Matt Gunsch wrote:
and people wonder why guy like John Lane and others no longer post on here. John is, by now, after what 4 or is it 6 Corsair restorations, THE Corsair expert when it comes to markings and making them as close to perfect as they can be. Why don't all of you who are questioning the colors of the wings just got ahead and get it off your chest and ask him what dash number carb and fuel pump are installed so you can debate that as well.
In case you all forgot, there was a war on, and they used what they had when it came to paint. If it called for dark blue, they painted it dark blue from what ever source they had, they did not care if it was a 1/2 shade too dark or too light. When it came to Tech orders, it is all in who reads it and how they interpet it. One might feather a line, others might mask it, which is correct ? the answer is BOTH, because they were doing the job, the paint was on the plane.
Mmmm.
Someone asked a reasonable question as to why the upper blue was non standard and why it was extended beyond the wing fold - neither is an offensive question, and neither cannot be answered - if there's a good reason, which given John's expertise is the most
likely explanation, we'd all be keen to hear it - but we haven't yet. If it causes pain that people dare comment on non standard details, bear in mind that interest is what's raised the bar in restorations. If everyone was happy with inverted stars and blue Mustangs, that's what we'd still have.
One key reason restorations like this prize winner are to the standard they are today is because of interest by enthusiasts, modellers and the rivet counters - many of whom are the same people as the restorers. Most of us are past the 'ooo look purdy Mustang' level of interest in W.W.II aircraft and many have expertise to share - often for free.
Debates and discussions here are a great way of learning - but only when we accept that knowledge is to be shared, and knowledge, rather than opinion, is based on evidence, not opinion. I'd be happy to hear either - 'we thought that the best interpretation because...' or 'here's our source which says it was like this' or whatever else.
From this thread and restoration, apart from the debate on the colour and extent, I've learned about Lindbergh flying Corsairs (didn't know that) that in the US 'depth charges' are called 'depth bombs' and single seaters were equipped with rare kit to use them (didn't know that) from that disastrous company Brewster, and there's significant authentic variation behind the firewall in Corsairs (maybe to be expected).
I can't comment on a judge making a mistake specifically, but we are all human and we all err at times. (If someone presents at a competition, it is up to them, to a degree to demonstrate their sources of data for the judge's information. It's part of the deal. No one's
forced to play, and I've yet to meet a judge who deserves even one of the insults hurled at them.) If you want to win prizes with a restoration intended to be authentic, you are putting your restoration up for scrutiny - which this one passed. I'd presume the documentation addressed such a stand-out item, which is part of the reason it got the palm, and naturally, I'd like to know too, rather than 'my mate's untouchable'.
It looks like a great restoration from the photos, and a tip of the hat. Were I working on a book on the Corsair (maybe one day) like I recently did on the P-51D, I'd ask the restorer why the
non standard colours are the way they are, and I've generally got a very helpful response. In the case of the P-51D, great help from a number of people, some here, some who I'd regard as experts, others would call 'rivet counters' as well as restorers. The book was all the better for their input, while on the other hand I've subsequently had errors and omissions pointed out to me in the book. That's in the nature of human endeavour. Rather than trying to deny or ignore the mistakes, it's stuff to try and get right next time (- edition in my case).
airnutz wrote:
Another thing to consider is the color filters used during film processing back then. Remember the "Blue P-51s" controversey of the 361st FG?
I think in general that had a lot more to do with the
printing processes of the day than the quality of the original image. In the specific case, I'm not sure though.
As has several times been said, it would be risky to ascribe specific blue tones to what was a robust four colour process, possibly enhanced or retouched. The original transparency, on the other hand would be very useful, and it exist(ed).
I also would like to confess to winding-up Mr August H, just because it's a rare oportunity, Y'rhonour.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
