CAF Logo

[warbird1]

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

SN

Here is a picture from the official CAF website:

http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/ga ... /day1.html

[Michel C-GNCJ]

You know wardirders are beginning to get spoiled when instead of complaining about the fact so little warbirds fly (like here in Canada), they complain about the minute inaccuracies of paint schemes that only hardcore fans can distinguish anyway...

I guess you don't realize the amazing chance you guys have sometimes...

[HELLDIVERS]

How about doing something like they do in Nascar? Make the whole thing a flying bill board Home depot, Kodak, Skol, ect. They have always been know for corny paint jobs{Carolyn, FiFi,Red tail ect}I remember seeing a very early photo of the SB2C with the logo in the same spot but this was many years ago it seems like a step in he wrong direction. But on a more positive side they operate a large fleet of A/C that we all enjoy and Ill suport what ever it takes to keep them flying!! By the way my vote was no

Thanks Mike

[Steve Nelson]

I looked through the CAF website, but didn't notice the logo. Guess it's not TOO big. Still rather see the plane without it, although I guess I understand the rationale..much like the Ol' 927 nose art. Gotta make some compromises to keep the cash flowing in.

SN

[marine air]

I like them. My vote is in favor for anything that brings more revenue, new memberships and sponsorships to the CAF and keeps them flying.
I would rather see, hear, smell, maybe buy a ride, and take a photo of a real "live" fire breathing, flying warbird in any paint scheme than to take photos of "dead" warbirds in national museums or salvage yards.
Thank you CAF!!!

[CAPFlyer]

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?

That defeats one of the purposes stated earlier for why the aircraft are being branded - so they'll be recognized as CAF aircraft in photographs.

[Second Air Force]

Deleted.

[Sasquatch]

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.

Thank you for the explanation Eric. I can understand the need to do this. Who says a paint scheme has only one purpose...authenticity? I don't suscribe to that as it's only purpose. Planes don't necessarily need to carry 100% accurate-to-WWII colors. That's acting as if that were the only valid and acceptable "life period" of the airplane. Far from it. Many were fire bombers, crop dusters, etc. To me, all those are as valid as the WWII colors. The plane lives on as time changes. In WWII, the plane may have been in warpaint camo. After the war ended, maybe some veteran who wasn't quite through with flying bought the bird and took it crop-dusting after stripping off the paint. Then he made some money and brushed on some color he thought was pretty. Then he got old and the bird sat in a field until some kid with a few bucks in his pocket and a dream of adventure took her racing, so the bird wore a number. Then an FBO owner figured out he could make a buck fighting fires with the old bird, so he had her painted orange and a Korean War vet strapped her on and continued his fight against a different type of enemy. Years later a businessman who appreciated all this history saved the bird from hangar queen status and had her restored, painted in colors he had once brushed on his model plane as a kid, and now takes the veteran bird to airshows to share his love of airplanes. And to help keep her flying, he puts a CAF logo on her to show his pride and affiliation. To you and me, we could nitpick the heck out of how the plane looks at this moment in time. To the plane, though, it's just another day...and the colors she wears are just today's suit...tomorrow maybe...or 10 years down the road, the colors will change to something else. None-the-less...the air still feels the same under her wings...the hand on the stick is different, but still skilled. Just another day in the looooong life of an airplane. So what does it matter if a logo had to be added to keep her flying? Fifty years from now, someone like one of us will say, "hey, that logo was applied only during the years of 2008-2012, to help generate funds to keep 'em flying until enough people became aware of the CAF to always have enough funds to operate the airplanes...then the logos went away." So, like the red, white and blue livery, it'll be just another phase in the life of a CAF plane. Taking the long view of the plane's life like that, I find the logo to be a non-issue, and if it helps keep them well-maintained and in the air, and helps the public learn what organization is behind that effort, then so be it. If I need to see the exact WWII colors on a particular Mustang, I'll look up the WWII photographs. And if I see a photo of a Mustang with wings on the side, I'll think, "hey, that's a CAF bird!"

It's all good.

--Tom

Last edited by Sasquatch on Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Sasquatch]

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.

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

I do agree with this. Year's ago, if you were a CAF member, you were a Colonel...period. I'm not sure exactly when there became things like associate memberships, etc. I liked the idea that everyone was equal. Now it seems like, well, if you've got money, you can buy a Colonel-ship...the rest of you can tag along as associates, or whatever. Why the division? The whole point (I thought) was that if you could contribute $10 bucks or $10,000 bucks, it all was in the spirit of "keeping 'em flying", so everyone was equal. Now it once again feels like the "good ol' boy's club." I can't afford to buy in. I'd like to contribute, but not if I'm going to get the short shrift. It's like the difference between pilots and mechanics. One gets all the glory. The other gets all the work. A membership should be a membership, and all who contribute should be Colonels. There are other ways to recognize those who are able to give more, but it should not be to the detriment of those less fortunate so as to be made to feel like second-class contributors (citizens). Just my $0.02 worth.

--Tom

[michaelharadon]

I really hope the CAF goes with the lettering under the tail. Less is more.

[k5083]

So I've been reflecting a bit on all of this logo and branding stuff. Trying to see it from both perspectives. And also, asking myself what the CAF is telling us about itself as an organization by doing this. Bearing in mind the maxim that actions speak louder than words.

I start from the premise that the pics I posted earlier of the Spirit of St. Louis and the other things, which is that no legitimate museum or similar historical preservation organization would ever deface what it considered to be historical artifacts in this way. These days, all museums and other such entities are concerned about building their brand to attract donors, sponsors and visitors. But, slapping their logo directly on their most prized exhibits, and thus compromising their authenticity, would never be considered. There is no compromise, no weighing of interests--a legit museum or similar organization does not do that, period, end of story, no soup for you. The point of my pics was to show how absurd that would be if CAF considered itself a museum (like NASM) and if it considered, say, its LB-30 to be a historical artifact (like the Spirit).

So what CAF is telling us is that it is NOT a historical preservation organization that considers itself to have custody of historical artifacts. It says it is on its web site, but actions speak louder than words. That's a big admission.

Or is it? Maybe this is not news. We have seen the hard-core authenticity crowd on this forum basically state that anyone who has restored an aircraft to airworthy status has already done many things that no legitimate museum would do to a real historical artifact. It's a valid argument, but there is room for disagreement on the extent of preservation vs. restoration that is appropriate for an artifact, even among the hard-core preservationist crowd. Or one could argue, as some have in this thread, that the CAF blew all of its historical credibility with inaccurate restorations and paint schemes long ago. Well, maybe. But they have shown improvement in recent years, and I thought they were on the right track. I did not expect them to go back to the 1970s (remember when Fifi had "Confederate Air Force" written across half the length of the fuselage?) and turn their artifacts into billboards for the organization.

Actually I shouldn't say "improvement," that imposes my own value judgment on things. It's perfectly legitimate and all right to see vintage aircraft as something other than historical artifacts, and maybe that's what is going on here. We know that owners and operators see their aircraft as different things. Some still see them as toys and hot rods, suitable for painting bright red, clipping their wings, and racing around pylons with. Others, and this may be the largest group, see them as what I will call Living Memorials -- to vets, war dead, whatever. Living Memorials don't need to be historical artifacts; they could have been built yesterday. With Living Memorials, there is also much more room for "compromise" on historical accuracy. Some may feel that the best way to honor vets is to make the Living Memorial aircraft as accurate as possible, but others may feel that it is just as good to paint the plane yellow with big red words "YAY FOR VETS" written across it. Certainly it is much more acceptable to compromise historical accuracy for other purposes with a Living Memorial than with a historical artifact. Consider, for example, that new Midwest T-6 that we got to see pics of a few days ago:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=23339

If we assume that this T-6 is a historical artifact, that pseudo 325 FG paint scheme is a sad joke. If however we assume that the aircraft has no particular historical value in itself, but that the owner wished to do a tribute to the 325 FG and couldn't afford a Mustang, then the paint scheme makes a good deal of sense. That is the Living Memorial perspective. And it's nothing to be ashamed of. I might prefer that owners treated their aircraft as historical artifacts rather than Living Memorials, but I can't have it all my own way. And anyway, I can still see the vintage airframe under the paint and appreciate it for what I prefer to think it is.

So the CAF is telling us (by its actions) that it is a flying circus of Living Memorials, not a historical organization preserving artifacts (no matter what it says in words). Not such a big deal, but it surely will upset some hard-core types, maybe even some longstanding members. So let's look at the other side, what is the CAF getting out of this?

We've been fortunate to have this logo thing explained to us by a few insiders. It boils down to this. The CAF knows that more people look at its airplanes, and especially pictures of its magazines in magazines and calendars, than at any of its signage at airshows, etc. To drive membership and contributions, the CAF feels that every time someone looks at one of its airplanes, they should be made aware that it belongs to CAF. (Again, not a view that any legit museum would share, but we've covered that already.) I wonder what surveys or market studies the CAF has done to arrive at this conclusion. I would be interested in how the CAF's target market, whatever it has concluded that is, will react to the logos. Some percentage, I assume, will believe it to be an authentic WWII marking. ("Wow, Ghost Squadron! How many kills did they get?") Others will be turned off by the way it spoils the paint schemes. Hopefully the CAF has some basis to believe that others will understand the logo to mean that the aircraft belongs to an organization that they could inquire about joining (although how anyone is supposed to realize, just from the logo, that they could actually join the organization is not clear to me).

From a marketing perspective, again, I hope that the CAF has done some research, because my initial impression is that the winged logo as applied to the aircraft kind of sucks. It is so intricate and complicated that it is impossible to see what it is from any distance, unless you already know what it is. If they cut the wings off it and deleted the surrounding text so that it was just the CAF shield with the 3 fighters, it seems to me that it would have a greater chance of being discerned, identified, and remembered. Let's think for a moment about the relatively successful trademarks in the warbird business. I'm just looking here at the most recent edition of Makanna's "Ghosts" calendar that I have handy (2006) on the front page where he presents the logos of the major warbird organizations, and most of them I, even as a long-time buff, don't recognize. The ones that seem to me to be the most successful in terms of popular recognition are:

- Planes of Fame (incorporating the prewar USAAC roundel)
- Canadian Warplane Heritage (maple leaf roundel with Firefly superimposed)
- Kalamazoo Air Zoo (round logo with the four cats, which I guess they must have changed since they've sold one of the corresponding aircraft)
- I would also nominate the Warbirds of America logo, not shown in the calendar, as possibly the most successful in the industry.

What these logos have in common is that they are roughly circular, have simple, coherent designs, and been in use without major changes for at least 25 years. Interestingly, the CAF logo presented in the calendar is the shield-based one similar to what was used on the cover of that blue hardback book that they produced in the late 1970s. The design is a bit busy but vastly more coherent, as well as more familiar to old-timers, than the winged monstrosity of today. If this type of design were presented on the aircraft, conservatively but always in full color (I think the new practice of presenting the logo in different colors on different aircraft is going to be the worst of both worlds, because it makes the brand image less consistent while not really reducing the extent to which accuracy is compromised) it might be more effective. Assuming, of course, that putting logos on aircraft is effective at all.

Overall, my feeling is that the CAF should be treating the next few years as a trial period for these logos. To be a fair trial, it is appropriate that the logo be highly visible and appear on all CAF aircraft, because obviously part of the point is for people to see the logo on a lot of different airplanes and say, "Wow, this group has a lot of planes." They know that they are throwing away some credibility as a historical organization and angering some enthusiasts, but it remains to be seen how much and how many. It also remains to be seen whether these logos do the organization any good, or whether it will have any unanticipated negative effects (such as producers of books and calendars being less willing to use the CAF's aircraft because they don't look as accurate with the logos). A reputable market research firm should be tracking the results (hopefully one already is, but if not, I could refer them to several). In a couple of years there should be an evaluation as a result of which the logos may stay, be enlarged (argh!), be reduced, or be deleted. No doubt some kind of reexamination is bound to occur at some point, formal or informal. So as enthusiasts, maybe we all shouldn't get too upset just yet.

Apologies for this long post; I know some of you hate it when I ramble.

August

[Robbie Roberts]

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?

That defeats one of the purposes stated earlier for why the aircraft are being branded - so they'll be recognized as CAF aircraft in photographs.

Kinda ridiculous theory- First, there are so relatively few of these aircraft flying that those of us with interest and care KNOW already who is who, and to whom each belongs! Second, for those who do not, but buy the calendar, it is just another pretty airplane, and they don't care who owns it!

For crying out loud- there are only about 3 B-29s anywhere near flying status, so it is not too hard to figure it is probably one of them. Same goes for most everything else- If you see a B-24, it is a rock certain cinch it will be either Collings or Ol'927 of the CAF. B-17? Same issue, a few more. The list goes on. They aren't selling hot dogs. For smaller aircraft, use a roll up banner, with two or three posts they can roll up and stuff into the tail area, and have "THIS (type) PRESENTED COURTESY OF THE COMMEMORATIVE AIR FORCE" Admission $5" with the Admission part in much smaller letters, so they have to look at the whole sign to find it.

If they must place something to show they peed on the a/c, then make it small and un-disturbing to the rest of the paint job. OR JUST PAINT THEM VIRGIN WHITE WITH RED AND BLUE DETAILS LIKE THEY USED TO, AND STOP PLAYING WARBIRD!


Robbie

[b29flteng]

The whole idea of putting a logo on, Well Major Kong says it best,

"Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones."

[Django]

August, I will disagree with you about the Warbirds of America logo... It is just as intricate as the CAF logo, and from a distance will only look like a fuzzy circle. The CAF logo is far more identifiable.

[SPANNERmkV]

Many good slants on this thread.
Being part of the Org. I have to tread lightly.
I don't have the money to restore TEXAS RAIDERS to a "Paul Allen let's go get the mass spectrometer out and figure out the composition of the ink on the inspector's stamps" level.
Ain't gonna happen on my watch!

And TR is a "generic" flying memorial to the 381st BG because there never was a TR, BUT the 381st was based in Pyote, TX. and we are going to repaint the red tail with the triangle L.

The CAF was losing membership... I haven't seen the numbers on the new strategies that are being tried. But CAF had to try something!
CAF is not putting these logos on their airplanes to educate WIX buffs. I've written it before and I will write it again... (Some of) you people know more about certain aspects of the airplane I am working on than I do.

How will we know if Logos work for or against us? Maybe if magazines decline to publish photos with the logo at some lesser rate, or if photographers make a career out of framing their shots to cover them.

I am not wild about the Logos but I will put one on if that is what it takes to get this plane flying. (I think it was Sasquatch who wrote something about LOGOs on CAF planes being another LOOK associated with a time period.)

It seems as if every other day is another fight about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic so I take to heart the view from the poster from Canada. Everyday I get to crawl into TR with a mind towards making her fly is Thanksgiving. (It just doesn't necessarily always feel like it in July !

SPANNER