Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:42 pm
I swear I did not prompt anyone making anti branding remarks on this blog. (Branding) is that the PC way of saying ugly ass decal. I have an allabi for not prompting these people..........I was in Peachtree City on secret important business!
Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:15 pm
Hmmm. You know, the comments on this thread have gotten me to thinking more about a creative "branding" idea that might just work... here's PART of the idea I've had.
Current:
Future?
:shock::D
I've also got another idea I may have to work on, 'cause I'd really like to get rid of the desert camo scheme and get it into a more authentic look. Would be cool if we could come up with additional funds for further restoration to wartime configuration.
Good stuff here so far. I can see valid points from both camps. We just need to think of more positive ideas that might give the "branding" the CAF headquarters wants AND make those decals a moot point of the past.
Oh, and can we keep this from being a CAF bashing thread? At least the guys in Midland are trying to come up with ideas. As long as they don't seriously damage the public image, I'd rather see them come up with mediocre ideas (that can be scrapped later) than not at all. There are far too many museums that are dying for lack of imagination, creativity, and enthusiasm.
Ryan
Current:
Future?
:shock::D
I've also got another idea I may have to work on, 'cause I'd really like to get rid of the desert camo scheme and get it into a more authentic look. Would be cool if we could come up with additional funds for further restoration to wartime configuration.
Good stuff here so far. I can see valid points from both camps. We just need to think of more positive ideas that might give the "branding" the CAF headquarters wants AND make those decals a moot point of the past.
Oh, and can we keep this from being a CAF bashing thread? At least the guys in Midland are trying to come up with ideas. As long as they don't seriously damage the public image, I'd rather see them come up with mediocre ideas (that can be scrapped later) than not at all. There are far too many museums that are dying for lack of imagination, creativity, and enthusiasm.
Ryan
Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:58 am
Why don't you come over to the dark side and join the CAF Ryan? I can fix you up with an application anytime. Just as a point of reference back in the old days all the members of the ALS (ALG in those days) were also members of the CAF.
Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:10 am
Obergrafeter wrote:Why don't you come over to the dark side and join the CAF Ryan? I can fix you up with an application anytime. Just as a point of reference back in the old days all the members of the ALS (ALG in those days) were also members of the CAF.
I know. Right now it's mainly the $$$ issue.
Ryan
Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:37 pm
OK...
I had my cup of tea...
Worked on the pit of the B17---Great Green Gobs of Greasy, Grimey Bomber Guts!!!
And slept on it.
I still stick with the AIRPLANES come first.
Then I stack the CAF as a whole next, because there is no way AS MANY warbirds would still be flying without them.
ALL the individual units couldn't afford it without the break they get in group coverage for event and aircraft insurance.
Sure TORA and GunFighter and Red Nose and Sentimental Journey and when it RTSs TEXAS RAIDERS could make a go of it.
But the point is the greater good.
Individual units with less attractive planes (from purely a public draw standpoint) MIGHTILY contribute to the success of the Air Shows that bring people to see the "elephants".
But the newer storm clouds such as the LASP and other onerous regulations are going to take a larger organization to oppose.
Playing Devil's Advocate here... Say the CAF folds its tents and sells off the assets. Sure a number of the planes will continue to fly if they are bought by gentlemen (or a fewer number of ladies) of means.
But one could count on some of them going to museums OR to owners that might not have the resources to fix them if they lose an engine or face a major repair and don't have a large contributing member base to step up and say WE WANT THAT PLANE FLYING and we will donate outside our units.
Or Steve and the General Staff will sell off some of the herd and spend the money to restore airplanes that might not see wind over their wings for longer than a Unit might reasonably be expected to survive given the scope of some restorations... FIFI or Ol' 927 ???????????????????????????
I am a Unit Leader. I still live and breathe and sweat and bleed for the plane. Fortunately I have a deep respect (for what Loyd and Lefty and Van Skiles and a host of me betters did before my time) to say the CAF comes a close second!
FLAME SUIT ON- If you like those decals HOW about those snappy Red, White and Blue paint jobs some of you were admiring in previous posts?
These views are only my own and do not represent any official viewpoint of the CAF and I am only putting out in this forum because I feel like I have become one of you and some of you have definitely gotten yourselves on my radar.
SPANNER
I had my cup of tea...
Worked on the pit of the B17---Great Green Gobs of Greasy, Grimey Bomber Guts!!!
And slept on it.
I still stick with the AIRPLANES come first.
Then I stack the CAF as a whole next, because there is no way AS MANY warbirds would still be flying without them.
ALL the individual units couldn't afford it without the break they get in group coverage for event and aircraft insurance.
Sure TORA and GunFighter and Red Nose and Sentimental Journey and when it RTSs TEXAS RAIDERS could make a go of it.
But the point is the greater good.
Individual units with less attractive planes (from purely a public draw standpoint) MIGHTILY contribute to the success of the Air Shows that bring people to see the "elephants".
But the newer storm clouds such as the LASP and other onerous regulations are going to take a larger organization to oppose.
Playing Devil's Advocate here... Say the CAF folds its tents and sells off the assets. Sure a number of the planes will continue to fly if they are bought by gentlemen (or a fewer number of ladies) of means.
But one could count on some of them going to museums OR to owners that might not have the resources to fix them if they lose an engine or face a major repair and don't have a large contributing member base to step up and say WE WANT THAT PLANE FLYING and we will donate outside our units.
Or Steve and the General Staff will sell off some of the herd and spend the money to restore airplanes that might not see wind over their wings for longer than a Unit might reasonably be expected to survive given the scope of some restorations... FIFI or Ol' 927 ???????????????????????????
I am a Unit Leader. I still live and breathe and sweat and bleed for the plane. Fortunately I have a deep respect (for what Loyd and Lefty and Van Skiles and a host of me betters did before my time) to say the CAF comes a close second!
FLAME SUIT ON- If you like those decals HOW about those snappy Red, White and Blue paint jobs some of you were admiring in previous posts?
These views are only my own and do not represent any official viewpoint of the CAF and I am only putting out in this forum because I feel like I have become one of you and some of you have definitely gotten yourselves on my radar.
SPANNER
Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:41 pm
What Steve is trying to do with the "branding" of the planes is to draw attention to our planes, and let people know who they belong to. The hope is they will want to join the CAF to help support these great planes. Yes, the wings stick out like a sore thumb, but as such, they are noticed. If they were placed under the horizontal, they wouldn't show up during air-to-air shots. Those are the ones that end up in magazines.
Originally we were told we would have leeway as to the size and location of the wings. That didn't work out, so it was decided to standardize the size, color, and location. That's why you see some planes with smaller, or different colored wings, and in less than standard locations. There is now a standard location and size for every airplane, i.e., on the B-25 it is behind the cockpit windows, and 3 ft. tip to tip.
Now, if it's a Member Owned aircraft, and the member wants to put the wings on, they can be any color, size, or location the member wants. CAF HQ will make a suggestion, but it's up to the owner what to go with.
Originally we were told we would have leeway as to the size and location of the wings. That didn't work out, so it was decided to standardize the size, color, and location. That's why you see some planes with smaller, or different colored wings, and in less than standard locations. There is now a standard location and size for every airplane, i.e., on the B-25 it is behind the cockpit windows, and 3 ft. tip to tip.
Now, if it's a Member Owned aircraft, and the member wants to put the wings on, they can be any color, size, or location the member wants. CAF HQ will make a suggestion, but it's up to the owner what to go with.
Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:46 pm
OK Cuz tell me the last time you saw a centerfold or major picture in a major aviation magazine with the ug a decal on it. I bet you the family fortune that photographers and editors spend most of their time either editing the shots or photoshopping the decals out even if they were inclined to use a CAF shot. Prove me wrong and send me a picture with them on it. Had to get in on the topic as I just got back from Peachtree City.
Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:00 pm
Me thinks Cuz has been drinking the koolaid..............................................................luv ya, Mike 
Personally I think the big ole honkin decals look pretty bad on anything smaller than a C-47........and there sure won't ever be a member owned one on the black bird even though I am wholeheatedly a CAF member and supporter. I also get a giggle when I think if I was still flying the itty bitty YO (formerly owned by the CAF)......heck 3 foot wing decal would have darn near been longer than the fuselage....LOL
Personally I think the big ole honkin decals look pretty bad on anything smaller than a C-47........and there sure won't ever be a member owned one on the black bird even though I am wholeheatedly a CAF member and supporter. I also get a giggle when I think if I was still flying the itty bitty YO (formerly owned by the CAF)......heck 3 foot wing decal would have darn near been longer than the fuselage....LOL
Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:12 pm
I think for the most part, that if it doesn't belong on there, then it shouldn't be on there. It takes away from the originality of the paint scheme. I always say the same thing about the CF bombers. Great paintschemes, but messed up with all of the names.
Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:43 pm
I must be the only person who hasn't yet seen the new CAF branding. Can someone share a photo or link so I can see what the discussion is about?
Thanks,
Mark
Thanks,
Mark
Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:34 am
mjanovec wrote:I must be the only person who hasn't yet seen the new CAF branding. Can someone share a photo or link so I can see what the discussion is about?
Thanks,
Mark
No, unless all your shots are up to date.
Saludos,
Tulio
Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:18 am
mjanovec wrote:I must be the only person who hasn't yet seen the new CAF branding. Can someone share a photo or link so I can see what the discussion is about?
Thanks,
Mark
P.M. sent.
Scott
Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:48 am
Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:41 am
"you can have my gun when you prise it from my cold dead hand" and you can "re-paint my aeroplane when you own it yourself" are two strong themes I often here in WIX, yet the same rights dont seem extend to the CAF and their aircraft?
I would love to have a flying collection of the scope of the CAF on my door step to entertain me largely free of charge, and if they have to advertise their organisation, and compromise the "accuracy" of the paint scheme or "my" photographs with their logo or brand, to keep them flying in front of me, then thats what it takes.
The Collings aircraft are competing with the CAF for a shrinking sponsorship dollar, the Collings people have been quoted to say theirs is the only flying B24 left, and put their own name and sponsors on the airframe, and it is a shame such competitive marketing needs to be employed, but thats the struggle in keeping a thirsty four engined WW2 bomber in the air.
Equally the CAF need to demonstrate the "Air Force" they are keeping in the air on behalf of the citizens of the US, and show that Fifi, 2x B-17s, Ol'927 and many other CAF aircraft are not being funded and flown by individual rich millionaire owners like Paul Allen or Tom Cruise, but by a volunteer group of fellow working citizens donating their time and money to hunt these aircraft down while all others were being scrapped, and then nursed back into the air, and kept there for the enjoyment and benefit of all who watch and photograph them!
If you want the CAF stickers to come off, become a member and make a monthly donation out of your pay towards the upkeep of at least of the aircraft?, otherwise simply enjoy what you get free! brand included!
regards
Mark Pilkington
I would love to have a flying collection of the scope of the CAF on my door step to entertain me largely free of charge, and if they have to advertise their organisation, and compromise the "accuracy" of the paint scheme or "my" photographs with their logo or brand, to keep them flying in front of me, then thats what it takes.
The Collings aircraft are competing with the CAF for a shrinking sponsorship dollar, the Collings people have been quoted to say theirs is the only flying B24 left, and put their own name and sponsors on the airframe, and it is a shame such competitive marketing needs to be employed, but thats the struggle in keeping a thirsty four engined WW2 bomber in the air.
Equally the CAF need to demonstrate the "Air Force" they are keeping in the air on behalf of the citizens of the US, and show that Fifi, 2x B-17s, Ol'927 and many other CAF aircraft are not being funded and flown by individual rich millionaire owners like Paul Allen or Tom Cruise, but by a volunteer group of fellow working citizens donating their time and money to hunt these aircraft down while all others were being scrapped, and then nursed back into the air, and kept there for the enjoyment and benefit of all who watch and photograph them!
If you want the CAF stickers to come off, become a member and make a monthly donation out of your pay towards the upkeep of at least of the aircraft?, otherwise simply enjoy what you get free! brand included!
regards
Mark Pilkington
Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:56 am
Seems like there are bigger fish to fry.