Warbird Information Exchange

I have a really tough time with this question because I see both sides of the coin. As many of you know, I worked for the Collings Foundation for five years and realize the effort and struggle of keeping the aircraft operating. We all know it isn't cheap and it keeps getting harder and more costly each year.

In the case of the CF, increased "impressions" related to increased funds. More eyeballs on the planes meant more people in queue to tour the planes, more people to fly aboard the aircraft, more people to buy PX, more people to consider becoming a plane sponsor or DFC (name on the plane). The "brand" for CF was the aircraft themselves... not the name "Collings Foundation" - though that's becoming more the case these days.

The CAF has a tough situation. The group has such a large "fleet" of different types and a geographically spread-out membership base of wings -- big and small -- that contribute to the funds of the central organization. Some wings, like the Dixie or B-24/B-29 wing have the ability to sell flights and fundraising via those vehicles, but others who have less "sellable" aircraft have limited fundraising capability and therefore rely on membership dues for their funds primarily, and the HQ realizes this too.

CAF is heavily reliant on the dues of a member for long-term viability of the organization -- and unfortunately the retention of members has most likely been moving in a negative direction as our veterans leave us. The CAF obviously has been spending large amounts of cash to advertise membership (ads in Flying Magazine don't come cheap) to reverse this, but advertising does nothing if the aircraft seen at shows are not tied directly to the group.

The "branding" of the flagship aircraft in the collection isn't historically accurate and certainly distract from the authentic look, but unfortunately I think this is a situation that can't be avoided. Unlike many brick and mortar museums (like NASM, NMUSAF, FoF, Etc.) aircraft attending shows don't have the capability to put a big sign on a building and say "these aircraft belong to..." Yes, you can think about signs to put in front of the planes, but smaller planes barely have enough room for pilots bags much less a foldable sign. And again, as it's been said, people tend to ignore the signs.

The only way the CAF can successfully connect the aircraft that operate for them with the central organization is to label the aircraft with the logo. Hopefully the move will help generate more members in general, which would help the long-term life of the CAF.

However, I think that IF the CAF wants a greater membership base, they should SERIOUSLY consider adding a membership that's less expensive... $200+ per year really takes a lot of folks out of the picture before the sales pitch can even start! I still think the CAF is looking to be the "old boy's country club" approach to aviation organizations, when there's a lot of passion at the lower echelons that can't afford to be a Colonel.

I guess it could be worse... I remember the shots of the red, white, and blue schemes of the CAF of the 70's and think that a logo on the side of a somewhat accurate paint-job is better than that anyday.

My .02 - from a guy who can't afford to be a Colonel at my local wing, but was welcomed free of charge to help out at another local warbird group (without the politics).

Ryan

_________________
Ryan Keough
Stow, MA

It's their airplane, so they can do want they want. But after seeing how it was applied to the Helldiver, this is my opinion l

_________________
Matt

A brand symbol is great for a consumer item like Pepsi where there are a lot of similar products and you want sight recognition at the store, but who is the target audience for the CAF brand? Is that brand symbol synonymous with the CAF? Will that symbol direct the average airshow attendee who knows nothing about the CAF to their website?

Personally I think that the market is too slim for logos. I prefer the direct approach like the "Commemorative Air Force" lettering under the tail. Anyone that can read can associate that with the CAF and find them easily in a web search.

Ober, Ill be down next week for my annual so no decal's or D-day stripes...K

Lynn

Well, I remember the logos and I remember the briefing which was anyone who wants to put them on their aircraft do so, anyone who doesn't feel like it don't. Chevron donated a ton of fuel to get the B-25s from across the country all in one place to honor the Doolittle Raiders at their reunion in Fresno. It was incredibly generous of them and I really don;t see anything wrong with us making vinyl logos to help persuade them that their donation was worth some good press so that others who followed in our footsteps could ask again for similar donations. Frankly, I rather see a Chevron logo on a flying aircraft than I rather see a perfectly marked aircraft sitting in a hangar. The logos in this case were vinyl adhesive logos which don't leave permanent marks on a natural metal aircraft if they are removed properly.

I think you hear a lot of complaints either way. in one case you have uberbucks Paul Allen's aircraft and their perfect markings etc that everyone whines about that don't fly enough aren't displayed the way they want or they can't get a perfect spot to view the flight and then you have people organizing huge events with many aircraft that directly honor and pay huge expenses just to get the veterans all in one place to see and hear the warbirds fly and then people complain there is a logo on the aircraft.

You just can't make everyone happy. It all comes down to if you want to see the aircraft fly you may have to potentially respect the fact the operator may want to actually sustain their ability to do so using means you may not agree with. As usual I suggest to anyone who doesn't like it make a huge donation contingent on making the aircraft is marked as you desire.

Keep em flying, Ryan

What about the contingent of local members that have worked on and paid for the restoration for years that just might not want to screw up their paint job with a logo?

Shoulda put those freakin' things on the obverse side of the vertical stabs...

Robbie

When I was a teenager, I was a member, for the grand sum of $25, of the "Ghost Squadron Associates", which was a lesser form of membership in the Confederate Air Force. I had some privileges, one of which was the CAF Dispatch delivered bi-monthly, and little else. But it was a membership, and made me feel happy. I do not know if they still offer this- I think it was done away with in the 80's. They need this to come back- it is a great way to get more people involved for less cash up front, and allows them exposure. They could give people a taste of CAF, so they could see what they were about, and eventually go for full membership.

I was VERY gung-ho about the group- even tried to start a wing in southern NJ (at KVAY) back in 1980 or so, but they wouldn't let me run it, because I wasn't old enough! But I Tried! Never came about. Sigh...

Robbie

First, there are levels below Colonel that are more affordable. However, just because you're not a "Colonel" doesn't necessarily mean you can't contribute or participate, it just limits some of your privileges because of insurance issues.

Second, there is a monthly payment option for your membership at $19/month.

This is explained in all the CAF recruiting materials, and I think it's helped get more people to sign up.

Also, remember what your $200/year pays for - INSURANCE (yeah, when you're a CAF colonel at a CAF event, you're covered under the CAF policy and that's expensive), paperwork, subscription, and helps keep the lights on in Midland. Remember, what each aircraft and PX generates doesn't go to HQ. HQ has to survive on 3 things - Life Membership pay-outs, Colonel Dues, and gifts to the CAF as a whole. Guess where the most of that money comes from? Colonel dues. A Life Member only provides $170/year to the CAF, so their donation isn't as good for the short-term of the CAF, but it pays massive dividends in the long run because of that endowment that the CAF Life Membership gives.



Don, I have a TON of respect for you, but your attitude is exactly what has been hindering the CAF for 20+ years. We have had 80+ units wanting to do their own thing their own way and not be an organization. Part of this program is to prove that we're an organization, not a loose amalgamation of dissociated units who sometimes get together in an Oil Town called Midland on the 3rd weekend of September and put on a little show for the town. If we don't all look similar (which is what the plane branding and new uniform is all about), then no one knows we exist and that we're part of that bigger group. This is what has to change if you want to keep that plane you spent so much time and money on flying (unless you're willing to take on the additional financial, legal, and insurance burden of owning it yourself).

If they were all about the same size and under the elevator like the basic CAF text was it'd be much better. Right under the canopy on the Helldiver really looks awful. The one on Ol' 927 is HUGE! Sorry I don't have a shot showing it though. Seriously, it's like 3 feet wide.

_________________
-Al Sauer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spookythecat

It would probably defeat the "visibility" purposes, but . . . how about a "subdued" logo, that could be seen by those close by, but would not stand out on most photos?


Saludos,


Tulio

_________________
Why take the best part of life out of your life, when you can have life with the best part of your life in your life?

I am one of them 'futbol' people.

Will the previous owner has pics of this double cabin sample

GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

Sooooo, how am I going to know to press 1 or 2, if I do not speak English????

SB2C is one of my favorite Warbirds and I dont think the logo looks TO bad on it. Could be worse right?

I haven't been able to find a pic of the Helldiver with the logo on it. Could somebody post one?

SN

I don't mind a small, rather unobtrusive logo on the planes. No worse than having "Pilot - Paul H. Poberezny" on everything

What impressed me more is the new uniform look of all the CAF people - nice dark blue shirts with the new CAF logo. Looks sharp! I would think just having all crew members and ground support looking the same would tell people that the airplane(s) is CAF, without the need of a 3' logo. That's just this 1-year Colonel's humble opinion...

Zack

_________________
Volunteer Coordinator/Curator - Military Aviation Museum - Virginia Beach, VA
"America's Flying Museum"
http://www.militaryaviationmuseum.org

Yep...its the coming of the end for warbirds! But considering most CAF aircraft have inaccurate paint scemes maybe it just doesn't matter anyway.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com