Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:53 pm
Cripes A Mighty wrote:Here is a pic of the P40 when it was white...
Fade to Black...
Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:19 pm
Cripes A Mighty wrote:Thats the one that crashed in Mercedes in 66 (?), correct?
Yep. Looks like he dished out of a roll. It was in '65.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=76899&key=0
Steve G
Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:24 pm
I find it interesting that most folks on this thread seem to applaud the paint schemes of the early CAF aircraft. Yet, if the roundels on one of our current static display airplanes isn't the exact diameter it's supposed to be, or the color of camoflage isn't the right shade of blue or grey (or whatever) on one of our current flyers, we get flamed for it.
Now, I understand that the pictures shown were certainly in a different era in the Warbird world, but I'm wondering if we painted our P-40 white, with a shark's mouth on it, that y'all would approve it? Just curious.
Body armor on...proceed with the beatings now.
Gary
Now, I understand that the pictures shown were certainly in a different era in the Warbird world, but I'm wondering if we painted our P-40 white, with a shark's mouth on it, that y'all would approve it? Just curious.
Body armor on...proceed with the beatings now.
Gary
Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:44 pm
I guess it's like this Gary...
When the planes were in their old paint schemes, they weren't "looking like" they were trying to be accurate - then when you move to a scheme that attempts to look more authentic, but doesn't go the little bit more to be really authentic, then it seems odd. Personally, I don't really care so much, because I don't think that the average Joe can tell about whether or not the stars and bars are just so. If an owner wants to paint it that way, and is maintaining the aircraft in flyable condition - fine.
I would be on the record that if I had an aircraft, I would personally try to get it as close to a recorded, accurate scheme as possible.
I do think that the old schemes were kinda "cool" - especially the ones with the flag in the middle!
Ryan
When the planes were in their old paint schemes, they weren't "looking like" they were trying to be accurate - then when you move to a scheme that attempts to look more authentic, but doesn't go the little bit more to be really authentic, then it seems odd. Personally, I don't really care so much, because I don't think that the average Joe can tell about whether or not the stars and bars are just so. If an owner wants to paint it that way, and is maintaining the aircraft in flyable condition - fine.
I would be on the record that if I had an aircraft, I would personally try to get it as close to a recorded, accurate scheme as possible.
I do think that the old schemes were kinda "cool" - especially the ones with the flag in the middle!
Ryan
Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:36 pm
I just get nostalgic sometimes for the old days.
Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:57 pm
What b29flteng said!
For me, it's part of learning about the history of the Warbird movement in general. CAF played--in my opinion--a hugely important historic part in that history. Another interesting time in that history was just after the war and into the '70's...warbirds working in civilian dress as executive transport, fire bombers, crop sprayers, fighters in banana republic wars, etc....all things that contributed to these planes being around today.
As for today's colors...I'd go along with others who say "the closer to historical accuracy, the better"...though owners have the right to paint them as they like, and I'd still be happy as all getout that they're still flying..whatever the accuracy.
--Tom
For me, it's part of learning about the history of the Warbird movement in general. CAF played--in my opinion--a hugely important historic part in that history. Another interesting time in that history was just after the war and into the '70's...warbirds working in civilian dress as executive transport, fire bombers, crop sprayers, fighters in banana republic wars, etc....all things that contributed to these planes being around today.
As for today's colors...I'd go along with others who say "the closer to historical accuracy, the better"...though owners have the right to paint them as they like, and I'd still be happy as all getout that they're still flying..whatever the accuracy.
--Tom
Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:03 pm
Ryan said it. While some of the old civil paint schemes on warbirds in the early years were truly ghastly, some were in good taste. Personally if I had a warbird I would put extreme effort into accuracy etc. But these were the good old days and who wants to polish bare aluminum in the hot Rio Grande Valley humidity (besides me).
Its kinda funny how the CAF's paint schemes evolved.
1957-1974 most were the white etc.
1974- (we'll say) 1990 some accurate schemes but some real sorry attempts (Texas Raiders first OD camo job....P-38 Scatterbrain kid etc.). 1990-present....just about there.
Dont peg me as a purist its just interesting to observe the change through the years. Heck, paint a P-51 Orange with Brown stripes and I will still drool all over myself.
Its kinda funny how the CAF's paint schemes evolved.
1957-1974 most were the white etc.
1974- (we'll say) 1990 some accurate schemes but some real sorry attempts (Texas Raiders first OD camo job....P-38 Scatterbrain kid etc.). 1990-present....just about there.
Dont peg me as a purist its just interesting to observe the change through the years. Heck, paint a P-51 Orange with Brown stripes and I will still drool all over myself.
Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:41 pm
Personally I can't stand the civilian schemes on the warbirds. I'd rather see them at least TRY to look authentic. They weren't meant to fly in civilian colors. 
It's fun to look at the old CAF schemes, but let it be forever a closed chapter! 
Give me 100 AVG P-40N rather than ONE civilian P-40!
It's fun to look at the old CAF schemes, but let it be forever a closed chapter! Give me 100 AVG P-40N rather than ONE civilian P-40!
Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:06 pm
Django wrote: They weren't meant to fly in civilian colors.
Is that because they were supposed to be scrapped after the end of hostilities?
Given that they (at best) spent a decade in uniform, but then up to 40 years in civilian dress one could argue that "civvies" are more than appropriate...
T J
Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:14 pm
Oh no, I am grateful for their survival, and if that means spending the rest of it's "life" in "civies" then so be it. But I won't linger on the ramp when there is one next to it in war paint.
Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:14 pm
I'd LOVE to see someone paint their TBM in fire bomber colors...like Hemet Valley or something like that...and then give me a free ride, of course
I LOVE civie colors! And truth be told...many of today's warbirds did more fighting over America's forests than they did over Europe or Japan. So I think civie colors would be a cool addition to all the great WWII paint schemes out there.
--Tom
I LOVE civie colors! And truth be told...many of today's warbirds did more fighting over America's forests than they did over Europe or Japan. So I think civie colors would be a cool addition to all the great WWII paint schemes out there.
--Tom
Last edited by Sasquatch on Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:26 am
Okay, so since I'm the one that now "officially" approves paint schemes in the CAF, I should move to have all of our airplanes painted white, with red and blue stripes then? So, do we save the nose art on Ol' 927, or paint over it then? 
It sounds as if the "Warbird junkies" on this thread then, for the most part, are "tired" of the original schemes and would rather see civilian schemes then??? I'm still confused.
Gary
Disclaimer: These posts of mine on this thread are merely for interaction and to spur conversation. In no way am I going to actually consider painting these aircraft in the old civilian schemes, as those schemes do nothing to honor Military Aviation and those who built, maintained, and flew these aircraft.
It sounds as if the "Warbird junkies" on this thread then, for the most part, are "tired" of the original schemes and would rather see civilian schemes then??? I'm still confused.
Gary
Disclaimer: These posts of mine on this thread are merely for interaction and to spur conversation. In no way am I going to actually consider painting these aircraft in the old civilian schemes, as those schemes do nothing to honor Military Aviation and those who built, maintained, and flew these aircraft.
Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:33 am
I LOVE Ol' 927's new paint job.
Ryan
Ryan
Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:58 am
I would venture to say that no one here is "tired" of the accurate military schemes. These old CAF schemes are just as interesting and unique as any other paint job in the history of these airplanes. As civilian schemes on warbirds go, I find these CAF ones to probably be my favorite and most attractive. Does that mean I would take the civilian over an equally attractive and accurate military scheme? No, but these are just another chapter in the history of an airframe, therefore making it interesting to reflect upon.
Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:08 am
Ahh Paint......camo.....O.D.....Civie Paint....no paint...perhaps one should use water color, so that the paint scheme can be changed as often as one changes their socks....Personally, IMHO, IF one is going to fly an example of an aircraft that falls into the category of a "Warbird" then the machine needs to appear that she has been flown in combat... and her paint should be chipped and to some degree maybe-a-couple-a small dents here and there, and patches as appropriate. And if a former Medium Bomber is going to wear "Civie" paint, then, IMHO she should be decked out as a VIP Executive Configuration...I saw an H&P Privateer at an air show at Ft Huachuca once, and regardless of the paint scheme, she was awesome...