CAF question???
Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:54 pm
Is there a rule that CAF airplanes be painted in some sort of historical paint scheme????? I know in its infancy, the white with patriotic stripes was active, but is that type of thing in the bylaws of the unit structure???
Just wonderin after watching this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBqEfsV9 ... re=channel
Just wonderin after watching this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBqEfsV9 ... re=channel
Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:38 am
My understanding is that the paint is to be appropriate to the type of aircraft, but not necessarily that specific airframe. The decision is made by the sponsor group/wing for the aircraft.
The modified "Thunderbird" scheme that the CAF originally had was simply because the Department of Defense did not allow civilian owned and operated aircraft to wear "warpaint" for fear of confusion with active aircraft in the inventory (and considering that several types intended for the CAF fleet were still technically in active or reserve service with the military, it was a somewhat valid concern) and public belief that the CAF was somehow being officially sanctioned and supported by the U.S. Government (and thus receiving public funds).
Later in the 1970's, this position was changed and the CAF and other private warbird operators were allowed to paint their aircraft in any way they saw fit as long as they met the registration display requirements of the FAA.
The modified "Thunderbird" scheme that the CAF originally had was simply because the Department of Defense did not allow civilian owned and operated aircraft to wear "warpaint" for fear of confusion with active aircraft in the inventory (and considering that several types intended for the CAF fleet were still technically in active or reserve service with the military, it was a somewhat valid concern) and public belief that the CAF was somehow being officially sanctioned and supported by the U.S. Government (and thus receiving public funds).
Later in the 1970's, this position was changed and the CAF and other private warbird operators were allowed to paint their aircraft in any way they saw fit as long as they met the registration display requirements of the FAA.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:51 am
The CAF local unit or sponsor picks what paint job it wants, but must submit it to HQ for approval. (And buy one of those ugly honkin tattos)
Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:24 am
Having gone from the junior most member (just a tender, young 18 year old in 1976) to one of the senior most members of the CAF, I have seen the evolution of our paint schemes and the way those responsible for the aircraft think.
I remember the white with red and blue stripes from before I joined. As CAPFlyer said, things changed and it was OK to put "warpaint" on the planes in the early 70's. The mentality then was to have a good time and play, like kids playing war. Everyone started painting their aircraft with cool looking markings, but they were often far from accurate for the type.
Later, as new members came in, we started toward being more accurate, historically, with the paint. Now the livery represented actual paint worn by the type during the war. Often the aircraft was painted to represent a famous aircraft, or that flown by a war hero. Or, as in the case of the Yellow Rose, the ego names have been replaced by those of the crew who flew the plane it is painted to represent.
Now many are researching the history of the aircraft and returning it to the paint scheme that it wore during it's active service.
As my dear cuz, Ober, said...it's pretty much up to the sponsors as to how they want to paint it, but CAF HQ does have to approve it.
I remember the white with red and blue stripes from before I joined. As CAPFlyer said, things changed and it was OK to put "warpaint" on the planes in the early 70's. The mentality then was to have a good time and play, like kids playing war. Everyone started painting their aircraft with cool looking markings, but they were often far from accurate for the type.
Later, as new members came in, we started toward being more accurate, historically, with the paint. Now the livery represented actual paint worn by the type during the war. Often the aircraft was painted to represent a famous aircraft, or that flown by a war hero. Or, as in the case of the Yellow Rose, the ego names have been replaced by those of the crew who flew the plane it is painted to represent.
Now many are researching the history of the aircraft and returning it to the paint scheme that it wore during it's active service.
As my dear cuz, Ober, said...it's pretty much up to the sponsors as to how they want to paint it, but CAF HQ does have to approve it.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:52 am
So theoretically we could rename TEXAS RAIDERS to HANG THE EXPENSE if the Ol' Tomster gave us a big enough donation and HQ approved it.
hmmmm
PS... N3NJeff... Did you post YOUR spiffy youtube videos of the N3N-3 on WIX and I just missed them?
hmmmm
PS... N3NJeff... Did you post YOUR spiffy youtube videos of the N3N-3 on WIX and I just missed them?
Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:53 pm
That's an interesting idea, but you've got to find a way to keep Texas on the plane.
Ryan
Ryan
???
Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:56 pm
what happens if a squadron says "we just paid big $$$ to restore and paint this a/c. We aren't putting that big ugly decal on!!" 
Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:06 pm
That is not an option for the squadron/wing/sponsors. They don't own the aircraft, they are just allowed to operate it by the owners. If they don't want to do as the president and board of the owners wants, they could have the aircraft reassigned out from under them. So far though I haven't heard of anyone saying they won't do it. Some recently repainted aircraft seem to be a little slow in putting the decals on. I assume the reason MUST be paint drying time!
Personally, I don't like the deals. However, they do seem to be doing what they were intended to do, get the CAF noticed and people talking about it. I've heard it said that even bad publicity is good to get. Hopefully we can someday shrink them and put them in a less distracting place.
Personally, I don't like the deals. However, they do seem to be doing what they were intended to do, get the CAF noticed and people talking about it. I've heard it said that even bad publicity is good to get. Hopefully we can someday shrink them and put them in a less distracting place.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:48 pm
Gulp... you mean you're supposed to put them on AFTER you paint the airplane???
Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:43 pm
Nice one Spanner !
????
Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:52 pm
Could you put the decal on first and then paint the airplane???
Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:15 pm
I mean no disrespect to the CAF, but man, I just can not get into these decals. I think they are going to look back on this as a bad idea.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:38 pm
I think the problem isn't the idea, but the implimentation. Too many squadrons have been doing exactly what HQ didn't want done as a show of "disagreement" to the idea. HQ has been very open that the decal just needs to meet a couple of very general guidelines (be clearly visible in photos and be of a color appropriate to the paint scheme). However, for some reason, most squadrons have chosen to put much larger than required logos on the aircraft and in a color that is much more conspicuous than required. Ol' 927 and FiFi have logos in the method intended. The CAF Corsair and SB2C (for example) have logos not as intended as they are garish instead of complimentary.
I think if HQ would be a bit more forceful on ensuring that these brands actually fit the paint scheme of the airplane instead of just leaving it up to the squadrons/sponsors to decide, then I think there'd be a lot less problem with enthusiasts (and even the general public) wondering about those big white logos.
I think if HQ would be a bit more forceful on ensuring that these brands actually fit the paint scheme of the airplane instead of just leaving it up to the squadrons/sponsors to decide, then I think there'd be a lot less problem with enthusiasts (and even the general public) wondering about those big white logos.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:25 pm
I don't think CAP Flyer read the CAF regulation on the honkin tattoos. There is a choice of colors like Henry Ford said any color you want as long as it is white. The size is supposed to be of size that any air to air photos will show the decal where you can read it. That preludes any putting it discretely and small.A terrible decision on HQs' point, not to mention what will happen if any unfortunate events happen. Doubt anybody in authority thought of that. Also they ain't cheap and available only from Midland. Bad enough on U.S. planes, but look stupid on foreign planes.
Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:31 pm
Units paint them however they freakin' want. HQ is supposed to have a say, but they don't. Units will do whatever they want and HQ won't do a thing about it. Been there......done that.
Gary
Gary