Warbird Information Exchange

a WW2 proven combat veteran Warbird that had some sort of, in todays warbird world, boring paint scheme ... if you were the owner would you restore to the original scheme or would you prefer another paint scheme? ... I noticed the Yankee Air Museum's B-25 "Yankee warrior" that was "Ellen & Son" as an example ...

I'm still trying to decide on how to paint my F-84F. Defintiely going with the polished look though but I'd like to put some nose art on it in the proper location and still have it look authentic to when it was in service. As you can see by my sig, the paint scheme on the F-84F is a bit boring.

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org

I'd paint it as it was as a combat vet. Without question. That it was a combat vet makes it that much more important to present it as it was at the time. To me you are honoring the guys who flew it in combat by painting it as they had it.

Not that I'll ever get that chance

Roger "Doc" Christgau has his P-51 in its original WW2 "Sierra Sue II" markings on one side; the "Gulle Kalle (Yellow K)" markings it wore in post-war Swedish service on the other. Gave me a thrill every time I saw it fly.

Definately paint it in its original combat scheme. Whenever I think of owning something like that my first decision is to honor the history of the aircraft regardless of what I might desire. Imagine how it would feel to meet a veteran who had flown the aircraft or to be able to help someone gain insight into the previous life of a father or grandfather?

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

Well, that is the problem isn't it. Most warbirds that are around today did not see combat. And training AC schemes just aren't too exciting! If it has a combat record, that should make it a no-brainer. It is those without that are "dressed up" as warriors with no acknowledgment to their actual role that should be addressed. Their "real" serial #, small perhaps, down under the elevator at least to give a nod to their service.

The Smithsonian conservators do try hard to have their AC as authentic as possible, they are a museum after all, and their mission is to portray "True" history through these former flyers. They don't have to please crowds at airshows!

No offense to what your personal thoughts are there, Mr. Hawthorne, but I don't think that picture of your F-84 is boring at all. I find it to be pretty dang cool. After all, it IS on an F-84.

Keep up the good work,
Gary

True, but the NASM of the past has painted some aircraft in schemes they never wore ie; F4U-1 Corsair "Sun Setter", and P-51 Mustang "Willet Run",
to name two. Not knocking them, but there have been cases where, in the past, they have chosen non-original markings for the aircraft in the collection.

I would paint the combat veteran in the clothes she originally wore. After all, what is easier to maintain, polished metal or flat paint?!
Blue skies
Jerry

_________________
"Always remember that, when you enter the ocean or the forest, you are no longer at the top of the food chain."

My vote would be for aircraft to be painted and marked as they were when they were at some point in their service lifetime.

_________________
Mike

Well, not all combat aircraft had colorful paintjobs and that is a fact. Painting up a non-combat bird as a long gone vet is ok in my book, just do it right and don't go overboard.

And to be totally honest, some of the artwork out there needs some serious overhaul!

I've been looking at the scans of my father's slides here (1950s warbirds) and I'll tell you that the beautiful machines that we see flying around are like the starlets of Hollywood. All shined up and looking far better than what reality gives you. It's actually quite funny to see these shining aircraft that never, even when they came off the production line, looked like that...

Still love them though...

I would paint it in markings it wore at some point during its service. Even if the aircraft didn't have combat history, it would make for a good tribute not only to the history of the airframe, but to those who flew it. There would also be opportunities to get some more unique paint schemes out there. Maybe get a few P-51s flying in ANG markings for example.

_________________
Matt

Great point! Some ANG schemes are very nice indeed

Depends on what type of aircraft.

Navy and Marine stuff almost all looks the same anyway, so it's a no brainer to paint it authentically to it's service.

I interpret "boring" to a simple, plain AAF scheme. That's tough. I would probably run my Mustang authentically for a season or two. But I would like to freshen it up every few years with different FG markings. I wouldn't do ANG unless it was pre USAF. Has anyone ever had a Mustang painted in occupation markings? Don't think I've ever seen that. But I don't expect I'll have to worry about that... ever.

Even the famous ones, people would tend to go with the more flamboyant. Which would you rather see depicted on a Mustang? John Landers' Big Beautiful Doll with the 357th, or with 78th FG? That's easy for me, the 78th. But at least if you pick the 357th, it would be one less Old Crow flying around...

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

Lone Star's Thunderbird B-17G is a non combat veteran (0ff the Lockehee-Vega prod. line on VE Day) that is painted to honor a long-flying warrior. The original was unceremoniously turned into lawn chairs and cookpots about '46.
Several of LSFM's fighters are painted to honor individuals.

_________________
"I love the smell of 100LL in the morning."