Warbird Information Exchange

If it was going to sit in the museum and not fly, I would say leave it alone, but if you are going to fly it a good bit, I say a accurate and good paint job is the way. I love the O-2.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Oscar duece, while it would be nice to leave it unmolested and just spot paint as needed, it may not be a practical idea as the deteriation will start to accelerate exponentially as it contimues to age.

If it were my problem, I think I would research her combat codes and duplicate her Viet Nam time not her last USAF scheme. It's always nice to see a documented combat veteran flying in her own combat colors.

On the other hand I would hate to see Frank and Ron's old O2s repainted in USAF grey because the blue Navy scheme is real and unique.

My understanding of Flugwerks mission statement was to restore this airplane type "back into the air." SO paint is insignificant at this point compared to how much many of us would love to see a FW-190 or it's approximation flying through the air and on the airshow circuit to be photographed and admired.
Later when there are several of them on the circuit, I'll be picky about something as trivial as paint, which can be stripped and redone fairly easily.
I agree that when something is a replica, say a t-6 made into a ZERO, P-64 ot Boomerang, it adds to the believability of the restorer's work to make it as authentic as possible.
Borrowing from my experience in antique cars, if you have to repaint an airplane, say the O-2 , if you can be disciplined and document the paint chips and stencil styles, and are completely faithful to the markings it wore in it's previous history, the judges will go nuts and you will be rewarded for your efforts.
Paint is one of the places most people "blow it" when their car is judged on a 100 point scale.

The O2 is still in the paint she wore in combat. I have pics from the time she was in Viet Nam. I'll continue to spot paint until I have to paint the whole thing, then I will paint exactly as she is.

When I was in the Marines we started getting our A-4's back from Depot level maintenance with the new all gray low visibility paint scheme. We had 3 different grays in two years plus we had boxes of touch up spray paint. The Navy and Marines freak out when an aircraft has exposed metal waiting for corrosion.
We never once had a can of spray paint that matched the aircraft's color of gray. We went through a couple of cases and nothing matched any of the 3 shades of gray. That's why aircraft in the fleet are so ugly.
If you can match the most representative color on your O-2, then you can have it formulated and put in spray cans. Rapco in Texas is one that will do it. It sounds like you have a neat piece of history.

O2: When we restored the OH 13, I saved an area, of original paint, out of view by masking it before I repainted it. That way at least a part of the original paint remains. The airframe had never been taken apart for paint since the military days and I found an area with the original paint still on it.

_________________

Blue Skies,
Doug

www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com

Then:




Now:




From what I can tell, the nose numbers were redone at some point, not sure when. Then the aircraft was reassembled, they pulled an AK 47 round out of the L tail boom. The previous owner will not part with it.

this is a realy interesting topic.

firstly O2, amazing, you are very lucky to have such an original AC.

i agree that who ever owns the aircraft is the one to decide, those of us who don't, don't.

it is interesting that museums are the people that we expect the highest standard from when a lot are running on the smallest budgets. having said that i also think that museums should be as accurate as the resources and information available.

on a previous page someone said related aircraft with modded callsigns and nose art to the ego of the owner. i don't know any warbird owners so can't comment of the accuracy of this, but if i owned an aircraft with no history, be it a newbuild, built from a variety of wrecks or simply having no info available i would be very very wary of trying to paint it as an actual aircraft that was used in combat. i certainly would never do so without the express permision of the original pilot, thier family or members of the original squadron. who am i to lay claim to thier deeds. in an uncoded correct scheme yes or maybe with faux markings but not a real AC or squadron. though non combat squadon markings are different in my mind.

having said this and infered i prefer historical accuracy where possible if i had an aircraft without much history of a type (and mark etc) that served with the RAAF i would prefer it in an RAAF scheme.

henry.

Henry, every one of these aircraft has a researchable history. Some have had combat time, most didn't. It's true, as I have stated before that the guy paying the bills can do what they want as it regards paint. BUT, if they opt for a military scheme, whatever it is, please get it right. It takes the same amount of effort to paint it right as it does to mishmash something that is close.

Case in point, USS Lexington, TA-4 starboard cat. It's in the worst psuedo Marine markings that I have ever seen. It was painted as a Marine A-4 to honor a fallen Marine. To me, it is an insult in that they didn't really care about this guy enough to bother to get aircraft painted correctly.

They know what this particular aircraft's primary operational history was. They've been told and photographic evidence supplied to them. The curator told me once that they had no real proof. The aircraft in question was the #7 jet while tha Blue Angels flew the A-4. It is one of the very few new aircraft delivered to the team directly from the factory.

http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/A4/722/Stickm3_12.htm

rick, i should probably clarify what i meant. i think that if you are doing something it should be done right and that if you have spent large amounts of money on restoring an aircraft you are letting yourself down by not to try your hardest to get the paint scheme accurate.

in regards to aircraft without tracable history i'm thinking specifically about aircraft rebuilt from multipule wrecks who's true identities have been lost or new build ac.

my reasoning behind the non correct markings comment (unit markings etc not overall schemes) was that if i had an aircraft with no history i personaly wouldn't feel right giving an unknown ac the markings of an ac flown by men who would have and did die doing something i don't know if i could.
on that note i'm also not a fan of copying the markings of famous ac/pilot, but this is more of a matter of identifying an airframe a with a history it doesn't have... if it is intended as a tribrute i see it as completely different though (and should definately be done right).

i think it all depends on your view of things, if you regard a particular aircraft as representing a type of aircraft , or as a stand alone entity (ie imagining it had already been restored to airworthy, swamp ghost, representing all B17's or as an aircraft that was ditched in a swap then recovered etc)

i by no means intended to anoy, i was just adding a different point of view.

i hope this makes what i meant clearer.

No annoyance perceived on this end. Just a friendly exchange of ideas and thoughts.

Let's be honest here.
Would you rather have something with Jelly Beans on it (s/n 44-72777 a 5 kill aces actual plane for gosh sakes!!!!)
or some that looks like this?

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

When it came time to decide how one of the aircraft I was involved in should be painted, we did a little research on the service history. Walt Ohlrich was kind enough to loan us some photos, but we also took some liberties and added more “color”.

One time at an airshow with another aircraft, a fellow comes up to me and says “I was the copilot on that plane…”. There’s now way I could describe what it was like talking to him. It was painted up as a correct representative of a historic aircraft.

But then I know some guys that put their initials in the markings. I’ve always thought that was kind of cool, like a vanity license plate with a hidden meaning. Some of the civilian pant jobs from the 60s and 70s are appealing to me as well.

Like I’ve said before, I’m a lousy historian. When I see an aircraft, the things that pop into my mind are how it flies, cost of engine overhauls, insurance, etc. A tip of my hat to the historians that keep clowns like me in line!

_________________

Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
Warbirds of America

What are you waiting for? Join us!

Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com

It is an interesting topic. When we were flying, we received a lot of comments about the paint scheme on the C model, most informing us that we had it wrong. Well, yes and no. What we did...with the input from several of the original Tuskegee Airmen was to take a unique part of the paint scheme worn by each group and combined them onto one airplane. This way we recognize the accomplishments of all the Airmen, not just one or one group.

I understand the reasoning behind our unusual paint scheme but the general public does not without a lot of explaining. Personally I would rather have it in authentic markings from one group so the ground crew can spend their time at airshows talking about the airplane and the importance of the Tuskegee Airmen as opposed to explaining the rationale behind an "Inaccurate" paint scheme.

In the end I'm all for authenticity whenever possible. Bob Ponds Bearcat is a glowing example. In my opinion it should have been left Cadillac Bronze with the brown stripe. It was built as a G-58...that's its history. Although all of its brothers were mill spec, this was the prodigal son! In the end its Bob's airplane and he is free to do as he pleases with it. It can always be repainted.

John

WWW.redtail.org

jack, honestly i'd prefer the ac in your picture over even a real P51D veteran.

it's earlier and rarer, wearing period applied paint and is unrebuilt with any mods having been done back in the day.

i can see now why everyone comments on your photos. beautiful.