorative Air Force.
Be thankful but be more observant. the color of the big decal is a bit off also
Last edited by Jack Cook on Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:01 pm
One other thing about color and authenticity.
I have it on good authority (the guys that were there) that in the field on occasion the maintenance guys had to mix their own paint with what was available. Sometimes the colors were a bit off. Sometimes they were forced to thin the paint and that caused changes. Also I have been told that the harsh tropical sun bleached out the paint very quickly. Fabric areas fade at a different rate so those areas don’t usually match. Also some of the work done in the field was less than perfect. I think if you consider all of the above it might be hard to define precisely what authentic is.
I have it on good authority (the guys that were there) that in the field on occasion the maintenance guys had to mix their own paint with what was available. Sometimes the colors were a bit off. Sometimes they were forced to thin the paint and that caused changes. Also I have been told that the harsh tropical sun bleached out the paint very quickly. Fabric areas fade at a different rate so those areas don’t usually match. Also some of the work done in the field was less than perfect. I think if you consider all of the above it might be hard to define precisely what authentic is.
Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:16 pm
Once again I mean no malice toward the CAF, just an observation that I saw as well as Jack.
Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:13 pm
I’m far from offended. I just think sometimes a little education can go along ways. Guys like you who have years of experience in aviation probably know a lot more than I do but we have a large audience of youngsters and / or folks new to this and I hope that my contributions can sometimes be beneficial.
Dan
Dan
Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:20 pm
It is all good 
Re: ????
Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:55 am
Deleted
Re: ????
Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:10 pm
Jack Cook wrote:I for one am just thankful that we have a flying example in existence thanks to the Commemorative Air Force.
Be thankful but be more observant. the color of the big decal is a bit off also
Hey.. look on the bright side.., if they put the gear doors on.., it is another space where they could display the LOGO!!!!!
She is positively gorgeous.., regardless!!!!
Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:53 pm
The color is probably a little more toned down and darker than my photo.
I get over the colors, minor paint scheme change, and logo real quick when I see and hear the beast fly. Up close, the new paint looks great.
I debated about even posting this so as to not stir up the usual rantings but I'm going to anyways. On Friday I did hear one gentlemen comment "Look, these two are from the same group (referring to the Hellcat and Helldiver)". The logos seem to be accomplishing some of their mission here. Could the name underneath the horiz. stabilizer accomplished the same thing? Maybe, but I don't think it would have been as noticeable to many of the general public who don't examine every square inch of the aircraft like we do. I'm sure everyone here can agree that we'd prefer not to see the aircraft with the logos, but, I believe they are helping increase the recognition level of the CAF to the general public.
I get over the colors, minor paint scheme change, and logo real quick when I see and hear the beast fly. Up close, the new paint looks great.
I debated about even posting this so as to not stir up the usual rantings but I'm going to anyways. On Friday I did hear one gentlemen comment "Look, these two are from the same group (referring to the Hellcat and Helldiver)". The logos seem to be accomplishing some of their mission here. Could the name underneath the horiz. stabilizer accomplished the same thing? Maybe, but I don't think it would have been as noticeable to many of the general public who don't examine every square inch of the aircraft like we do. I'm sure everyone here can agree that we'd prefer not to see the aircraft with the logos, but, I believe they are helping increase the recognition level of the CAF to the general public.
Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:51 pm
mustangdriver wrote:I am guessing that the CAF would put the doors on there if they had them. I am sure that Helldiver parts are hard to find.
Gary could've built them with his eyes closed!