Jarink1 wrote:
If the uniforms are appropriate to the plane, vehicles, or show then I think they're great.
Can anyone explain the difference between wearing old style uniforms and painting a restored warbird in something other than its original paint job? Look at 99% of the planes in the registry here. How many of them are painted as a different (historical) plane? They didn't 'earn' the markings they're wearing, did they?
In both cases it's a matter of honoring the history. This is especially true for the many "data plate" restorations where there's absolutely nothing on or in the plane that flew with that serial number or paint job in WWII.
WELL SAID! But this is an argument that will never die.
I’ve been into that hobby starting with Revolutionary War when I was 5, Civil War when I was 7, various other time periods over the years and WW2 since 1989. In all that time, I have never ONCE encountered any WW2 vet who had an issue with people wearing the uniforms if done correctly. So I have to ask, if the vets themselves are fine with it, why should anyone else not be?
To me, it’s to show the public what the stuff looked like that they often will never see in person otherwise, and hope they get an understanding of the material aspect of what the vets used, rode in and shot with. I did serve in real life but since I never served in WW2, I feel no more right to wear these uniforms than anyone who didn’t serve.
I have never understood why so many warbird people dislike re-enactors so much. I have always thought it stems from the fact that re-enactors often get their photos taken in front of the planes at shows when the real crews often don’t because they’re not dressed “the part” for the spectators’ taste. The public at a show likes as much of a wide range of relevant stuff to see as possible. They equally love to see WW2 vehicles near the planes as well. The public loves to have other things to look at when at air shows and we get all kinds of compliments. I have never heard once anyone ask why we’re there. I have given up understanding why some airplane owners don’t (or can’t) understand this. Maybe it’s the same reason some operators won’t take their aircraft to an event if they’re not the main draw for the public and don’t want to share the spotlight? Beats me.
What about all the photos I’ve seen over the years from photo shoots of WW2 planes airborne with the pilots in correct gear? I’d bet the people here with issues would find some kind of odd hippocratic reasoning for that being a pilot instead of a re-enactor and how that would be okay.

We were asked by the MoF in Seattle to show up for this event in 2003, I’m front row right:

Our camp at Olympia two years ago:

My display there a few years ago:
