I knew this would be a can of worms. I already acknowledged that "owners" have every right to paint their aircraft any way that they want to. I just don't happen to like it in some cases (and I don't have to like it just because you say so) especially in the case of the Red Bull fleet. I am perfectly within my own rights to both think that way (i.e. have a "personal" opinion) and to express my opinion here, especially when it is clearly labeled as such.
I don't for a second believe that the only way that the Red Bull guys can afford to finance their aircraft operations is via advertising/business expense tax credits - do you? (Really?) And I wasn't talking about just putting a company logo on an airplane like the other often debated here subject of the CAF "tramp stamps" for another example. In many cases, the Red Bull "warbird" airplanes are not painted up in
any kind of warbird scheme at all, just in completely civilian Red Bull corporate paint schemes. The non-military paint schemes may look good on their DC-6 airliner and on their Extra, Zlin, and other air racing or aerobatic demonstration/competition airplanes but
I think that it looks "wrong" on their polished P-38 and B-25 for examples. (Although I also at the same time think that any nicely polished aluminum airplane is impressive in its own right.) The Red Bull logos are not all that overwhelming on their Corsair though, but they did look "wrong"
to me on the DH-110 Sea Vixen when it carried a full blown civilian Red Bull paint scheme a few years ago (
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Red-Bull/De-Havilland-DH-110/1171732/L/&sid=cce5190e8719e4c16dceca34cf5e2e23)
It seems to be very rare these days to see a "warbird" in a completely non-military paint scheme. (And I don't mean to start another round of "what defines a warbird" either. I saw a completely non-military Ector 305 for sale recently - a Cessna L-19/O-1 built "new" from surplus spare parts. It had an orange and white completely civilian paint scheme, but even knowing it never saw actual military service, I still thought it looked "wrong.") Heck, full-on civilian paint schemes on warbirds have been rare since the 1970's from what I've seen. Besides, don't most warbird operators get their tax credits these days by operating as non-profit historical foundations or museums in de facto tribute to the legacy of military service and sacrifice - not as commercial businesses with advertising tax credits?
I remember another recent discussion I read in which some people expressed jealousy or resentment in regard to someone else's good fortune in being able to own and fly some particular expensive airplane (note that is singular - just one "airplane.") In fact, now that I think about it some more, it was a letter to the editor of FLYING about contributing editor Dick Karl, who
personally owns and flys a twin turbine Piper Cheyenne - not as a business in itself - and pays for it with his "day job" as a doctor - actually as the director of the Department of Surgery and the Division of Surgical Oncology at the University Of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, FL according to an NBAA article I just found - and "surgeon" + "oncology" (i.e. cancer) = VERY big bucks indeed. By comparsion to Red Bull, I have absolutely no such issues with Dr. Karl's "success."
Now you have gotten me wondering...does Red Bull in fact operate their collection of aircraft as a corporate advertising tax write-off
or possibly as a non-profit private "museum" in Austria. First off, there's simply no telling if the tax laws there are in any way similar to ours in the US, but I very much doubt that they could get away with doubling their tax credits by operating as a museum and
and writing off their advertising expenses for the commercial beverage business, too. If they even
tried to do both at the same time, I would consider that unforgivable...
And as I said before, the argument (think "debating point", not "fight") can be - and now has been - made that such "corporate" paint schemes are more personal or "selfish" tribrutes than they are what most people seem to consider to be traditional warbird "selfless" tributes to military history or service.
Disagree with that statement? Then make a rational case for your point of view. Telling me to "pay" for different paint schemes myself if I don't like these for example is not a valid or worthwhile retort or debating point - it's a 3rd grade taunt at best. Of course even you knew that already - at least that I couldn't afford to pay for the paint job on a single airplane when you posted your comment. So, OK. I'll admit right here and now that you have really put me in my place and proved to everyone that I don't have the same kind of money in my pocket as do the Red Bull guys. I am so ashamed of myself. Are you happy now?
(And now we return you to our regularly schedule forum programming still in progress....)
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
