Interesting discussion, in the respectful bits.
The other bits are understandable, but perhaps better settled behind the bike sheds after school.
JohnB wrote:
I'm not a fan of nose art unless the type actually had it in service....and then in the correct period style.
This craze of "anything WWII with nose art" is silly.
Although I don't think so in
this case, John's (IMHO) quite right about too many warbirds, and it's
particularly immature and inappropriate on military vehicles. Jeeps and Duces were mostly seen as just exchangeable government tools to do a job, and you may as well paint nose art on your hammer or screwdriver.
If it's your aeroplane, etc... However producing over-finished 'photo-realistic' nose art in a 1960s+ style may well suit the desires of the owners, but has as much to do with W.W.II nose art as a pair of red bars would in the star and bars.
I don't know Gary Valasco's work, I'm sure it's good. However Django gets points from me by the fact that his artwork works in a period style, finish and approach.
Ztex wrote:
And the idea is to sell this airplane to the people that go to airshows, buy t-shirts and buy rides....and guys like girly nose art....
Just a few thoughts from this end of the peanut gallery.
k5dh wrote:
Regarding the impending name change, in today's world, it's all about marketing and name recognition. If you want the public to remember your airplane, you need to have a catchy name that they'll take away with them and use in conversation.
There's two points to tease out here -
Firstly, despite what second rate marketing wonks would like us to believe, get the
product right, and people will
then follow the name (or brand). A 'great name' on a poor product is a waste of marketing spend. You can have the most inappropriate name and re-invent it by the achievement of the business - Nike, Virgin and Amazon are all re-invented names which have supplanted their original meanings - not because the name's cool (they are all have the potential for very anti-cool, in fact) but because the business has done the job, the name is just the handle to the brand.
Secondly, a different point, but related. If you are, or become, just about shifting T shirts and just covering your costs, then there's been a loss of sight of the mission of commemoration, memory and history. I absolutely agree that Diamond Lil (and Fifi) has a great history as a warbird, and I'm right behind warbird history, more than most, even. However the warbird history of any of these aircraft should not be allowed to trump the commemoration of the real, combat examples they are supposed to be remembering.
(An aside about 'girly nose art' in general, and excepting Lil given her long history.
Genuine stuff's part of our history, and should
not be censored or replaced. Modern replica W.W.II girlies? Not so much. Some of it's voluntary 'tramp stamping', and telling people more than we want to know about the [always male] owner. It's also missing out on T shirt sales potential and (more crucially) engagement with a lot of the kids and women (and me like me) who like a bit more than sex-symbol respect for the women. We aren't lonely young men in danger on a Pacific island, but comfortable people with cash to spare and a comfortable life.
And
some nose art shows you can be a millionaire with all the class of a kid playing with his dad's porrnn stash.
In short, if you compromise historical fidelity for a marketing edge, you are on that road of not-quite-good-enough intentions.
(And a disclaimer - I'm not privileged to the CAF's decision making in this one, and my points are general to the discussion, rather than a partly-informed critique by a non-Colonel of the CAF. I'm right behind Ol 927 or Lil flying, and won't forget the Colonels who got her there
or Gary, or Django's work.)
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
.
