Military Schemes

[Tulio]

I wanted to ask regarding the legal issues involved in painting a warbird (civilian) as a military aircraft in the markings it carried during its time in service.

Anyone knows about the regulations in this regard?

Would there be any regulation for example, that would banish the painting of an aircraft in let's say Argentinean markings, and operate it in the U.S.A.?

I know there are several aircraft with markings other than USA in the air, and that actual, present-time markings are off limits.

Thanks for the input.

Saludos,

Tulio

[Ollie]

In North America, there no real problems to paint aircrafts the way you want.

I've seen L-39s in a paint scheme just like the US Navy, and it could have fooled anyone.

The Focke-Wulf is painted in current Luftwaffe markings, and I had no troubles to do it. It even has crosses under the wings.

I know that in Germany, you cannot have official markings on your aircraft, hence you never see a Fw 149D with the crosses over there.

[dj51d]

I hadn't noticed before, the paint scheme on the ex-Wally Fisk HU-16 is slightly different than the standard Coast Guard scheme. The differences are an American Flag on the tail rather than the stars and bars, and the red and blue markings that start at the cockpit change direction about 2/3 of the way down the fuselage side rather than continuing to the bottom of the side. N7029F is now with C & P and still based at Anoka.

Was there any specific reason given why it couldn't carry a full USCG scheme? Were they concearned it would be mistaken for an active duty aircraft?


Here are a few photos from August 2002 at South St. Paul(KSGS)


Registry Entry for 51-7218/N7029F
Pictures of a HU-16 in USCG scheme

[Mark V]

I know that in Germany, you cannot have official markings on your aircraft, hence you never see a Fw 149D with the crosses over there.

Not so Ollie, there are plenty of German warbirds with military paint schemes, including crosses. It is only the Swastika symbol that is illegal in Germany and may not be used anywhere.

[Mark V]

Ollie,

Did I misunderstand you? Did you mean any aircraft or we talking vintage warbirds. In the UK you cannot simply paint any aircraft (Spitfire, Mustang or Cessna) in a military scheme, no matter how authentic, without displaying large civil registration letters unless you have formal dispensation from the UK CAA. The CAA will also expect you to prove the authenticity of your military scheme in order that the represented service is not brought in to disrepute.

[Ollie]

True Mark V.

But there are no Fw 149Ds in authentic post-war Luftwaffe markings over there. They all have something silly on it.

Other birds are different. The Bf 109s have Balkan crosses and not Maltese, so they can wear them, wihtout the swastika of course!

I knew about your situation in the UK.

Over here, you can have small letters (4") if the aircraft has distinctive markings. The big 91 + 45 on the plane's fuselage go the trick!

[Scott Rose]

I've seen L-39s in a paint scheme just like the US Navy, and it could have fooled anyone.

LOL, the first L-39 I had ever seen (also, I'd never heard of the L-39 before seeing it) was done up in a USN scheme. I wracked my brain trying to figure out what sort of A-4 Skyhawk it was and wondering what the heck they had done to it.

[p51]

Was there any specific reason given why it couldn't carry a full USCG scheme? Were they concearned it would be mistaken for an active duty aircraft?

I'd think a Coast Guard aircraft would be considered the same as, say, painting your car as a cop car. You're not going around ordering people to move their ships or using weapons on them, but people in distress might expect you to come to their aid when you don't have the equipment and training to do so. Then as you fly away, it makes the real Coast Guard look bad unfairly.
If you owned, say, a Blackhawk in Army markings, nobody in the US is going to expect anything from you they wouldn't expect from any other normal helicopter. But a Coast Guard bird, well, those are the ones people expect to help out in times of distress on the seas.
I'm only guessing but I bet that's why they made him change his.

[shrike]

Was there any specific reason given why it couldn't carry a full USCG scheme? Were they concearned it would be mistaken for an active duty aircraft?

I'd think a Coast Guard aircraft would be considered the same as, say, painting your car as a cop car. You're not going around ordering people to move their ships or using weapons on them, but people in distress might expect you to come to their aid when you don't have the equipment and training to do so. Then as you fly away, it makes the real Coast Guard look bad unfairly.
If you owned, say, a Blackhawk in Army markings, nobody in the US is going to expect anything from you they wouldn't expect from any other normal helicopter. But a Coast Guard bird, well, those are the ones people expect to help out in times of distress on the seas.
I'm only guessing but I bet that's why they made him change his.

Coast Guard markings are set by international treaty and agreement. That's why the Coast Guard vessels of most nations are white with bold diagonal (usually predominately red/oragne) stripes. Even though the vessel may be armed, it is considered non-combatant for passage and operations.

Similarly in the US at least, you may not operate a retired school bus in the original all yellow scheme. It must be repainted another color. (a couple decades back the local school had to apply for an exception for painting the roofs white to be cooler in the desert)

[junkman9096]

I present to you the Oscar EW-5894 Fallus Tactical Fighter Bomber. I know I was always confused as to which unit it belonged to.