The shiny all-new paint and bull thread...

[John Beyl]

JDK, ole WIX buddy, you aint gonna like my T28B when I get it.

Sounds grrrreeat to me, OP.

There's a big difference (that some find hard to grasp) between making up your own scheme, or modifying a genuine basic scheme, such as Gary's 'Kilroy' on 'Ol 927' on the one hand, and just not getting a genuine scheme right because of a lack of follow through on the research on the other.

You go girl.

JDK,

I sense a double standard emerging in your posts. If I understand correctly it's OK to have an inaccurate paint scheme as long as that's the way the owner intended it to be (OP)...but if somebody unintentionally got it wrong then they should be flogged (CAF FM2 to name one of perhaps dozens of inaccurate schemes out there)?

What are your thoughts on the CAF C model Mustang? Totally inaccurate but does contain elements from each of the Tuskegee fighter groups. It was done so to represent and honor all of the members in each group, not just one particular person or group…until the CAF can afford 4 C models…YIKES!

Not tossing stones just looking for clarity,

John

[JDK]

No 'double standard' 'emerging'.

Nice and simple: Of course you can paint your aircraft anyway you want. If you choose to paint it in a tribute scheme, or in a historical scheme, then it makes sense to bother enough to try and get it right.

If you are an organisation claiming to be undertaking a tribute, or honouring veterans or teaching history, then yes, you should be held to a reasonable standard of historical accuracy, including painting the scheme as accurately as possible.

To expand a little: Deliberate variations, where undertaken for good reasons ('Ol 927', the names on the Collings bombers, the CAF's tribute C model Mustang) obviously make sense I'd suggest - nothing 'wrong' and a lot 'right' with them. Adding D day stripes 'because they look cool' over an authentic scheme's a little odd, but hardly a big deal. At least you are looking for cool. Making a scheme up, as OP's saying; nothing wrong with that. As a big Sea Fury fan, I think the 'Spirit of Texas' on Stu Dawson's is very neat.

Making a poor effort through not even taking five minutes to research the scheme on the Internet, such as the CAF's Martlet, shows a level of lack of respect, shows ignorance of the supposed subject of the 'tribute' and is an insult to the service. Making up stories to cover that lack of a decent job's even worse.

It's not hard.

Regards,

[RickH]

When painting the CF Phantom we researched the original aircraft's markings prior to repaint to the best of our ability. I think we got it pretty close. Did we take some liberties , yeah, a few. Robin Olds name was never on the aircraft he flew on Operation Bolo but it didn't make much sense to do the aircraft he flew and NOT put his name on it. We put the crew names in the appropriate black crew box on the nose. We did not try to duplicate the exact camo pattern that was on 680, we felt the the SE Asia scheme that we already had, but freshened up, was close enough. There was a lot of artistic license used when the camo was painted on the originals but the color placement does match the T.O. guidelines. Ours does the same. 749's new paint remains flat. As an organization dedicated to historic preservation I think we owe it to the public to make every effort to get it right.

See the thread Collings F-4 repainted,

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16390

[rwdfresno]

John Beyl wrote:

I sense a double standard emerging in your posts. If I understand correctly it's OK to have an inaccurate paint scheme as long as that's the way the owner intended it to be (OP)...but if somebody unintentionally got it wrong then they should be flogged (CAF FM2 to name one of perhaps dozens of inaccurate schemes out there)?

Actually John you are only half right. The double standard is it not ok to be inaccurate unless JDK happens to like it. If he likes it you are ok, if he doesn't you are SOL and may need to strip and repaint, at your expense of course.

Ryan

[JDK]

Actually John you are only half right. The double standard is it not ok to be inaccurate unless JDK happens to like it. If he likes it you are ok, if he doesn't you are SOL and may need to strip and repaint, at your expense of course.

Gee, thanks Ryan. I've yet to be so honoured, but I have had a small hand in helping some people restore a few aircraft to fly and paint them reasonably accurately - at their expense. Of course I didn't get or expect my expanses, or professional time reimbursed. A well placed 'thank you' was more than enough.

I'm no expert on colo(u)rs nor pretend to be; nor am I exacting, most of the time most schemes I understand are reasonably close, but not perfect, for usually very good reasons - I'm on no crusade on the matter. Both this thread and the one on the Martlet have been worthwhile for learning stuff, as ever.

As someone interested in history, the colours used to be a matter of life and death; the protection (and respect) of your flag, coming top of the priorities in the military. Flag etiquette is still important to some, and a matter of total ignorance to many; national markings fit in the same box. Just seems like if you are going to do it, try and do it right. What's hard about that?

Rick H and Bill Coombes' posts on the topics have been fascinating, and honest; I for one appreciate their input.

Cheers,