Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:55 pm
This has been such an entertaining thread. Thanks, guys, for the amusement. I hope nobody is taking any of this seriously.
Special thanks to Brad for showing us, in pictures, what no amount of verbiage about tramp stamps possibly could. One or two of those photos are proving difficult to erase from my mind, but I'm not out of whiskey yet.
Who is the genius who started calling these decals "tramp stamps", anyway? It is so perfect. Not only do they kind of look like the tattoos, but the nickname captures the most significant feature of the new decals, their size, and placement: lack of class.
I loved the "kool aid" stuff, too. I wonder if we should get some facts straight. The CAF is what it has always been: a bunch of guys having a good time with their extra time and money. They don't need our thanks for that. In the early years, they saved several nice airplanes from the smelter, about half of which they later destroyed in crashes anyway, but at least we got to see them for a while. For at least the past 35 or 40 years, they have not saved an airplane that would not have been saved by somebody else. Today, they are just one organization, among many, of guys having a good time spending their extra time and money on warbirds, and it is fair to compare them with the others. On balance, they come out better than some, not as good as many. There is no reason to malign the CAF; also no reason to kiss their tramp stamps. James is right in suggesting that it is unfair that they have become our forum whipping boy. Could that be because they keep rising to the bait?
The argument that the tramp stamps will help save aircraft or keep them flying is empty. Nobody is scrapping B-17s and P-40s any more. If the CAF can't afford to keep them going, someone else will. I certainly believe that the CAF's first priority, in general, is the airplanes. But the tramp stamps, specifically, are to benefit the organization, not the planes. The planes, as such, are not threatened by any financial issues affecting the CAF. The warbird market is far too highly developed for that.
So if the failure of CAF would just mean that its aircraft pass into the hands of, say, Texas gazillionaires, why should we care whether the CAF survives? There actually might be a reason. When I think of the airplanes acquired by Texas gazillionaires in the past few years, one of the things a lot of them have in common is that I haven't seen them lately, or even pictures of them. The CAF does one thing better than almost any other outfit in North America right now, and that is get the planes out and be willing to travel long distances to display them. There's something to be said for supporting an organization that shows the planes around the country, even with ugly decals and Crayola colors, as opposed to being hyper-authentically restored and locked away from view in a Texas hangar somewhere.
August
Special thanks to Brad for showing us, in pictures, what no amount of verbiage about tramp stamps possibly could. One or two of those photos are proving difficult to erase from my mind, but I'm not out of whiskey yet.
Who is the genius who started calling these decals "tramp stamps", anyway? It is so perfect. Not only do they kind of look like the tattoos, but the nickname captures the most significant feature of the new decals, their size, and placement: lack of class.
I loved the "kool aid" stuff, too. I wonder if we should get some facts straight. The CAF is what it has always been: a bunch of guys having a good time with their extra time and money. They don't need our thanks for that. In the early years, they saved several nice airplanes from the smelter, about half of which they later destroyed in crashes anyway, but at least we got to see them for a while. For at least the past 35 or 40 years, they have not saved an airplane that would not have been saved by somebody else. Today, they are just one organization, among many, of guys having a good time spending their extra time and money on warbirds, and it is fair to compare them with the others. On balance, they come out better than some, not as good as many. There is no reason to malign the CAF; also no reason to kiss their tramp stamps. James is right in suggesting that it is unfair that they have become our forum whipping boy. Could that be because they keep rising to the bait?
The argument that the tramp stamps will help save aircraft or keep them flying is empty. Nobody is scrapping B-17s and P-40s any more. If the CAF can't afford to keep them going, someone else will. I certainly believe that the CAF's first priority, in general, is the airplanes. But the tramp stamps, specifically, are to benefit the organization, not the planes. The planes, as such, are not threatened by any financial issues affecting the CAF. The warbird market is far too highly developed for that.
So if the failure of CAF would just mean that its aircraft pass into the hands of, say, Texas gazillionaires, why should we care whether the CAF survives? There actually might be a reason. When I think of the airplanes acquired by Texas gazillionaires in the past few years, one of the things a lot of them have in common is that I haven't seen them lately, or even pictures of them. The CAF does one thing better than almost any other outfit in North America right now, and that is get the planes out and be willing to travel long distances to display them. There's something to be said for supporting an organization that shows the planes around the country, even with ugly decals and Crayola colors, as opposed to being hyper-authentically restored and locked away from view in a Texas hangar somewhere.
August
Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:02 pm
lmritger wrote:The problem is that we're willing to sacrifice authenticity for the sake of- well, whatever the corporate reasoning is behind hanging the billboards on the planes in the first place- and in sacrificing that authenticity, you're undercutting one of the primary missions of the CAF, which is to educate the public about the history of these machines and more importantly, the men and women who flew them. Or, to put it more succinctly, the aircraft loses it's historical context when it becomes a flying billboard.
I understand your point, but we obviously see the decals in a different light. I think billboard is an overly strong term to use for their branding effort. The decal takes up maybe 5% of the side of the fuselage. That's hardly a billboard and while it certainly is not authentic to the aircraft, I personally find that the impact on the overall aircraft is minimal. The national insignia and unit markings on each of the aircraft remain intact and are not covered.
As for the aspect of educating the public, I just don't see how the decal will take away from the men and women that flew the machines or what the aircraft's purpose was during wartime. Take, for example, the redtail P-51C. Can you honestly say that the story of the Tuskegee airmen is somehow muddled from the fact that there is a 1'x2' decal on the side of the Mustang?
There are clearly opposing opinions on the marketing effort and maybe it does need some rethinking and standardization. But for a group the size of the CAF and any non-profit museum these days there is a need to balance the economics of operating aircraft and telling the stories and history of the aircraft.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:04 pm
I may not be terribly objective obviously in regards to Ol 927, but comparing the Martlet to the B-24 is not fair. I realize that most had the black all the way up, but it is not inconceiveable that some were marked in that fashion. The Martlet, Hellcat, (and the repainted P-40) are indeed representative, but how can the color selections be overlooked? And it has nose art? So what? So do half the T-6s out there and they certainly never had nose art.
It is interesting to see all the decals together in one place. As a person who deals with Branding everyday, some of the glaring inconsistencies are definitely detrimental to the overall impact that the unifying mark is trying to achieve. However, now that I've gotten used to seeing them, I do think it's a good short term solution to a long term problem in spite of the fact that the historian/reenacter part of me cringes when I see them.
Here is something to consider. It's much easier for a smaller organization to get hard core about authenticity in restoration and markings than an organization that is the size of the CAF, especially with so many people involved from the volunteer on site all the way up to HQ, each with their own ideas about how it should be done. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been a complaint about the CAF for years and years.
I've said this before, but I owe a great deal of my passion for warbirds to the CAF in the 1970s/80s. I was honored to work on the B-24 project and I would do it all again, especially on a certain little friend project south of the Mason-Dixon line...
It is interesting to see all the decals together in one place. As a person who deals with Branding everyday, some of the glaring inconsistencies are definitely detrimental to the overall impact that the unifying mark is trying to achieve. However, now that I've gotten used to seeing them, I do think it's a good short term solution to a long term problem in spite of the fact that the historian/reenacter part of me cringes when I see them.
Here is something to consider. It's much easier for a smaller organization to get hard core about authenticity in restoration and markings than an organization that is the size of the CAF, especially with so many people involved from the volunteer on site all the way up to HQ, each with their own ideas about how it should be done. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been a complaint about the CAF for years and years.
I've said this before, but I owe a great deal of my passion for warbirds to the CAF in the 1970s/80s. I was honored to work on the B-24 project and I would do it all again, especially on a certain little friend project south of the Mason-Dixon line...
Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:24 pm
Lynn- So you're saying that any WWII warbird that has glossy paint, new hardware, modern avionics, clear coats, alternators, an owners name under the canopy or any other minute inaccuracy is no longer able to commemorate the sacrifice of the men and women who flew them? That is ridiculous. The CAF goal is the commemoration of those individuals and a decal won't detract from that goal. The problem is we know too much here on WIX, 99% of the general population wouldn't know the difference between a spitfire and a mustang and yet you and others think that because the freaks (me included) here on WIX notice and don't approve then Joe Schmo wont approve. WRONG. It is the sight, smell, sound, and perpetual existence of the aircraft that is important, not 100% authenticity (even though that is a worthy goal).
Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:57 pm
Actually they are giving a false impression. At airshows I've heard these every day people say oh look these to planes flew in the same squadron back the war. As far as paint goes, the gloss paint and stuff like a pilots name is fine. But go take a good hard look at sentimental journey and tell me it looks nice. Don't get me started on the P-40 paint scheme. Just for the record there were people laughing at it at Oshkosh How some one can paint anything that far off is beyond me. Paint schemes do matter to people. I am glad they are kept in the air but the caf dropped the ball with the tramp stamps and that p-40 scheme. This is not a attack on either of you two in the least.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:07 pm
Chris, Sentimental Journey is a beautiful aircraft, it is sad and narrow minded that you think a decal ruins it. I think it is you who should take a good hard look. In regards to the P-40, I had people say in Midland say that it was warming up to them. The scheme is what Tex specified he wanted and whether it is accurate or not, it was a tribute to Tex. Paint doesn't ruin aircraft guys. I'd still kill to get to fly it someday in tribute. I have said these things over and over and it is still brought up. Let's think of more things to deem 'unpleasant' about the CAF shall we...
Standing by.
Standing by.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:10 pm
2nd post on subject; [and i said i'd only do 1, sorry, but here i go] i LIKE the stamp! i enjoy seeing the stamp and knowing who it is i should be greatful to for bringing it to me [on the ground or in the air]. i wish Lone Star, POF, Cavanaugh etc. all had a logo they would put on their planes so i could appericate them all the same.
authenticity? i think they are ALL fudging a little. Howard Pardue puts his 'HP' on the tails of his planes [no military ever did that, but i like it, and nobody has ever complained about his planes] POF put airshow.com on their T-33 and nobody said anything about that [if they gave them some ad money i would have taken it also] Red-Bull did the P-38 with their logo and there was some complaining BUT the bottom line is "it's THEIR plane" and the CAF's planes are the SAME thing, "it's THEIR planes" , so PLEASE "cut them some slack" they still are the biggest owner's of warbirds out there. the stamp "ain't that bad"
AND
"LETS GET ALONG"
authenticity? i think they are ALL fudging a little. Howard Pardue puts his 'HP' on the tails of his planes [no military ever did that, but i like it, and nobody has ever complained about his planes] POF put airshow.com on their T-33 and nobody said anything about that [if they gave them some ad money i would have taken it also] Red-Bull did the P-38 with their logo and there was some complaining BUT the bottom line is "it's THEIR plane" and the CAF's planes are the SAME thing, "it's THEIR planes" , so PLEASE "cut them some slack" they still are the biggest owner's of warbirds out there. the stamp "ain't that bad"
AND
"LETS GET ALONG"
Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:19 pm
I admit that my eyes are 67 years old, and may not see as well as a hawk's. However, I am able to see warbirds fairly well as they fly at air shows.
And this may really shock some of you, but I cannot see that CAF badge from the ground as warbirds such as the SB2C fly over.
And this may really shock some of you, but I cannot see that CAF badge from the ground as warbirds such as the SB2C fly over.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:25 pm
Taylor I couldn’t agree more. I have been around this business long enough to know that most people could care less about the logos. If you look at any war bird long and hard enough you will find fault with it. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the critics have never ever been seriously involved with aircraft restoration and maintenance and or they have an agenda. We that do the work have far more pressing problems then logos. I also think that many, but not all of the anti-logo people derive pleasure from creating controversy. My god, with all of the important issues in this world it is hard for me to believe that the CAF logo is that big of a deal. If you want to do something meaningful regarding war birds go volunteer and get your hands dirty. I haven’t seen any evidence that the logo has hurt the CAF one bit. I challenge our critics to come up with creative and constructive solutions to make our mission easier. Anybody can criticize. It takes some effort to provide meaningful solutions.
Dan
Dan
Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:43 pm
Taylor sj is a beautiful aircraft. But look where that logo is. That is silly. As far as the p-40. If it's a tribute to Tex than awesome. It's just not an accurate shade at all. You are right however, I'd still kill to fly them logo or not
Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:46 pm
The P40 looked a lot better at Midland with a layer of West Texas dust on it. Now if they can just get it to stay there, or put a little flattner in the paint next time. Yeah I know shiny is easier to keep clean blah, blah, blah.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:13 pm
Ober...
you just answered it for me.
I called a buddy back in Houston who had done some work on the P-40 and was saying that whatever it was, sun exposure... the paint was starting to tone down and wasn't too shabby in person.
As far as tramp stamps go... I sure wish those ladies wouldn't go ruinng their fine, fine God given bohunkuses. It just AIN'T right!
ummm...
The CAF.
Made up of some ornery dudes and dudettes who were into warbirds BEFORE it was cool and as I see the storm clouds for warbirds of EVERY brand on the horizon my advice would be to ENJOY them all while you still can.
Ga'night kind folks,
SPANNER
you just answered it for me.
I called a buddy back in Houston who had done some work on the P-40 and was saying that whatever it was, sun exposure... the paint was starting to tone down and wasn't too shabby in person.
As far as tramp stamps go... I sure wish those ladies wouldn't go ruinng their fine, fine God given bohunkuses. It just AIN'T right!
ummm...
The CAF.
Made up of some ornery dudes and dudettes who were into warbirds BEFORE it was cool and as I see the storm clouds for warbirds of EVERY brand on the horizon my advice would be to ENJOY them all while you still can.
Ga'night kind folks,
SPANNER
Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:20 pm
When a B-17 is flying overhead I hear the beautiful radials and can't even see the decal. That is what is important to me.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:55 pm
SPANNERmkV wrote:Ober...
I see the storm clouds for warbirds of EVERY brand on the horizon my advice would be to ENJOY them all while you still can.
VERY good point. I see the storm clouds too.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:30 pm
I broadly agree with August's many points, staring with it's not a big deal.
However AFAIK, I think it's a little unfair to say the CAF haven't a unique offer in areas. They did and do. Only one other organisation has attempted to operate a B-29 and that wasn't successful, long term. Likewise the operation of the B-24 for as long as they have is a plus. The loss of other historic bombers that no-one else has operated for long sadly has to be weighed against, well behind the loss of their crews. The B-26 Marauder, A-20 and Casa 2111.
Likewise, I very much enjoyed meeting you and your folks. Would've like more time, but that's Oshkosh!
Your points are duly noted, they've been made before. Fact remains that the scheme on the 'Martlet' is not just slightly wrong, there's nothing about it that's remotely right. Which raises a couple of questions - why would anyone take so little care (it costs no more to paint it properly, it just takes a small effort to move from an immature 'thats cool' appreciation of pretty colors to 'trying to get it right') and is that same focus on the quick, lazy gratification evident in other areas; such as the restoration or maintenance? I understand that's not the case here - I hope not, but paint is a symptom of care.
I can't speak for anyone else, but no double standard. There's a world of difference between the B-24A deviating from an original scheme properly researched as part of a plan for good (if arguable) reasons, and the 'Martlet' just not bothering to try and get it right.
I also didn't appreciate all the poor excuses and bull about the Martlet's scheme being 'based on a photograph' that was going to be produced one day. At least now we are prepared to acknowledge it's a wolf in duck's clothing.
As I've said before there's a lot of fuss made about honouring veterans. If that's the best effort to honour an allied service, it shows both ignorance and disrespect to that organisation - I (maybe I'm odd) feel it's like wearing a uniform improperly dressed, or medal ribbons not awarded, or hoisting the allied flag upside down.
Lots of good robust views, all clean fun.
Regards,
However AFAIK, I think it's a little unfair to say the CAF haven't a unique offer in areas. They did and do. Only one other organisation has attempted to operate a B-29 and that wasn't successful, long term. Likewise the operation of the B-24 for as long as they have is a plus. The loss of other historic bombers that no-one else has operated for long sadly has to be weighed against, well behind the loss of their crews. The B-26 Marauder, A-20 and Casa 2111.
me109me109 wrote:JDK wrote: 'Martlet' scheme… is appalling.
…as Gary proved and got a neato scheme for that B-24Aish.
James- Once again, I greatly enjoyed meeting you at OSH and my next comments aren't directed towards you per say, but the topics you've brought up. The CAF did not paint the FM-2 like it is; Bob Reiss chose that before he donated it to the organization. We can sit here and kick and scream saying it's too shiny, too blue, looks like crayolas etc. but let us not forget that it would not be flying today if great individuals like the late Robert Reiss had not put forth their time and resources to ensure its continued existence. Be thankful.
Likewise, I very much enjoyed meeting you and your folks. Would've like more time, but that's Oshkosh!
Your points are duly noted, they've been made before. Fact remains that the scheme on the 'Martlet' is not just slightly wrong, there's nothing about it that's remotely right. Which raises a couple of questions - why would anyone take so little care (it costs no more to paint it properly, it just takes a small effort to move from an immature 'thats cool' appreciation of pretty colors to 'trying to get it right') and is that same focus on the quick, lazy gratification evident in other areas; such as the restoration or maintenance? I understand that's not the case here - I hope not, but paint is a symptom of care.
me109me109 wrote:Second, I believe there is a double standard here on WIX. If you have problems with the Martlet you should have equal problems with the B-24A. The 'neato scheme' is not correct and neither is the noseart. I feel like this board sometimes hypocritically treats certain people/organizations/aircraft one way while shunning another for doing something similar. This is not meant to take away from the great work Gary did. Had he not been associated with Ol' 927 she would be half of what she is today. Just my 2 cents.
I can't speak for anyone else, but no double standard. There's a world of difference between the B-24A deviating from an original scheme properly researched as part of a plan for good (if arguable) reasons, and the 'Martlet' just not bothering to try and get it right.
I also didn't appreciate all the poor excuses and bull about the Martlet's scheme being 'based on a photograph' that was going to be produced one day. At least now we are prepared to acknowledge it's a wolf in duck's clothing.
As I've said before there's a lot of fuss made about honouring veterans. If that's the best effort to honour an allied service, it shows both ignorance and disrespect to that organisation - I (maybe I'm odd) feel it's like wearing a uniform improperly dressed, or medal ribbons not awarded, or hoisting the allied flag upside down.
Lots of good robust views, all clean fun.
Regards,