A trend towards more non-authentic schemes? ...

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7817

I wish them all the best of luck.

M

Firebird · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:11 pm

mustangdriver wrote:

I'll go ahead an chime in here, because I have no problem being not popular. They built just shy of 13,000 B-17's. You are saying that there is no deserving WWII veteran that lives in the area out there that could have been honored by having his aircraft recreated? I love the whole attitude toward "paint nazis" or as I call them people that get it right. Don't sit and pretend that having a WWII vet's scheme recreated isn't one of the most powerful things you can do to say thank you. Don't pretend that it doesn't mean the world to them. We have such a short time left with our WWII vets that now is the time to get it right. I think that Daisy Duke is fine for a car show, not on something like this.

Agree with that.

The concept is fine.

The execution of it is a travesty.

airnutz · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:14 pm

StangStung wrote:

mustangdriver wrote:

I'll go ahead an chime in here, because I have no problem being not popular. They built just shy of 13,000 B-17's. You are saying that there is no deserving WWII veteran that lives in the area out there that could have been honored by having his aircraft recreated? I love the whole attitude toward "paint nazis" or as I call them people that get it right. Don't sit and pretend that having a WWII vet's scheme recreated isn't one of the most powerful things you can do to say thank you. Don't pretend that it doesn't mean the world to them. We have such a short time left with our WWII vets that now is the time to get it right. I think that Daisy Duke is fine for a car show, not on something like this.

Are you still the same mustang driver from page four, or has someone hijacked your account? geek

Different mustang person...page 4 is Mustang lover. :wink:

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:25 pm

Mark Allen M wrote:

I suppose it's too late to offer photos of what B-17's looked like when stationed at Madras Army Airfield.

I've only asked twice on this thread. :wink:

Let's see 'em!

lmritger · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:30 pm

Mark Allen M wrote:

IMHO I feel a B-17 should be held in a different light as an example of the best flying memorial we have out there to remember and honor those many thousands of airmen who sacrificed so much. It's difficult to try to feel any other way for many of us who have a connection to the history of these old airplanes. We who are not owners of these warbirds only have our experiences, historical background, enthusiasm, optimism and hope that the folks who do own them allow not just one of us, but many of us to be heard as far as our opinions are concerned.

Someone way up thread phrased it better than I ever could:

"Your airplane, our history."

That's really it in a nutshell. Like it or not, these rare survivors are emblematic of something far larger and greater than their own existence. They are a tangible "living" connection to an incredibly significant part of our history which is inevitably slipping away with the loss of every veteran. The people on this board will be the last generations to hear firsthand the stories of those who actually flew and served aboard these aircraft. From that perspective, I don't think it's unreasonable for those of us who are passionate about history and who have dedicated years to helping get things right for warbird owners, artists, modelers, and authors to be disappointed in how the transformation from Chuckie to Madras Maiden turned out.

Others, obviously, don't see it that way. So be it.

Lynn

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:42 pm

I'm still amazed at the negativity displayed towards a couple gallons of paint.
If you were to make a list of all flying warbirds and their paint schemes I'd bet fewer
than 1 in 20 would be 100% accurate. Unless every P-51 in WWII had invasion stripes.
I'm waiting for a crowd to decend on Madras with torches and pitchforks.
Is it 100% historically accurate? No...Is it eye catching, visually appealing and
accomplish what was intended? Yes it does. I see no problem with wanting to
honor a community's history, contribution to the war effort and veterans has a
whole rather one individual. Has for painting it and then repainting it, i'd say write
the check! If I ever have my own B-17 I'll do like Brad and paint it how I see fit.
I doubt if one single person whose ever bitched about a warbird's paint scheme would
turn down a ride if offered. Has for me, I got that ride!

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7817

Jack Cook wrote:

I'm still amazed at the negativity displayed towards a couple gallons of paint.
If you were to make a list of all flying warbirds and their paint schemes I'd bet fewer
than 1 in 20 would be 100% accurate. Unless every P-51 in WWII had invasion stripes.
I'm waiting for a crowd to decend on Madras with torches and pitchforks.
Is it 100% historically accurate? No...Is it eye catching, visually appealing and
accomplish what was intended? Yes it does. I see no problem with wanting to
honor a community's history, contribution to the war effort and veterans has a
whole rather one individual. Has for painting it and then repainting it, i'd say write
the check! If I ever have my own B-17 I'll do like Brad and paint it how I see fit.
I doubt if one single person whose ever bitched about a warbird's paint scheme would
turn down a ride if offered. Has for me, I got that ride!

BS

K5DH · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:55 pm

saxman wrote:

IIRC, wasn't it purported that Madras Maiden (ex-Chuckie) may have seen service with the 486th BG near the end of hostilities in World War II. That was why "Chuckie" was done up in 486th markings? Was that proven to be incorrect?

Madras Maiden (ex-Chuckie), s/n 44-8543, was stationed only within the USA during her military career (active duty and various defense contractor bailments).

lmritger wrote:

SaxMan, my understanding is that Bill Hospers found a way to incorporate his initials into the aircraft using an actual wartime aircraft: the square W for the 486th representing "William", and the individual aircraft letter "H" for Hospers. I stand to be corrected on that, but it makes sense.

Correct. Clever, huh?

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:01 pm

Quote:

BTW there's not one post by ANYONE here who has insulted or belittled the owner of this B-17 or his people

all those have been removed!

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:03 pm

I'm a little concerned that a few of us are tying the paint authenticity issue to remembering the veterans. Not everyone sees it that way, and suggesting that people who don't paint their planes accurately are not doing right by the vets is unfair and could be seen as a little insulting.

First, not everyone buys into this whole connection between paint jobs and remembering vets. I'll buy a vet a beer any day, but it would never occur to me to wonder or care whether he likes the paint job on my warbird.

Second, there are other good reasons to prefer accurate paint schemes. I like vintage planes to look right, whether they are B-17s or Fairchild 24s, and my preference doesn't depend on whether there are any vets alive or not.

Third, some owners feel that paint schemes can honor vets in other ways besides being accurate. Lyle has offered a valid argument for how the very inaccuracies in MM's new paint job pay tribute to vets. Another example is the P-51 Quick Silver. This would get a D or F on my accuracy grading system, but when Bill Yoak picked the paint scheme, he decided that vets could be better honored by a set of obscure symbolic markings that require a pamphlet to explain rather than an accurate scheme. Mmmkay, it's an opinion.

August

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7817

Great looking airplane, best of luck

p51 · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:07 pm

k5083 wrote:

I'm a little concerned that a few of us are tying the paint authenticity issue to remembering the veterans. Not everyone sees it that way, and suggesting that people who don't paint their planes accurately are not doing right by the vets is unfair and could be seen as a little insulting.

I agree, it's the warbird version of a soccer mom yelling, "Would someone please think of the children?" where it has no bearing on the discussion itself.
I've talked to a lot of vets over the years. Not one has ever decried a paintjob being an insult. I have, however, heard a few over the years saying, "Man, we never had an airbrush around to do nose art like that..."

greatgonzo · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:40 pm

Jack Cook wrote:

all those have been removed!

And there where none taking back what has been said before, even in those cases when Lyle Jansma proved that what's been said was wrong.
All those voices against Madras Maiden painting are understandable. It is well argued point of view. Still it is one of the many points of views. And those others are not worse or better. They are just others.
Mr Jansma explained very clearly the intentions laying behind the idea and I can't find anything what wouldn't be noble there.
It is very risky, in my opinion, to rank artistic expression and taking strongholds by doing that. And if you want to express something through paint job - you step on that ground.
Anyone can see it different, anyone shouldn't judge that easily. There is just more ways than one to reach the same place.

Mr Lyle Jansma: from me, You have done very good, well prepared and thought over job with MM. I wouldn't have gone this way if I had a chance for it, which means I don't like it really. Still not liking it, doesn't mean I wouldn't recognise good design when showed one.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:44 pm

Mark, right now the only one calling others names and being insulting is you.

Lyle - thanks for posting that. I had hoped you, Brad, Scott, or someone else close with the collection would post here.

Also, since I don't have the rights to anything, could you do me a huge favor and post pics of a couple of the other Tillamook aircraft, like the PBY, or the P-40, or the Corsair and remind people here what his OTHER aircraft look like before going off talking like the Erickson family and the museum staff don't know how to do authentic?

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7817

CAPFlyer wrote:

Mark, right now the only one calling others names and being insulting is you.

Correct and if you would have bothered to read what I posted after "getting over it" you would have seen I apologized to all involved in my rant stating it was pretty much garbage. Thanks but I don't need you to remind me of when I'm being a jack*ss, I remind myself of that everyday.

CAPFlyer wrote:

remind people here what his OTHER aircraft look like before going off talking like the Erickson family and the museum staff don't know how to do authentic?

You should think about who you are insulting yourself, no one has ever suggested anything like this.

Sorry again folks for those who didn't see my original "sorry for the rant" clip at the end of my last post. And especially sorry to Lyle, Brad and the rest of the Erickson crew. Chris stated it best when he suggested things can go south in a hurry when using a keyboard while pissed. The airplane looks fine and if anyone is interested go read a few on my earlier posts stating a job well done by owner and his crew.

And Jack sorry to you too ... I think :wink:

Those are my last sorry's for today, I'm all out.

Still don't like the paint job though lol

Warbird Information Exchange

A trend towards more non-authentic schemes? ...

Who is online