In parallel with the discussion on shiny Mustangs, there was some discussion about the CAF's Wildcat painted (IMHO) quite unlike a Martlet. Rather than a full recap, here's a link to the thread:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=16189
The aircraft under discussion is painted as shown here in JFisher's photo (thanks!):
And in Chris' photo (he likes it...
)
The reference the painter used was clearly this:
It should look (something) like this (Note the underside colour is different to the two upper colours):
Or a colour equivalent:
As I said in the thread, there was no intention of attacking the painter or the CAF donor, but it is a remarkably bad (if well applied) scheme. Why would someone paint an aircraft using a single inaccurate colour profile drawing?
Well, we kicked it around a bit in the above mentioned thread. Here's a few of my responses from the points made there; and it would be great to have some further input from others who
really know about colour schemes. I don't.
Mjanovec came back with some excellent points I'd like to respond to, later:
mjanovec wrote:
JDK wrote:
Regarding the Wildcat... Excuses, excuses.
I wonder if anyone would accept such poor excuses for an equivalent lack of effort in maintenance or flying safety?
A paint scheme is, ultimately, a question of aesthetics or historical accuracy. Proper maintenance and safety is matter of life and death. To tie the two together to make your argument is pretty weak, in my opinion.
Of course, it was meant slightly ironically. However, as restoring, maintaining and flying these precious historic artefacts requires so much expertise and professionalism, why not simply carry that forward to complete the job with a halfway decent scheme?
mjanovec wrote:
One has a right to not like a paint scheme...and I personally don't like the scheme on this Wildcat either. But it's ultimately up to its owners to decide how to paint it. As far as I'm concerned, if a warbird owner wants to paint his bird in shocking pink because he likes that color, that's a good-enough excuse...because it is his wallet that ultimately gives him the freedom to do so. I might not like it, but I completely respect whatever reasons they may have for painting their bird any way they that pleases them.
Of course, Shocking pink would be fine. It's be a civil scheme, not a bastardised 'real' scheme. The days of being 'good ol boys' having fun with the airplanes, I'm assured, are replaced with remembering the sacrifices made by the 'greatest generation'. Tributes should be reasonably historical, not hysterical. As I said before:
Yes, it's not my 'plane, and I'm expecting to be told to get back in my box or cough-up to paint it better. But before we go down that worn route, let's just take a moment's thought.
Most of us like to claim that we support warbirds to honour and acknowledge the effort and sacrifice those who flew and died in W.W.II. We'd also agree it behoves us to try and get those tributes right, in fact, history, tone and approach. It's harsh to say, but it is ignorance, and a lack of respect, at base, that comes up with such a careless approximation of something that should be a creditable and appreciated rendition of a close allies' aircraft.
Yes, it's offensive to get the colours of another nation's aircraft so wrong. It's like flying a visitors' flag upside down. Good manners and etiquette.Additionally, it's 'teaching' bad history. We make a great play here of our dedication to telling history, and lots are quick to attack examples of what they see as lies about W.W.II; this is a small lie, due to a lack of effort. As we've seen by the mythical invention of 'New Zealand' operated Wildcats to explain away this appalling scheme, small historical lies breed bigger ones.
mjanovec wrote:
Instead of being critical of those who don't have historically accurate paint schemes, I think it would be much more constructive to heap praise and attention upon those owners who do have historically accurate paint schemes. If we pay more attention to those birds with accurate paint, it may serve as motivation to other warbird owners to follow those examples.
I quoted 'Captain Eddie's' Firefly (excellent) and Jim Smith's Seafire 47, a remarkable multi-national effort to get the scheme 'right'. I also clearly stated that WIX can and has helped; with the wonderful 'Ol 927' artwork invented by Django and applied to a very historic warbird. Of course the scheme on '927 isn't original, but it's (I'm sure most would agree) a wonderful idea, and a great tribute to the early B-24s and their crews. The 'Martlet' isn't.
Perhaps we should have a bit more attention paid to the efforts some go to to get colours right? I agree there's more carping than recognition.
mjanovec wrote:
Complaining about a paint scheme only makes us look like, well, a bunch of complainers.
So we should 'suck it up'? No thanks. In this case we aren't talking about a disputable or minor detail, but a scheme in which
every single item is wrong; quite an achievement and only explicable by a lack of effort and no interest in giving proper credit to the subject.
On the other hand, there's free help available. You need to know what's good, as you've said, and equally, there needs to be an understanding of what's bad. We need to improve the jobs we do; part of that is being honest about failure. Bill (Old Shep) said in the thread:
Old Shep wrote:
Every plastic model builder (or RC scale fan like Chad) knows instantly that the paint scheme on the Wildcat is wrong. However, in the opinion of those on the CAF Maintenance Committee it was reasonably OK, and the man who had given buckets of money and airplanes to the CAF wanted it in those colors. When it came out of the paint shop I pointed out all of the things that James is all hot about, but I was just another Colonel at that time. Since then, I've become a bit more vocal and a bit more involved, and I don't think what happened to the Wildcat will happen again.
Great, and thanks for the contribution. If I may tag on a caveat, though, it's not "Every plastic model builder (or RC scale fan like Chad) knows instantly that the paint scheme on the Wildcat is wrong"; but anyone who cares and knows about Royal Navy history; the history of the battle for the Atlantic, and so on. A kid might well ask his dad why the Brits flew in such a brightly colored aircraft, when it made more sense to be camouflaged. ("It is camouflage, son, just not as we know it.") The RN had tough times, and needed the Grummans, but they did know a bit about camouflage. We try and get our British and American aircraft schemes right here in Australia, it would be nice if we
all stood a bit better by our allies. At base, some of it is about respect.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
