Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:35 am
If what I heard years ago is true, Lefty's P-38 was actually owned by Lefty and Lloyd Nolen. A buyout was worked out with the Nolen Estate after Lloyd's death. The aircraft was originally flown as a CAF aircraft with Lefty as its primary pilot. The ownership thing was never publicized until much later.
Last edited by RickH on Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am
My understanding of the deal is that Lefty sold his "Thunderbird" mustang so he could buy Lloyd's share of the P-38.
The "White Lightning" P-38 was "leased" to the CAF for one dollar a year for a long, long time. It created a big stink when some of the members learned about this, and that the CAF was paying for maintenance on the plane, including repairs for problems caused during racing.
The "White Lightning" P-38 was "leased" to the CAF for one dollar a year for a long, long time. It created a big stink when some of the members learned about this, and that the CAF was paying for maintenance on the plane, including repairs for problems caused during racing.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:47 am
John, I have that book too, but all I can say is that if it makes the 1975 P-40N colors look like today's, it must be bad printing. All of the camo colors were different then, and the underside was a close-to-neutral light gray.
That said, although the 1975 colors might have been closer to accurate than the current colors, taken as a whole, the paint and markings in 1975 probably are about as accurate as now. Recall that in 1975, almost all military paint schemes on warbirds were very flawed.
If the CAF fleet as a whole were graded on paint scheme accuracy, it would probably score about the same as in 1975. Some planes now have much more accurate paint schemes (e.g. the SBD is well done), some much less accurate (e.g. FM-2), and most are about the same. Some wings appear to do a better job than others. It's fair to say that most warbird operators worldwide have left the CAF far behind in this regard; the big picture is one of drastic improvement in finish accuracy since the 70s. Statements like "be thankful they're flying" or "they look okay from a distance" don't excuse poor research and lax attention to detail IMO. You wouldn't hear such excuses for safety-related mechanical issues. And it's legitimate to wonder, when accuracy in a paint scheme has been neglected, what short cuts under the skin have been taken that compromise the authenticity of the airplane, not just for safe operation, but out of carelessness or convenience?
Nor does "sign up/donate money and make it better" cut the mustard as an answer. It's pretty hard for one new member to change the attitude of a whole organization. There are plenty of warbird outfits to join that already show a commitment to the accurate presentation of their planes. Why fight with one organization when you can support another that is already doing things the way you like? I believe that the CAF costs itself new members by making paint scheme choices that placate or flatter individual members at the expense of accuracy, which a lot of prospective members care about.
August
That said, although the 1975 colors might have been closer to accurate than the current colors, taken as a whole, the paint and markings in 1975 probably are about as accurate as now. Recall that in 1975, almost all military paint schemes on warbirds were very flawed.
If the CAF fleet as a whole were graded on paint scheme accuracy, it would probably score about the same as in 1975. Some planes now have much more accurate paint schemes (e.g. the SBD is well done), some much less accurate (e.g. FM-2), and most are about the same. Some wings appear to do a better job than others. It's fair to say that most warbird operators worldwide have left the CAF far behind in this regard; the big picture is one of drastic improvement in finish accuracy since the 70s. Statements like "be thankful they're flying" or "they look okay from a distance" don't excuse poor research and lax attention to detail IMO. You wouldn't hear such excuses for safety-related mechanical issues. And it's legitimate to wonder, when accuracy in a paint scheme has been neglected, what short cuts under the skin have been taken that compromise the authenticity of the airplane, not just for safe operation, but out of carelessness or convenience?
Nor does "sign up/donate money and make it better" cut the mustard as an answer. It's pretty hard for one new member to change the attitude of a whole organization. There are plenty of warbird outfits to join that already show a commitment to the accurate presentation of their planes. Why fight with one organization when you can support another that is already doing things the way you like? I believe that the CAF costs itself new members by making paint scheme choices that placate or flatter individual members at the expense of accuracy, which a lot of prospective members care about.
August
Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:23 am
k5083 wrote: Statements like "be thankful they're flying" or "they look okay from a distance" don't excuse poor research and lax attention to detail IMO. You wouldn't hear such excuses for safety-related mechanical issues. And it's legitimate to wonder, when accuracy in a paint scheme has been neglected, what short cuts under the skin have been taken that compromise the authenticity of the airplane, not just for safe operation, but out of carelessness or convenience?
Nor does "sign up/donate money and make it better" cut the mustard as an answer. It's pretty hard for one new member to change the attitude of a whole organization. There are plenty of warbird outfits to join that already show a commitment to the accurate presentation of their planes. Why fight with one organization when you can support another that is already doing things the way you like? I believe that the CAF costs itself new members by making paint scheme choices that placate or flatter individual members at the expense of accuracy, which a lot of prospective members care about.
August
Well stated, August. A PM is on your way.
Scott
Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:35 am
Obergrafeter wrote:The kinder gentler CAF lets you paint them any way you want as long as you leave enough billboard space for that ugly ass tattoo.
I hate the CAF wing decals on the airplanes. The Allied WWII re-enactors loved to pose with our airplane because it looks authentic 1944. We now have the CAF wings decal on our C-47--I'll never get used to it. They look terrible. Waiting for the decal wings to fly away. My 2 cents.
TonyM.
Last edited by TonyM on Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:14 pm
Tony,
If you ever get the chance, the P-39 is a good one still for taking photos beside. You want the guys behind the wing, with a quartering shot...and the door to the P-39 open. Given the standard location of the decals, which is below the pilot, they put the decals on the door of the Airacobra. Being a door, it opens, which makes a photo taken looking from behind, with the door open, decal free!!!
If you ever get the chance, the P-39 is a good one still for taking photos beside. You want the guys behind the wing, with a quartering shot...and the door to the P-39 open. Given the standard location of the decals, which is below the pilot, they put the decals on the door of the Airacobra. Being a door, it opens, which makes a photo taken looking from behind, with the door open, decal free!!!
Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:34 pm
Photoshop, guys. Photoshop.
August
August
Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:53 pm
k5083 wrote:Photoshop, guys. Photoshop.
August
I wonder what would happen, if this picture were printed in a major warbird periodical? Could the CAF sue the photographer? I know that copyright's establish the ownership of "intellectual property", but does it work in reverse? In other words, could the lack of the CAF decal could be a copyright violation because the owner misrepresented the original creation?
Just curious, not trying to start a war here.
Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:28 pm
Interesting question! I'd be curious to know how that would work as well.
Zack
Zack
Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:00 pm
It depends. 
August
August
Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:10 pm
Well, excepting for the CAF Ruptured Duck I think you all are going to LOVE the patina on TEXAS RAIDERS!
It has that "50 Mission Crush" look down pat!
Maybe we should have a WIX poll...
Should the CAF just park its Fleet until it can afford to repaint them all just how they ought to be?
Gotta go work on some B17 Wing Extensions.
Bragging, NOT complaining...
SPANNER
It has that "50 Mission Crush" look down pat!
Maybe we should have a WIX poll...
Should the CAF just park its Fleet until it can afford to repaint them all just how they ought to be?
Gotta go work on some B17 Wing Extensions.
Bragging, NOT complaining...
SPANNER
Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:27 pm
Warbird1,
The way I understand it is that the photo is the copyrighted material of the photographer the moment the image is shot. So if the photographer is the sole copyright holder of the image, then it would be likely that the photographer/artist can alter the image in any way that he/she pleases. I don't think the CAF could do too much about it.
TonyM.
The way I understand it is that the photo is the copyrighted material of the photographer the moment the image is shot. So if the photographer is the sole copyright holder of the image, then it would be likely that the photographer/artist can alter the image in any way that he/she pleases. I don't think the CAF could do too much about it.
TonyM.
????
Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:10 pm
I wonder what would happen, if this picture were printed in a major warbird periodical?
Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:11 pm
me109me109 wrote:..........However, there is a "Member Owned CAF" decal.
It's even spread to France. I photographed this at La Ferte Alais a couple of weeks back.
??
Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:25 pm
Well Taylor if that's not a CAF owned a/c we'll be expecting a "BIG" decal on your L-5 
