Warbird Information Exchange

I once flew a champion award winning Mustang. The radios were buried so as not to 'distract' from the originality of the award winning cockpit. To change a radio frquency, you had to bend your neck and twist your body to see the small LCD frequency display screen, which was below your right knee. After you selected your new frequency, you would pop your head up to recover from inverted. Not a popular thing to do while IMC. Very hard on the crew morale.
If the airplane is actively flown, I'm in favor of a more modern cockpit presentation.

I have posted my thoughts on this subject before, but I will say again, MY (me only) purpose in flying old airplanes is to employ them as a tool to tell the story of a time, not that long ago when freedom was in peril.

To accomplish that "I" (that is me only, others can use what ever tools work for them) need an airplane that looks cool, goes fast, and sounds good. That "sex" appeal will draw people to the airplane to ask questions, or go home and search the internet for more info about WWII.

My (again me only) audience is the Saab 340 pilot who this summer asked me what kind of airplane I was flying on the radio, ( the LSFM Corsair) because he and the captain were having an argument about it.

If he was interested, or embarassed enough to go home and learn something about WWII and the Airplanes that kept us free, my whole summer of hot tar, flat beer, and rare bratwurst was worth it.

Sorry guys, but the audience that hangs out here arguing about paint schemes already knows that story. You are not the crowd I am trying to reach when I go flying.

Just my (me only) thoughts.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Interesting thread.. I consider myself anal retentive with respect to 'accurate representation' but as I reflect on this, I would have to say that my own views are focused on;
1. External representation - configuration and relevant paint scheme.

2. Flight safety.

If I still had singular access to a 51 today, as I had when I was a teenager and my father owned one, I simply can't imagine NOT having RNAV/GNAV, Collins/Bendix package etc. I would be pondering where to put radar panel and/or storm scope and see if there was room for an EGT/CHT monitor!

I just wouldn't care nearly as much whether the inside details were 'true to life' - With that much value in the a/c I want as much as I can pack inside...

But on the outside, if I were 'portraying' for example a P-51D-25, I would go to level of even putting fake tail warning radar installations on the vertical stabilizer and the serial number, paint scheme, victory panels, etc would be dead on.

What drives me nuts is seeing 109s and He 111's with Rolls engines in a BoB movie even though that is all that was available in flying condition..or having Steven Spielburg describe a P-51D as a 'Tank Buster' in Saving Private Ryan!

.... which is why I appreciate the real progress made in digital imaging for movies...

A lot of thoughtful views in this thread!

Regards,

Bill

Interesting thread.. I consider myself anal retentive with respect to 'accurate representation' but as I reflect on this, I would have to say that my own views are focused on;
1. External representation - configuration and relevant paint scheme.

2. Flight safety.

If I still had singular access to a 51 today, as I had when I was a teenager and my father owned one, I simply can't imagine NOT having RNAV/GNAV, Collins/Bendix package etc. I would be pondering where to put radar panel and/or storm scope and see if there was room for an EGT/CHT monitor!

I just wouldn't care nearly as much whether the inside details were 'true to life' - With that much value in the a/c I want as much as I can pack inside...

But on the outside, if I were 'portraying' for example a P-51D-25, I would go to level of even putting fake tail warning radar installations on the vertical stabilizer and the serial number, paint scheme, victory panels, etc would be dead on.

What drives me nuts is seeing 109s and He 111's with Rolls engines in a BoB movie even though that is all that was available in flying condition..or having Steven Spielburg describe a P-51D as a 'Tank Buster' in Saving Private Ryan!

.... which is why I appreciate the real progress made in digital imaging for movies...

A lot of thoughtful views in this thread!

Regards,

Bill

I agree. The non flyers should be restored as closely as they can as far as radios and stuff goes, becasue they don't need the modern stuff. The flyers should have what ever they need to keep flying. The Static aircraft should be the ones with actual combat history or are the sole remaining example, or even very rare. The rest should fly.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

I always hate seeing a warbird being static (unless unique)....pet peeve! In my eyes the main purpose of flying Warbirds is to make the younger generations mindful of the sacfrifice made by thousands of flyers in WWII. That being said, the paintscheme is an essential part in maintaining the aircrafts historical value, therefore it should be accurate. As for radios, I fly a cub without them, so if i can do it so can anyone

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

You can definately tell the difference between pilots and restorers in the responses. As a restorer we see the lack of attention to detail in the restoration the same as a pilot would immediately notice the lack of attention to detail when one lands downwind with no flaps. Instinctively a restorer looks at lack of detail in a paint job as a connection to a possible lack of detail on other areas unseen (and vice versa, good paint job, good internal restoration). Just as a pilot would see a lack of detail in navigation skills(or whatever) as a possible connection to other lack of piloting skills. Of course one can always go overboard in detail almost as easy as one can go underboard, which leads to things not being accomplished (whether flying or restoring).I tell my guys in the restoration shop to "know when to be a perfectionist, and when to be a productionist"
A pilots opportunity to spread the warbird gospel comes when an airplane is flying, and a restorers comes when the aircraft is on display on the ground. Both are very effective, and both are needed!

I think that if you go for "absolutely pristine" restoration you are working on a plane like the Enola Gay. And what will you end up with? A plane that NO ONE will ever climb behind the controls again or for that matter climb inside at all. A gentleman who worked on the restoration is on a web board that I am part of and they went as far as to locate vaccum tubes with the proper serial numbers and dates on them for the radio and radar equipment. Original? - totally! But locked up and sealed? YES.

A friend of mine who has 2 T-33s has them carefully painted to represent accurate period planes - but in the cockpit they are equiped for modern safety and flight. Same with the Colorado CAF TBM (thanks for the ride you guys!) If I had the ability I would buy and restore Kermit's B-29 - would it look original? yes - outside - but under the "covers" so to speak, it would be as modern and safe as it could be made.

my .02

Tom P.

One of the safety issues I've delt with is the external stores on the O2-A. I usually fly with 2 7 round WP LAU rocket lanchers, and 2 100# bombs ( my O2 has a bomb drop computer and rearview mirros installed in Viet Nam.)

On hot days, losing an engine on takeoff is an issue, especially with all that extra drag. I usually remove them if it is warm and I'm taking off fully loaded with fuel and pax.


Otherwise they are the "sex appeal" on an otherwise "normal" airplane. I try to leave them on as much as possible. They cost about 15 kts airspeed.

My opinion is...
That a warbird should be kept in line with the history it represents. Not only in paint, but in configuration as well. ie modified canopies, and aerodynamic changes. I realize that the person(s) that own & restore these warbirds can do whatever they wish, ...but to me it is the same as seeing a A-26 configured for business operations, or a fire bomber. Sure it has its purpose, but it dosent have that same appeal or sense of significance for history, as a decked out warrior would have. For me, half of the fascination with warbirds, is the paint schemes they operated in. In fact thats the main thing that caught my eye as a kid...which started me into this life long obsession in the first place. When I see all of the bogus paint schemes on the warbird survivors these days, it just makes me kringe...it`s like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Yes, I like seeing them in any scheme they are in, if there is a choice of not seeing them at all.....but I will always be drawn to the most authentic looking warbirds at an airshow. It is part of what I identify with.

_________________
US Navy Ordnanceman VA-86 Sidewinders
A-7E Corsair II, USS Nimitz CVN-68.
CAG Arm & De-Arm team for F-14s, A-6s,
A-7s & S-3s

as mustang driver said i think that the static ones should be as correct as posible but the flyers should at least in internal systems (radios etc) have modern safty systems fitted.
down here we recently have the most authentic boomerang being sold to the temora museum (great for its future and the future display of a boomerang)but the zuccoli boomerang which was restored in the states and in many ways not correct but easyer to maintain, being donated to the oakey museum of army aviation for static display.
the temora one is restored as close as possible to original condition (although even it has modern radios) and is a beautiful piece of the restorers art but will continue to fly.
whilst the zuccoli boomerang is not a great static example but is a great flying one she looks great in the air and will be missed by a great number of people (me included), but a properly restored static one would have been a much better grounded example of the type.