Warbird Information Exchange

Chris,
As has been discussed, this isn't about whether something will be criticized, it is the attitude of the criticizer.
Many of the things being discussed are very subjective. Someone has even mentioned "Standards". Aviation and Standards mean some Governmental Agency because that is who controls Standards in Aviation. Do we want the FAA involved in painting a Warbird.
"I prefer the attitude of trying to set the thing as real AS IT IS POSSIBLE" again this is your desire.
The majority of pilots want to FLY. For some they want performance. To fly a high performance aircraft is exciting, a thrill and to them is an ultimate experience. A paint job or nose art doesn't really affect how it flys. It doesn't change the thrill they experience so it isn't a high priority for most of them.
It is only important to those who feel an authentic paint job is important and are willing to pay the extra cost. Are you willing to pay $60,000 instead of $25,000 for a paint job if it doesn't make the aircraft perform any better. A few will but most won't.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

Frankly, in front of an aircraft, I don't care of who owns it.

I just FEEL if the "time-machine" machine works or not.

If I'm in front of the Paul Allen's Focke Wulf, I'm back in 1943.
If I'm in front of a "fun" aircraft, I'm still in 2011.

It's perhaps rough as a behaviour, but that's it.
It the thing looks right, it's right.

For us if it is "Safe" and "Fly"s Right" it is "Right". Or to some- Super Bitchen.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

Would you rather I spend maybe $20,000 to make my glossy black accurately marked plane semigloss or flat black as it atually was or would you have me spend the $35,000 to get the factory reman engine I will need shortly?????????? Personally I'll save my money for the engine because that will bring me safely home. Matte black paint will not. And you can say it's not "real" or "right" but I have the documentation to prove its combat history. But go ahead and call it a "fun" aircraft of 2011. My thick skin can take it.

But I will agree with most of the critics that I would like museums to restore their static aircraft in correct paint and markings if the plane has documented history. I will even say that a non documented a/c can be restored to replicate one of its type which has the history. But flyers...privately owned or museum owned...should have maintenance items at the forefront of things upon which the money is spent.

_________________

There is a continuum of people involved with historic aircraft which have varying degrees of interest in that history. That is, for some people these are historic items worthy of a great deal of respect (bordering on reverence) and for others, they are expensive toys which may have some historical relevance to others with which they are less concerned than the abilities of the aircraft to entertain themselves/others. There's also everyone in between.

I've taken this from the conversation:

1. I don't think these two items are being questioned: 1. Safely 2. Keep 'em flying. There is an order of priorities with safe flight being first and paint far down the list.

2. what someone does with their money is their business (expressed in various ways, "you can paint it titty pink" "take it and light it on fire if you wish" etc.).

I think these people are arguing mostly with themselves, [i]because we all know that's fundamentally true and I've not heard anyone argue otherwise[/

The discussion which underlies this thought, if you have the opporutnity (i.e., money and time) to choose between paintjob A (historically accurate) and paintjob B (personalized, lets say) which do you choose and why? Lady O2's comments I thought were on point in this regard. She has a pretty accurately painted aircraft, which stands out from others like it (which are less accurate) and when challenged about the paint job, can take the opportunity to say, "you know what, all those other planes that seem like they'd be accurate based on what you may know from camo pants at the hunting store by they aren't, and this is." You've just given a huge lesson in the difference between actual history and people's misconceived notions of it. To the gent with gray wing supports which "should" be olive drab (or vice versa), and the gent who "informed" him, isn't an appropriate response, "That's awesome you're so interested, and indeed you're right. I just don't have the cash/time/interest in changing them now. I gotta keep this thing flying! Let's talk more airplane stuff!" You've made a friend of warbird movement then, right? But when you're only response is to say, "go get you're own plane" you haven't made any friends of flying. Not that it's your job to, but a rising tide lifts all boats. I'm discounting the grumpy know it all who's great delight is pointing out the flaws in all the planes. Anyone can do that, but it's just as dismissive to say, "go get your own plane."

Also overlooked, in the discussion, is that how the answers to these discussions unfold is VERY relevant to the future of the warbird movement and what it offers the casual folks out there on the street. Just consider, if the Battle of Britain flight was painted up more or less accurately, but perhaps with the intials of current pilots on the side, or fanciful glossy stripes applied, would it mean as much to the people below? I submit that it would not. The historical conneciton to the past is diminished, and the significance to the fellow on the street is similarly diminished.

We in the US don't have such a flight. Private individuals and groups have the opportunity to make a similar connection to the past on our citizens through how they treat these historic artifacts (whether by donating to them, volunteering on them, or owning them outright). So when one does have the opportunity to make a real and significant connection with the past by portraying it faithfully and honestly, and that opportunity is squandered, I think we all lose a bit. So if you end the discussion with, "oh, it's their money whatever" you've basically given up on a creating an environment where the past actually matters.

Finally, how one expresses these opinions is a matter of some controversy (which I most certainly added to in a bit of candor which was clearly too much for some folks and can see why - not that I recant, but next time I may choose my words a bit more carefully), but there are strong and valid opnions across the spectrum. Personally, I think that's a great thing that so many are passionately interested.

Thanks Stang....well said on all counts !!!!

_________________

If we lose our sense of humor then all is indeed lost-Alfred E. Neuman

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

This above everything else.

_________________
CraigQ

Shucks! I had an opinion on the subject.... Now I'm a bit on the fence.

It hurts my head when you guys (and Lady O2 Pilot) make me think! Not fair!

_________________
Without wires, it won't work.

Further food for thought-
If the paint is flat or semi gloss it make the surface harder to clean. For those who wish for the faded and never kept clean look, (like my oldest son) this is a plus. For the clean and glossy Mr T owner type, not so good.
Additionally, the flat and semigloss paints might have a useful life that is less than the gloss type. Being able to wax something and use a variety of care products does enhance how long the paint looks good. Both to the owner and the public.
That takes your WIX worthy paint scheme, with its associated increased cost, and reduces its life so you'll have to factor in the replacement paint costs as well.
Bald Eagle was painted/polished back in 1993ish. It is showing its age but does clean up and still shows good. Well for a Blue P-51. Prior paint was all Imron done around 1981.
With the Spitfire some benign cleaning products will show a slight tinge of paint color on the cleaning rag during cleaning.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

For us if it is "Safe" and "Fly"s Right" it is "Right".

For me too.
I especially don't like warbirds being flown in meetings almost like Pitts, but that's another subject.




"Would you rather I spend maybe $20,000 to make my glossy black accurately marked plane semigloss..."

If I were rich enough to buy me a Mustang and if I would notice at the end of the restoration that the budget is getting thin for the sophisticated finish I had originally choosen, I would simply choose a nice Pacific P-51 scheme, an aircraft left in its glorious natural aluminium finish with for instance a simple colorful green tail, and of course a perfectly done noseart. This way, I would even spare some money and in the same time have a beautiful and accurate P-51 ! Frankly, budget is not an excuse for not choosing the "cool and accurate" option instead of the simple "fun" / "it's my money" variant.




"...I'll save my money for the engine because that will bring me safely home..."

If I would find myself in having to choose restoration options just to be sure to have a safe engine, I would also think to myself it would have been more reasonable to buy this nice T-6 instead of that beautiful P-51.




"... and paintjob B (personalized, lets say)..."

Just curious, why a British guy will never paint his Spit in a "personalized way" ?




"...The historical conneciton to the past is diminished..."

That's right.

If I see this beautifuly newly restored Spit I, that you've all probably seen, I'm back in 1940.
I I see this Mustang more glossy than Paris Hilton's car, I would think : "wow, this dentist looks to be rich, I would go to him if I've trouble with my theeth, he must be good."



"...the flat and semigloss paints might have a useful life that is less than the gloss type..."

I remember a conversation, perhaps here, where someone from the team which painted in England a Yak-9 in a very elegant matte grey said that "matte doesn't mean always more work."

Cliff Spink did (CR-S)
Adrian Swire did (AC-S)


Often I find that the cost argument is used just as an excuse for sloppy/non-existent research. It doesn't cost any more to paint an aircraft accurately as it does to put it in a garish, inaccurate pseudo-military scheme, however nicely that finish is applied (CAF Wildcat, anyone?). There is plenty of info out there on the web and in books to aid in getting it right, for almost zero cost.

There are several issues here.

If I bought a plane with good condition but less than accurate paint, I would find it hard to justify a complete repaint. No matter the cost of the plane, the paint cost is a lot of 100LL and I would rather fly.

If I was paying to have the plane painted, I would go for the accurate scheme since it would (theoretically) not cost too much more and I like historical accuracy, down to extreme details.

In reality, I am finding it is not easy to get an accurate scheme painted unless you are a good painter and do it yourself. Therefor I find myself faced with having some paint work redone at extra cost and either hoping they do it right the second time or finding a new painter that may do it wrong also. So, do I just leave it and let it bother me and let other's nitpick or do I pay to redo it until it is "right"? I am leaning toward the latter in my case but it is very frustrating.

In the end, I have found it is far more expensive to be completely accurate, including the paint so I will have to try and ignore minor deviations on other's airplanes and instead appreciate that they tried.

Lastly, for all the critics here on WIX, there are many more who criticize a historically accurate finish. The airshow public is so used to polished P-51s that they don't recognize a historically accurate restoration with acid etched panels. There is a major education gap obviously. For instance, I (and some of my knowledgeable friends) think P-51 Little Rebel looks amazing yet people were walking past it at OSH saying it needed to be restored. That is a tough thing for an owner to hear after spending a lot more money on it vs. just polishing it. I beg such owners to not give in and to take the opportunity to educate the public.

Huh?? This argument makes absolutely no sense. So, you're saying that because her O-2 will soon be in need of a new engine, she should have previously considered the cost of said engine, balanced it against the cost of upgrading the paint to be spot on accurate, then decided to go with a cheaper warbird? An L-4 Cub perhaps; sure, that'll be inexpensive enough to afford both paint and an engine. She owns and flies an actual combat vet warbird complete with battle damage and you'd nitpick the gloss paint job over having a safe, new engine... unbelievable.

Ah, ah, don't try to make me believe you understood it that way, because I won't buy it
I was just saying (in my poor English) that if you can buy a Mustang, you have probably the money too to paint your aircraft.
But if you have to calculate that precisely the costs of the painting, it's perhaps a better idea to buy a T-6 instead of a P-51.
This precision for the people (but I don't think there is one single guy here around) who really thought I was saying that a fine painting is more important than a safe engine