A trend towards more non-authentic schemes? ...

Pogo · **Posted:** Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:30 pm

OMG -- that's really Chuckie?! Jumpin jiminy that's the worst paint job I've ever seen and I'm nowhere near a rivet-counter -- if it looks even halfway right I'm totally happy. But this reminds me of one of my models when I was 12 years old! (And this is the first time I've ever criticized a paint job here on WIX.)

Okay, repeat to self: "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying"...

And, of course, the chick is smokin'.

lmritger · **Posted:** Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:34 pm

Pogo wrote:

OMG -- that's really Chuckie?! Jumpin jiminy that's the worst paint job I've ever seen and I'm nowhere near a rivet-counter -- if it looks even halfway right I'm totally happy. But this reminds me of one of my models when I was 12 years old!

Okay, repeat to self: "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying", "the guy's pouring $$$ into it and keeping it flying"...

And, of course, the chick is smokin'.

Sorry to say Kurt, but yes, that's really Chuckie.

I halfway expect to see a stripper pole installed in the radio room and a flat-screen and leather couch in the former bomb bay. Hell, why not put spinners on the mainwheels while he's at it? Welcome to "Pimp My Ride, Warbird Edition".

This hot mess really makes me appreciate folks like Paul Allen, Taigh Ramey, Conrad and of course Jerry Yagen for the lengths they go to in order to try and get things as right as they can.

Lynn

Sabremech · **Posted:** Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:49 pm

JimH wrote:

IMO...these airplanes were built for one purpose...and it's not owner ego. There are sooo many great stories that can be told with originality and accurate paint schemes. How many people would know who Charles McCorkle was if not for Betty Jane flying around? and so on and so forth?..There are literally hundreds of B-17 paint jobs to replicate and most have veterans that are still around to tell their story. I can't begin to tell all the 909 and Witchcraft stories I've heard from personal experiences of the original crews. Seeing Bob DeKerf paint on the Witchcraft noseart, or meeting Joe Abernathy who was on the 100th mission of WC, or Laslow, or Betcher, or Basil...the stories go on. Madras Maiden? Aluminum Overcast? What does that say? who can relate to that? IF you operate a (flying)museum you should feel at least some bit of responsibility to tell an accurate story...in addition to operating an historic airframe. Sad, its a horrible waste of a resource... its great they fly and are maintained but in the end they will probably end up locked up in a hangar never to fly again...like the Pond Collection...or the War Eagles collection. ok rant over...

Jim

EAA and Aluminum Overcast are tops in relating and sharing directly with WWII Vets and their families. I'm not aware of any other B-17 operator that gives the way they do to our Vets! Hats off to the EAA and Aluminum Overcast!

David

JimH · **Posted:** Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:54 pm

meh...not worth the effort

Jim

Snake45 · **Joined:** Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm **Posts:** 864

lmritger wrote:

I halfway expect to see a stripper pole installed in the radio room and a flat-screen and leather couch in the former bomb bay. heck, why not put spinners on the mainwheels while he's at it? Welcome to "Pimp My Ride, Warbird Edition".

Lynn

Oh, come on, Lynn. Take a breath. :roll:

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:59 am

Daisy Mae Yokum would be period correct, but this is more like Daisy Duke. At least give her a period hairstyle...
Anyone have any wartime photos of a Madras trainer showing the field codes?

Fouga23 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:04 am

As soon as I read "Velasco" I knew it would look out of place. Look what he painted on 'ol 927; that's 2 warbirds flying around now looking like they came out of a cheap 70's film.
You want awesome period correct nose-art? Go with Django!
http://www.djangostudios.com/noseart.html

Firebird · **Posted:** Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:25 am

lmritger wrote:

Remember back when you were like 12 or 13, and you'd be hanging at the park with your friends and you carved your name into a park bench or a nearby tree?

Some folks never grew out of that.

As I posted elsewhere:

This is the former "Chuckie", the only known surviving original PFF-equipped B-17. The Vintage Flight Museum and the Military Aviation Museum both spent a lot of time and effort trying to bring her back to stock wartime configuration, up until the MAM was forced to sell her last year.

So Jack Erickson bought her, and had her stripped down, painted the tail group fire truck red (not insignia red) with a 381st BG triangle "L" on the tail, and instead of proper unit codes, had his own initials "JE" applied in some weird round shape as the unit code. Because you know, when you've got one of only nine airworthy B-17s, one of the most iconic aircraft in American history, what really matters isn't honoring the service and sacrifice of the tens of thousands of airmen who flew and maintained them- no, what really matters is showing everybody that it's YOUR airplane. You know, because people might be confused or something.

It's been turned into a four engine, multimillion dollar ego trip.

Well said.... :drink3:

Fouga23 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:52 am

lmritger wrote:

and had her stripped down

Explain please!

Courier Sportster · **Joined:** Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:03 am **Posts:** 319

chris brame nailed it. looks like the wrong daisy. and django is the great i meant before, he created both the Ol' 927 i did not like (childish like Disney's Planes), and the unused '40's diamond lil that i LOVED LOVED LOVED. it must be tough to be a commercial artist. i don't mean the toil and skill part, i mean the dealing with the world of differing opinions....

pjpahs · **Posted:** Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:53 am

The first time I saw "Chuckie" was Sept. 2009 at Ft. Worth and again at Virginia Beach 2013 and it's moved again. What was it before it became "Chuckie" ? Doc Hospers named it after his wife. Did it have "Nose Art" or a name in a previous life? It's flying and I love it.

pilot06 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:15 am

IMHO, the art work is well done. Should be on a modern aircraft. Pretty girl but too much Daisy Duke. I don't imagine she would want to be reminded of it all the time if the artwork were correct for the period, a whole lot more skin and boobs. Some of the 17 nose jobs were full frontal. Can't imagine she would want to deal with that.

None the less, if this can bring more people into aviation then it would be a good thing. If not, it's a waste.

PC

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7815

I've been spending a little time this morning researching real vintage WW2 bomber nose art to try to give "Madras Maiden" the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately it seems Silicon Breasts as we know them today didn't even exist back in the 40's. :wink:

Seriously, I'm seeing all kinds of backlash on other sites about this 'paint job' with opinions flying in all directions, with some opinions tame and respectful and some outright hostile. I believe strongly that we all have a right to express our opinions and perhaps displeasure if we so choose without being reminded it's not our property or to pay for another paint job ourselves if we disapprove so much.

We've been down this road several times on WIX alone about what our opinions are, and should or shouldn't be, concerning other peoples decisions with their own property. Do we as the ones who do not own have the right to express our opinions and criticisms towards those that do own? Indeed we do, but at the same time our level of credibility is judged by our level of criticism and many times our level of class is judged the same way.

I'm not a fan of this owners decision for a paint scheme on his own property. I join the ranks of several others who feel the same way, but even though I disapprove, of which is my right, I respect this persons decision to do as he wishes with his property, of which is his right. I will still look forward to seeing his airplane continue to fly and be generously displayed for all of us to enjoy of which is not our right to expect of this owner but otherwise his generosity towards us.

I'm grateful this man gives us this gift to publicly enjoy. ... Even if I'm not a fan of its artwork.

Snake45 · **Joined:** Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm **Posts:** 864

I look at it this way: It's just paint. He hasn't done anything irreversible to the airplane. He might have a change of mood tomorrow, or someone else might buy it and put it into a "proper" paint job that will satisfy the persnickety. I'm just glad it's still around, and flying, and I'd love to see it someday.

Oh, and BTW: Most of the so-called "authentic" warbird paint jobs I've seen are MUCH nicer than the originals. One of the few I can think of that has that "lived-in look" is the Skyraider Naked Fanny. Ironically, the paint job on that one isn't "authentic" either, because the USAF never operated AD-4N, which is what that airplane is (ex-French).

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7815

I look at it many ways, with the most resounding way being what has been stated before as "a lost opportunity", at least at the present. Perhaps down the road the owner will change things, who knows. As for it being "just paint"? Correct you are, but it could have been so much more than just paint. I've read a few posts on other sites stating 99% of people who see this B-17 won't know the difference. I say that percentage is untrue. There's still many veterans around who flew and flew in these airplanes who also have many, many family members who would more than likely know the difference between authentic and fantasticly unrealistic.

We can beat the "his airplane, his money, his decision" all day to no end. Big deal! But what is a big deal to some of us is the overwhelming desire, commitment and obligation to "properly and respectfully" remember veterans past and present and many of us also feel strongly that anyone who is the owner, caretaker, what-have-you has, and will always have, a moral responsibility to uphold the history and heritage of artifacts such as a very rare B-17. It's apparent not everyone feels this way to which I say to each his own.

Sorry if some folks feel otherwise as they are certainly entitled to feel anyway they wish, of which I certainly respect, but I would encourage the same amount of respect and understanding for those of us who feel the way we do. I can safely state none of us expect perfection right down to the very rivet, but at least a concerted effort to properly display your property in public to veterans and family is certainly not much to ask. If this simple request sounds foreign to some owners perhaps it's best to leave your toys at home? Just a thought perhaps.

FWIW All my statements are not meant to chastise an owner, but rather to express a few thoughts and justifiable feelings. If your intentions are to publicly display your artifacts then you must be prepared to accept a fair amount to praise and criticism. It comes with the territory.

BTW I must be getting old as I used to belong to the "F the veterans, that chick is hot" crowd. Nice to know aging is good for some things. :wink:

Warbird Information Exchange

A trend towards more non-authentic schemes? ...

Who is online