Tim Savage wrote:
At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, why would they paint the P-47N in Mexican colors? Did the Mexican's ever even use the N-model? Aren't there a bunch of American P-47N pilots that could be honored?
IMHO if the CAF wants to be taken seriously as a museum representing true WWII history then they need to start taking seriously the historical accuracy of many of their fleet....
There is nothing offensive about what you are saying Tim, and your concern is legitimate. If this organization truly desires to represent living history, it should be obligated to display representative aircraft in a factual light, not to be distorted by the fleeting feelings of an audience's political views.
Proportionality is ultimately fair, and as suggested previously - the American contributions in the Pacific Theater are far underrepresented, to such an extent that I'd dare claim most of my fellow college classmates are completely oblivious to the fact that the U.S. operated aircraft to any extent in the Pacific between Pearl Harbor and the conclusion of the war. History is so watered down to the point that everything is portrayed as a diluted microcosm that only focuses on the Holocaust, fighting the Nazis, Pearl Harbor, how the Tuskegee Airmen & Rosie the Riveter saved the world concluding with dropping the atomic bombs... Campaigns involving North Africa, the Aleutians, Burma, the South Pacific, etc are largely ignored in pop-culture, and the few films (if any) regarding such severely lack the details, or are crudely done. Now I understand there were contributions made in the war by all parties, but keep things in perspective. Yes, the Tuskegee Airmen were real, yes there were many women who actively built and serviced aircraft. However, keep in mind they are only a fraction of a drop in the bucket. As an Engineering major, there is no possible way aircraft were coming off the assembly lines without thousands of Aeronautical, Mechanical, and Electrical engineers behind them (who are not mentioned at all in textbooks). People also seem to forget, that most 4-engine bombers also had 4 officers aboard who graduated college or went through an academy.
Related to this discussion is a crucial point necessary for the survival of our cherished warbirds - appealing to our future generations. Here's where many museums stray from their purpose - there is nothing more frustrating to me as a college student with an active interest in aviation than a museum set for a 2nd grade audience. Yes, you have to keep it fun for the whole family, however - there is a tremendous chasm between children too young to drive and members of fatiguing health due to age. If we fail to recruit more able-bodied young adults of my age group, there is no future in this venture. Cartoon airplanes and kid-themed toys alone are not going to provide apprentices in the lost arts of metal working and operating complex aircraft. Remember, the men who flew them in combat were typically between 19-24 years of age.
As Tim questioned the authenticity of pairing a particular P-47 model with a group that never flew it (which he has every reason to do so if fact proves such), we can't just rewrite history and substitute intrinsically rare planes with units that never flew them.
Wouldn't it really be special if the aircraft could be either A) commemorated in the markings of a living American WWII veteran associated with that particular P-47 model, or B) fly the aircraft in a natural metal finish representative of a "factory fresh" aircraft (which would cease controversy regarding markings)?
Every single day we are losing our WWII veterans. The purpose of these machines is to carry on their legacy, with reverence, remembrance, and nostalgia. Let's tell their stories the way they happened while they are still alive to guide us in person.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
