Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:02 pm
Can I sak why is the Fw 190's scheme inacurate?
Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:15 pm
For me historically accurate is the only way to go.
Ofcourse as Jeff and others have said it depends on time money resources and above all safety.
However that said I personally own a 1940 Fleet Finch 16R and strive to experience flying the a/c as it was when new. It has taken me many hours and countess head aches to get to about 90% there and I think it's worth it. When I have a vet come up to the airplane and see as he remembers it ....well the personal gratification I get can't be described.
I also love the fact that I can still get in the airplane fly by map and hear nothing but the airplane. No radios, no GPS etc ....it even irks me that I have to have an ELT on board , which along with the seatbelts are the only modern equip I have.
Again this is only my personal opinion but I consider myself a custodian of this a/c not an owner and hopefully I;ll pass it on to the next generation,
Why I hear countless times from people how certain documentary stations ie the CBC up here in Canada just don't get things right historically. So being as I am one of the complainers , I try to put my money where my mouth is and display a historically accurate example of my a/c to the public.
Thats just me but in the end it's up to each individual owner.
Keep'em Flying
Fleet16b
Ofcourse as Jeff and others have said it depends on time money resources and above all safety.
However that said I personally own a 1940 Fleet Finch 16R and strive to experience flying the a/c as it was when new. It has taken me many hours and countess head aches to get to about 90% there and I think it's worth it. When I have a vet come up to the airplane and see as he remembers it ....well the personal gratification I get can't be described.
I also love the fact that I can still get in the airplane fly by map and hear nothing but the airplane. No radios, no GPS etc ....it even irks me that I have to have an ELT on board , which along with the seatbelts are the only modern equip I have.
Again this is only my personal opinion but I consider myself a custodian of this a/c not an owner and hopefully I;ll pass it on to the next generation,
Why I hear countless times from people how certain documentary stations ie the CBC up here in Canada just don't get things right historically. So being as I am one of the complainers , I try to put my money where my mouth is and display a historically accurate example of my a/c to the public.
Thats just me but in the end it's up to each individual owner.
Keep'em Flying
Fleet16b
Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:27 pm
It's a tough question, I think. For instance, the Airzoo has a Hispano Buchon painted as it would have appeared in service with Spain. It's technically correct. However, most people that come to the museum have no clue what a Buchon is or was...they see what they believe is a German WWII fighter, and wonder why it's not painted as such.
That said, I guess I agree with other posters. If it's a privately owned aircraft, the folks paying the bill can do whatever they want. It's nice when the time is taken to be historically correct, but at the end of the day it's their money. I think museums must be held to a higher standard.
Just my two-cents worth.
John
That said, I guess I agree with other posters. If it's a privately owned aircraft, the folks paying the bill can do whatever they want. It's nice when the time is taken to be historically correct, but at the end of the day it's their money. I think museums must be held to a higher standard.
Just my two-cents worth.
John
Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:05 pm
I'd like to give an example of incorrect information.
Elroy, I promise I'm not pickin' on you but here goes.
Lone Star has a very nice F4U-5NL painted in Guy Bordelon's markings. Guy Bordelon and his wartime aircraft were assigned to VC-3. VC-3's tail code was NP. The Lone Star aircraft is a very accurate representation of the original aircraft EXCEPT that when painted RW was painted as the tailcode.
Why would anyone go to all the time and expense to do something as right as this aircraft has been done just to bastardize it by applying the wrong tailcode ? I know the answer, it's a rhetorical question.
Elroy, I promise I'm not pickin' on you but here goes.
Lone Star has a very nice F4U-5NL painted in Guy Bordelon's markings. Guy Bordelon and his wartime aircraft were assigned to VC-3. VC-3's tail code was NP. The Lone Star aircraft is a very accurate representation of the original aircraft EXCEPT that when painted RW was painted as the tailcode.
Why would anyone go to all the time and expense to do something as right as this aircraft has been done just to bastardize it by applying the wrong tailcode ? I know the answer, it's a rhetorical question.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:10 pm
Let me be succinct 
What Wade said...
Mudge the brief
What Wade said...
Mudge the brief
Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:21 pm
Given the hard time I have had with Dark Sea Blue and my research, I am not suprised by the inaccuracies. I didn't know what was "correct" so I tried researching and got nowhere fast as far as restored Warbirds go.
I also would like to know what is wrong with the 190?
So I'm guessing "designing" your own wartime influenced livery with a made up pilot/crew would be considered a no no? What if you want to design your own nose art but have an otherwise accurate scheme or a particular group? WHat would be the harm in that?
I also would like to know what is wrong with the 190?
So I'm guessing "designing" your own wartime influenced livery with a made up pilot/crew would be considered a no no? What if you want to design your own nose art but have an otherwise accurate scheme or a particular group? WHat would be the harm in that?
Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:26 pm
At first, I thought that your post -because of the title- meant historical authenticity in general, for all historical items, but upon reading it, the following thoughts ocurred to me:
Colors or markings were modified due to field conditions, repairs, damage and so on. So I believe that a lot of slack has to be allowed when we talk about "authentic" markings.
Now:
"Even Harold Kindesvatter (sp?) did his level best to make his Buchon look like a proper mid-1944 Reichs Defense Bf 109G from JG 27."
This would of course, be historically innacurate, since the Buchon's did not fly in Germany during WWII....
My opinion has been, that if you want an airplane to be painted a specific way, the right way to do it, is to buy your own, and then do it the way you want.
No one has the right to dictate what other people can or cannot do with their property.
Saludos,
Tulio
Colors or markings were modified due to field conditions, repairs, damage and so on. So I believe that a lot of slack has to be allowed when we talk about "authentic" markings.
Now:
"Even Harold Kindesvatter (sp?) did his level best to make his Buchon look like a proper mid-1944 Reichs Defense Bf 109G from JG 27."
This would of course, be historically innacurate, since the Buchon's did not fly in Germany during WWII....
My opinion has been, that if you want an airplane to be painted a specific way, the right way to do it, is to buy your own, and then do it the way you want.
No one has the right to dictate what other people can or cannot do with their property.
Saludos,
Tulio
Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:49 pm
I dont' have a problem with any paint job on a warbird because I can't dispute (who can?) that it's the owner's bird and money, he can do whatever he wants, and it's easy to get too wrapped up with paint schemes.
But, I am delighted when someone takes the time to do the paint job right, and I am more likely to support such a group with membership, museum visits, or a few extra bucks when I visit the facility.
I also feel that a paint job sends a message about how the owner feels about his aircraft and the history it represents. Someone who paint his bird in markings accurate to that specific aircraft is telling me he respects his airplane as a historic artifact in itself, not just as a copy of some other, more famous airplane. Someone who does a military paint scheme that is accurate for a different type or variant than what he owns is telling me that he wishes he owned a different airplane, which makes me feel sorry for the fine airplane that he has. Someone who does a generally accurate military paint scheme but substitutes his own initials for the call letters or his wife's name for the nose art is telling me that he may admire and respect history and those who served, but not as much as he admires himself. And someone who does a military paint scheme that is just wrong, despite many buffs and self-styled historians who would line up to research an accurate paint scheme free of charge, makes me wonder what else he doesn't care enough about to get right.
August
But, I am delighted when someone takes the time to do the paint job right, and I am more likely to support such a group with membership, museum visits, or a few extra bucks when I visit the facility.
I also feel that a paint job sends a message about how the owner feels about his aircraft and the history it represents. Someone who paint his bird in markings accurate to that specific aircraft is telling me he respects his airplane as a historic artifact in itself, not just as a copy of some other, more famous airplane. Someone who does a military paint scheme that is accurate for a different type or variant than what he owns is telling me that he wishes he owned a different airplane, which makes me feel sorry for the fine airplane that he has. Someone who does a generally accurate military paint scheme but substitutes his own initials for the call letters or his wife's name for the nose art is telling me that he may admire and respect history and those who served, but not as much as he admires himself. And someone who does a military paint scheme that is just wrong, despite many buffs and self-styled historians who would line up to research an accurate paint scheme free of charge, makes me wonder what else he doesn't care enough about to get right.
August
???
Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:37 pm
Theone that killed me was the Yanks P-51A in Chino. Absolutely beautiful in everyway except the left side codes are correct AX while on the right side they painted XA. Everything I see a picture of it all i can think of is that one gigantic f*ck-up.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:03 pm
I agree with several of you. As long as its in the air...it doesnt really matter. (Red Bull aircraft for ex.) But I do appreciate the people that have the time and money to do the research and make it as accurate and detailed as possible... I watched a local Spitfire go through the long task of making sure every little detail was accurate and properly placed. We all know time is money...and if you're pouring money into your airplane to keep it in the air...I understand why that extra cost of detail and accuracy could be cut out of the picture.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:07 pm
post a pic of Tom's 190...
His aircraft look pretty good to me when I saw them last..
His aircraft look pretty good to me when I saw them last..
Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:50 pm
Before anyone says something is inaccurate they should ask the owners the reason for the paint depicted. The CAF P47's old paint scheme had the ID # painted like Jack Cook spoke of the P51A. In the P47's case I was constantly told how inaccurat it was. Even if I showed color photos taken of the aircraft it depicted with the #s done exactly that way. The CFM Spitfire has been blasted at many airshows for the roundels. When asked what country they represent, I tell them England in China-Burma markings. It is the aircraft with combat history, painted as it was. We have pictures. Yes it wasn't glossy. But flat paint is impossible to clean and has to be repainted from time to time. You can't take it apart every year and completely repaint it. Our P51 is painted in Don Blakeslee's markings, however we left the original serial # and a few years ago we found out who had originally flown it during WWII. His son comes to all of our events and brings pictures and talks about his dad. The RW on the tail of the Lonestar has a reason also. The bottom line is that it goes by the "Golden Rule" he who has the gold makes the rules.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:54 pm
What is a historically accurate scheme for a new-build FlugWerk FW190? Is it correct to paint it as a Focke Wulf Fw190, bearing in mind that it is a new type, and does not purport to be an original WWII fighter?
Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:54 pm
RickH wrote:
Lone Star has a very nice F4U-5NL painted in Guy Bordelon's markings. The Lone Star aircraft is a very accurate representation of the original aircraft EXCEPT that when painted RW was painted as the tailcode.
You're right Rick, I guess when you can afford it ya know. $$$
????
Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:19 pm
Before anyone says something is inaccurate they should ask the owners the reason for the paint depicted.
The CAF P47's old paint scheme had the ID # painted like Jack Cook spoke of the P51A.
The difference is the P-51A was a goof in research while yours was authentic.
Except......it's a P-47N for gosh sakes. 56th FG what were ya thinking
