Warbird Information Exchange

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:

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?



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.

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.


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:

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?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

it is easy, it was his plane to paint any way he wanted. I hated it when Pete Rgina's P-51B was stripped of it's Shangra La paint and repainted red, but it was the owners choice.
This is easy to fix, cough up the money and pay for the repaint, or live with it.

That point had, as ever, come up in the other thread. It's clear that the CAF now think that schemes like this aren't a good idea; a change in guidelines has followed.

I think in this case it's not so much 'what to do about the Martlet' (Money for a repaint is a good idea - but y'know, I'm not that keen to hand over a lot of cash to cover up someone else's poor performance) but 'Why was someone who cared enough to go for this scheme prepared to complete it with such self-evidently poor information?' - which is old but takes us to 'How do we help this not happen again?'

Remember this isn't about a mixed scheme or a civil scheme, but a scheme that's just a remarkably poor effort at an original scheme. Paint your L-39 with cheatlines or USN colours, that's cool. Personally I love the occasional warbird in civil colours - they're great.

I'd be delighted to help anyone get together data to get a scheme right; in a small way I've done so, free, as have those better qualified than me.

While there's a lot of truth in the 'mine and I'll choose', there's more to think about (if you want to). For instance:

The Martlet isn't a private owner toy, but a donation to the CAF. From the statements made by our CAF guys, I understand that quality loophole has since been closed. Just like other organisations promoting themselves as offering historical insight, there needs to be some standards set, surely.

The money question can be looked at another way; why should the CAF have to waste a load of cash for an eventual repaint, when it could've been done right in the first place?

Whatever happened to 'Big Ass Bird'? The 'Dragon and it's Tail'? For all the noise of 'you pay you choose', there are limits. Why must they be puritanical rather than good history? It's all censorship or bowdlerisation.

Of course we've kicked the nose-art issue around a lot already; clearly there's significant pressure not to display some artwork on aircraft - ah, of course, being authentic is a good defence - but then it needs to be authentic...

Also I don't think turning up with a Mustang painted as 'Illinois Nazi Air National Guard' would be a great idea. (But then...)

Some people understandably find swastikas, even as kill markings unacceptable. There's at least one Spitfire without the kills as the owner has very good family reasons not to carry those.

There's also another issue with military schemes; lots of the public think that it means the aircraft is current military... A bit odd with W.W.II warbirds, but perfectly understandable with Vietnam era stuff. (The Australian Defence Forces are still using some of it.) For that reason, some countries require permission before you can be exempted from a civil scheme. Please don't just over-react, but is there anything more to be said there? (Incidentally, I understand certain countries require preserved emergency road-vehicles not to carry their special markings 'POLICE' 'AMBULANCE' on the public highway.)

Not everyone can or should care about schemes; or history. Just like not all of us want to be pilots. However, rather than being rude about those whose interests we don't share, it's demonstrably better to use each other's expertise to get a better result. Modellers have helped airworthy warbirds build a more complete history and be painted reasonably well, and any area of enthusiasm in aviation has something to add; even the serial number crunchers who keep Eric Downing answering questions while the rest of us sneak in the back of the hangar and steal the polka dots...

Cheers,


You know, I can just see that 'Illinois Nazi ANG' Mustang, with a couple of black hat & sunglasses kill markings under the rail...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

James, Dragon and It's Tail wasn't removed for censorship reasons. The B-24 has been repainted several times since it first flew. It was time for a repaint and a European Theater scheme was picked this time. Now we have " Witch Craft " recreated.

Thanks Rick, that was my understanding, I was (amazingly) trying to be brief. But correct me if I'm wrong - you did receive complaints and some bad feedback about the nude? And you probably aren't going to have another nude in the future, are you?

As Gary Austin touched on, the choice open to the CAF on 'Ol 927' nose art eliminated anything 'risqué' That's self-censorship; reasonable, I'm not complaining, but let's not kid ourselves.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Well you could extend this line of thinking to several different aircraft that have been repainted. The one that comes to mind most is the CAF's Yellow Rose. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way the original nose art was painted, but for whatever reason the CAF had to go back and paint a vest to cover her. I found it quite funny that when I took pictures of Yellow Rose at AirSho 93 or 94 (before the vest was painted on), when I got my pictures back from the processor that one picture showing the nose art wasn't printed.

>The Martlet isn't a private owner toy, but a donation to the CAF. From the statements made by our CAF guys, I understand that quality loophole has since been closed. Just like other organizations promoting themselves as offering historical insight, there needs to be some standards set, surely. <

it was a private owners toy, and as such he painted it the way he saw fit, and do you really want someone telling you how YOUR plane should be painted ? It maybe owned by the CAF, but it is still private property and they can paint it however they wish.


>The money question can be looked at another way; why should the CAF have to waste a load of cash for an eventual repaint, when it could've been done right in the first place? <

Why do they have to repaint it ? It is THEIR property, and they can do with as they wish. Again, if you do not like the paint, cough up the money and pay for the repaint, or better yet, sponsor the plane and then pay for the repaint.


Going by your thinking, the CAF B-17s should be repainted because they are not Authentic paint jobs. There never was a Texas Raiders or a B-17 named Sentimental Journey flying combat.How about the B-25s ? The Yellow Rose ? or Maid in the Shade ? Maid in the shade flew combat, and is painted in it's original markings, but it never had nose art, so I guess they did not get it right by giving it some.

again, almost every warbird that is outside a govt funded museum is privately owned, and as such, can be painted how ever the current owner sees fit. I don;t agree with the way Pima painted the B-23, but it is THEIR plane and they decided how they wanted to paint it.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Matt, I don't plan to cough up or shut up, and no one's got any right to demand I do so, thanks.

Finally, don't say what I should say, let's stick to what's actually said, rather than setting up dummy targets.

it was just some stuff to think about; if you don't like it, or don't want to play, fine. There's some points worthy of discussion rather than reiterating a well known view. However, let's agree to differ, and see if others would like to play.

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Matt, I agree with you. However it is the word 'wish' that is the issue here. The owners of this aircraft wished the aircraft to be re-finished in an accurate scheme depicting a particular airframe at a certain time in WWII. That was what they wanted (I know this as they confirmed this to me). What went wrong was the execution of their wishes, in this case very wrong indeed.

_________________
Warbird Colour - Authentic historic aircraft finishes http://www.warbirdcolour.co.uk

Bottom line, It cost the same to do a correct scheme as a incorrect.

Warbirds Restorers are notorious for historically inacurate schemes.
Look at LSFM's F6F-5N, and the 55FG P-51 coded HI*G.
Compare HI*G to Miss Marilyn, Gunfighter and Millie G.

So much info is out there with the WWW and scale modelers that won't compromise.

Seeing all the 51's at GML made me realise how far we have come.
Almost all of them were in mostly accurate schemes, a beautiful site.
While I enjoy a overly polished P-51, "Twilight Tear" made my jaw drop.
Now I know there is a time warp somewhere in the atlantic.

I think I will chime in here. Yes, it is CAF property, as the owner, I agree that they have the right to paint the aircraft any way that they want to.

BUT,... as an accredited museum, who has chosen to be an educational organization , by their own admission, they have now obligated themselves to get it right ! As James said in several posts, an institution holding themselves out as a keeper of the history must try to get the information right or risk perpetuating untruths or fictional information as real. Somewhere down the line, later generations won't know what is real and what isn't and it opens the door to the revisionist history that we all abhor.

I'm going to have to disagree with that statement to an extent. Many owners of mulitiple a/c have set up 'museums' with tax emempt 501c3 status. Their museum charters usually have wording some what like this
"to perpetuate the history of these great aircraft and to honor the memory of the men and women who maintained and flew them in defense of their country". Anyone who has creative such an enity for their a/c and paints them with a bogus scheme isn't living up to what they've created. Becoming a tax exempt organization and soliciting public/private funds for said museum gives you a much great responsibility to be historically accurate.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

I think this idea that all warbirds need to be painted in EXACT CORRECT vintage style paint is a bit over the top.
I see the Wildcat paint job as an attempt to represent a specific airplane that went wrong in the color department. That has been delt with.

One school of thought seems to be paint it as you wish (a bunch were done that way in the 60's by the "good ole boys" and the CAF originally had all their airplanes in a white with red and blue stripes scheme) If I had a P-51 I would be tempted to paint it like a 1960's racer, just to be different....

The other end is the museum quality from the factory fresh new look to the painted in flat finishes, invasion stripes with a brush, correct stencils, 50 mission paint chips, oil stains, carbon build up on the gun ports combat veteran look. (Tallichet's B-17?)
This is a scheme I could go for but you average airshow attendee would say ..."oooh what an ugly airplane...I hope is doesn't fall out of the sky" ...not good for the movement...

There is another school of thought that is the most prevalent is the respectful representation of a combat aircraft. Like the CAF has done. It works fairly well be cause we all seem to know the aircraft by their "names". 99% of the people, me included, that have any interest in this warbird stuff don't know 44-83514, but they sure know what airplane Sentimental Journey is.... I think this is a good middle ground. It show we care and lets "the public" see what they want to see.

Don't forget...without the great unwashed, most of the operators of these airplanes would park them for lack of funds....it takes money to keep these things flying...and the public pays for rides and airshows...

My bottom line opinion....Repaint the Wildcat...because it doesn't really meet any of these schools of thought. (no I don;t have the to cough up for it)

But then again....what ever it takes to keep it flying safely.

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

Umm... the CAF didn't have a choice on paint scheme. When they were founded, the US Government FORBADE them from flying the airplanes in accurate paint schemes. They did not want confusion between privately owned aircraft and aircraft owned by the government. They chose the scheme they did because it was patriotic over the others proposed. It took an act of congress to allow for privately owned aircraft to be flown and painted in the colors of a military aircraft inside the United States.