Tim Savage's P-40N gets a Repaint!

[mike furline]

Sadly you haven’t offered to repaint it. Only to complain about it.
But in the spirit of the holidays, I’m sure many of us will look forward to your P-40 being not only restored to exact wartime condition, but to represent its exact wartime paint scheme. I wish you all the luck and success at that endeavor.

If I were to restore something, that is exactly how I'd do it. Or I'd pick any other part of its history that was specific to it, and restore it to that. I would research it till I knew every minute part of that history, and then I would pick a point in its life and restore it to that. That is called respecting the aircraft and its history. Hell, paint it pink with purple polka dots and call it whatever you want. As long as its original, its keeping the history correct. Its just a new chapter in its history. This is why I love warbirds in civilian and original racing schemes. They aren't copying anything, not trading history for something, simply adding a new chapter that doesn't muddy history. That is all that matters. Keeping the history correct. You of all people should understand that since you post more historic pics than anyone else on here. You try and teach history with your posts, yet you are totally fine with trading the real history of one that exists for that of one that is long gone? That just boggles the mind.

Yes this repaint looks great, but its wrong. Yes a ton of time and $ went into it, but why do it wrong when you can do it right and have an equally great looking aircraft with its identity correct? Owners have an obligation to history and to their aircraft to restore it correctly. If they wish to make it their own, then fine, do something original that doesn't steal the identity from one aircraft that is long gone and make it that aircraft again, at the expense of the real aircrafts true identity and history. All that does is muddy history. We need to protect and preserve history as it happened, not be falsely representing it, because we can. I will argue this for every single ship, aircraft, or whatever that is restored incorrectly to represent something it never was, and never will be. It makes me sad to see "restorations" that are anything but that. Every time I find out a warbird isn't restored as itself, it just makes me sick and sad. As a pretty decent photographer, I want to capture the aircraft in its best light, to make it look the best it can, but if its wrong, I want nothing to do with it. There is no point in shooting it because all I'm doing its perpetuating incorrect history. I don't want to put incorrect history out there, there is way too much of that as it is. I don't want to support it, I don't want my name even loosely associated with it. It really sucks to learn that the beautiful warbird I just shot is not actually the aircraft it represents. All my time and effort that went into the shoot is wasted and the pics get left on the computer never to be shared with anyone else, if not deleted.

Wow, that was a lot to unpack. With all of the self imposed disappointment maybe warbird's shouldn't be your thing. You seem sad.

[Mark Allen M]

There’s a lot to unpack there from both of the latest posts from blackbird and August. I won’t pretend that I’m an expert on what is the best approach for how currently flying warbirds should be represented. Although I’d love for all airworthy warbirds to be painted according to their specific historical accuracy, I know that very few are actually restored as to what they actually were.

I’ve always been on the side of replication rather than restoration anyway and I’ve never been a supporter of data plate restorations. This being said, I’m of the opinion that very few, if any, flying warbirds are actually restorations. I’ve always felt this way and I’m well aware my views are unpopular, not to mention irrelevant, and that’s fine. It’s not my money being spent on these old planes so my thoughts are only relevant to me.

I’m more of an amateur historian with an interest in warbirds than a warbird fan with an interest in history (if that makes sense). I have yet to be completely convinced that any warbird has an accurate paint scheme. Many are very close but will never be spot on accurate, and how could they?.

I used to complain, although trying not to piss off too many people in the process, about accuracy of paint schemes until I realized it’s impossible and not for me to expect anyway. I now have a revised attitude that whatever an owner wants to do with his/her warbird is up to them, and I’ll defend their decision as long as they’re willing to share their warbird with us who appreciate them.

If I want complete accuracy in anything I’ll post some old photos or try to find a museum example somewhere. I don’t place much faith in flying warbirds as a source for portraying or preserving historical accuracy, and like I’ve already stated, I’m not sure it’s even possible. But I do indeed respect the efforts many owners have done to get it as close as possible.

So where does this fine line exist for me? IMO August is correct from a passive perspective and blackbird is correct from an aggressive perspective. Me? I’m in the middle somewhere. I used to have unrealistic expectations until I finally realized that there’s far too much time and money that owners are pouring into their airplanes. I now completely support their decisions no matter how I may personally feel about it. I try to keep reminding myself that none of the decision making by an owner is any of my business. I can complain all day long but the complaints are from me… to me.

But….. one thing that I do lose my sh*t on is this occasional idea that an owner or restorer is trying to sell us on the idea that their airplane has war history that it doesn’t.

Hope some of my rambling made sense.

[marine air]

Sometimes and airplane is painted and I've heard yes, that's a Tuskegee Airmen bird or Yeager's bird. It is annoying when it is only a paint scheme with no connection to the pilot or unit but is being represented as such. To honor someone living or deceased is really nice. I got to see the Fagen F6F Hellcat earlier this year. Evan Fagen said they painted it to honor a nearby living Hellcat pilot. That's classy.
Not everything that is old is historic or valuable. Like houses and buildings, sometimes no one famous built them, lived there. Nothing important or interesting happened there.. They're just old.

[Tim Savage]

Sadly you haven’t offered to repaint it. Only to complain about it.
But in the spirit of the holidays, I’m sure many of us will look forward to your P-40 being not only restored to exact wartime condition, but to represent its exact wartime paint scheme. I wish you all the luck and success at that endeavor.

If I were to restore something, that is exactly how I'd do it. Or I'd pick any other part of its history that was specific to it, and restore it to that. I would research it till I knew every minute part of that history, and then I would pick a point in its life and restore it to that. That is called respecting the aircraft and its history. Hell, paint it pink with purple polka dots and call it whatever you want. As long as its original, its keeping the history correct. Its just a new chapter in its history. This is why I love warbirds in civilian and original racing schemes. They aren't copying anything, not trading history for something, simply adding a new chapter that doesn't muddy history. That is all that matters. Keeping the history correct. You of all people should understand that since you post more historic pics than anyone else on here. You try and teach history with your posts, yet you are totally fine with trading the real history of one that exists for that of one that is long gone? That just boggles the mind.

Yes this repaint looks great, but its wrong. Yes a ton of time and $ went into it, but why do it wrong when you can do it right and have an equally great looking aircraft with its identity correct? Owners have an obligation to history and to their aircraft to restore it correctly. If they wish to make it their own, then fine, do something original that doesn't steal the identity from one aircraft that is long gone and make it that aircraft again, at the expense of the real aircrafts true identity and history. All that does is muddy history. We need to protect and preserve history as it happened, not be falsely representing it, because we can. I will argue this for every single ship, aircraft, or whatever that is restored incorrectly to represent something it never was, and never will be. It makes me sad to see "restorations" that are anything but that. Every time I find out a warbird isn't restored as itself, it just makes me sick and sad. As a pretty decent photographer, I want to capture the aircraft in its best light, to make it look the best it can, but if its wrong, I want nothing to do with it. There is no point in shooting it because all I'm doing its perpetuating incorrect history. I don't want to put incorrect history out there, there is way too much of that as it is. I don't want to support it, I don't want my name even loosely associated with it. It really sucks to learn that the beautiful warbird I just shot is not actually the aircraft it represents. All my time and effort that went into the shoot is wasted and the pics get left on the computer never to be shared with anyone else, if not deleted.

Well, all this has been pretty amusing…not to mention completely hypocritical.

We have had a dialogue on FB before. You seem to think that it is fine to paint a historic airplane in race colors but heaven forbid you paint it in another combat scheme. That’s fine. Most of us that are actually involved in historic aviation see through your BS.

I did have a good chuckle when you said it ” sucks to learn that the beautiful warbird I just shot is not actually the aircraft it represents. All my time and effort that went into the shoot is wasted and the pics get left on the computer never to be shared with anyone else, if not deleted.” You might want to revisit your own FB page. It is littered with warbirds painted in schemes different than what the airplane actually wore in the military. In fact…the “cover” photo of your very own page is of a Mustang…and, “gasp!,” it is in combat paint. But that airplane was never a combat aircraft certainly not in those markings. You have some serious purging to do.

Your statement leads me to understand why so many warbird owners have such a disdain for aviation photographers. At the end of the day, I don’t give a rats ass whether you ever take a photo of my airplane. Neither does any other warbird owner. To be frank, I have the best aviation photographers in the business calling me to shoot this airplane, folks like Dibbs, Slocum, Morehead, Madisen. Forgive me if I don’t need an amateur.

In fact, Dibbsy, while a photographer, has dedicated his life to telling the story of World War Two pilots. He was hired to interview hundreds of vets for major museum video project, he was authored dozens of books. He knows more about aviation history than many of us ever will. He thinks its great I am telling the Landers Darwin story. He understands, like I do, that the airplanes are only objects. It is the men that flew them that we should honor and those are the stories we should tell. There are scant few combat airplanes left. A bunch of airplanes in training command colors do not tell a compelling story that will get an eight-year-old excited.

I had a difficult choice to make when painting mine. I could paint it in Aussie colors which wouldn’t resonate with the eight-year-olds I routinely put in the cockpit. However, they have a much better chance of understanding that a Texas kid went across the ocean to fight an enemy that they knew nothing about in a country they may have had no idea existed. That to me is the point of owning a warbird. I have spent the last 30 years telling these stories in a variety of different mediums. I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in print and other media to do so, beyond the airplanes I own. I have had the pleasure of meeting many, many World War Two aviation personalities who are the real heroes, not the airplanes.

I had the honor of taking Bud Anderson and his two children back to Leiston a few years ago. The children had never been to his base. I can tell you with certainty Bud doesn’t care that the airplanes painted as his never were his. He cares that the story of his buddies from the 357th we found with him buried in the American cemetery in Cambridge are told. The airplanes are meaningless.

Currently I am engaged in an incredible project, a feature film called American Warhorse with John Dibbs. Bud is a technical advisor for the film. We painted a bunch of Mustangs up in different schemes to tell the story of the different Mustang pilots we interviewed. You probably shouldn’t go see it.

I would encourage the rest of you to look at the warbirds the way so many of owners like I do: an opportunity to tell a compelling story. Kids today aren’t reading books, they might watch a video, but they will light up when you invite them into the cockpit and start telling them stories. If I am guilty of some heinous crime of painting my airplane in a different scheme, so be it. I can rest easy in the fact that some of the young guys that started hanging around our airplanes are now starting to fly those airplanes. The are the future of this business and they will be the future story tellers. Let’s equip them to do so because the guys who actually did it are few and far between now.

This is my last word on the subject. I am off to DEN to pickup the 20th airplane for my collection...another 'object' to tell a story...no matter how it is painted. I am taking one of the 1200 World War Two aircrew autobiographies I have in my library to read on the trip out...just in case anyone thinks I don't understand or appreciate the 'history'.

[K5DH]

Tim:

Don't let the critics and nay-sayers get under your skin. Keep doing what you do. Do it your way. Tell the stories that need to be told. Lots of folks will appreciate it!

[Warbird Kid]

Well said Tim. Your continued input, opinion, and participation on WIX here is still very much appreciated and welcomed! Congrats on the new acquisition! And we hope to see you around the Northeast sometime!

[Dan K]

Thanks, Tim.

[Dave Homewood]

H*ll, my Mustang isn’t wearing its original paint, yet it’s scheme is 25 years old now… and everyone seems to love it!

I did not know that you have a Mustang, Mark. Which one is it?

[Xray]

I won’t pretend that I’m an expert

1st time you've ever said that, I'm sure.

[Dave Homewood]

In fact, Dibbsy, while a photographer, has dedicated his life to telling the story of World War Two pilots. He was hired to interview hundreds of vets for major museum video project, he was authored dozens of books. He knows more about aviation history than many of us ever will. He thinks its great I am telling the Landers Darwin story. He understands, like I do, that the airplanes are only objects. It is the men that flew them that we should honor and those are the stories we should tell.

Well said. Having interviewed hundreds of WWII veterans myself, it is them, the men and women, that need to be remembered and are the special part of WWII history, not so much the tools they used (as awesome as many of those tools are to see). Painting a warbird aircraft to represent the mount of a pilot that you'd like to tell the story of is fine by me. Even better that it also highlights a campaign that is pretty much forgotten. Great work!

[Mark Allen M]

The vast majority of WIX members are grateful supporters of anyone who owns and operates a warbird no matter what they choose to paint it. Rarely now and then this forum is infested with one or two dumbasses who aren’t capable of respect let alone possession of any historical knowledge. This thread has just one guy who is having a personal crisis over a paint finish not to his historical standards, yet he’s at least not being too much of a d*ck over it. Then of course you’ve got the other dope who from the very beginning of his arrival to this forum has been a knuckleheaded troll. But don’t take my word for it. His asinine posts sum it up in this thread alone. (A good bet he’s not done being an A-hole yet either, just watch)

Back in my early days on this site when I got out of line the WIX Police were out in force slapping the cuffs on me in no time. Guess it’s only selective outrage towards moderators acting on moderating now.

It’s a shame Tim has to be exposed to a couple of classless fools who disapprove of anything that doesn’t belong to them. The rest of us can’t thank you enough for sharing your property with those of us who appreciate it.

I’ll post a pic of my Mustang when I get home.

[Mark Allen M]

I did not know that you have a Mustang, Mark. Which one is it?

1969 Mach 1 with a 25 year old paint job, and still looks brand new

[mgeorge511]

Tim

I love your response. I need to remember to use "I don't give a rats ass" more often myself. Kind of makes you feel better.

Only 20 airplanes, you need 2 more to match my collection.

Please let me know what you bought.

[Hooligan2]

It looks great Tim.

The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight repaint their fleet fairly regularly to represent different squadrons and pilots who played a part in winning WWII. Keeps them fresh, helps tell more of the story. I don't care how the aeroplane is painted, so long as it looks authentic - seen some dodgy looking camouflage shades once or twice in the past!

When I win the Lottery and get my P-40, I'll go for an Aussie scheme, my Spitfire XIV will replicate Spencer Flack's beautiful G-FIRE and my Sea Fury will be Canadian...

[Dave Homewood]

I did not know that you have a Mustang, Mark. Which one is it?

1969 Mach 1 with a 25 year old paint job, and still looks brand new

Ah, I see.... that shade of olive drab does not look right, and the whole thing is too glossy.....

Yep, you got me a good one there....