Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:07 am
JDK wrote:In historic car circuits 'patina' is something that holds great cachet in the UK, and I understand not so in the US. To stretch a point a looong way, this may be one of the fundamental differences between the nations; in Britain an aspiration is to the old, landed gentry and their worn accoutrements, where I understand the American dream is always brand new - or needs to look it...
As an American & a car enthusiast who’s been in the American Muscle Car scene for many years I have to say your statement about the car hobby in the U.S is totally ignorant & untrue.
Pay attention to any of our large classic car auctions, cars that are considered survivors (unrestored low mile original cars in good condition) bring thousands upon thousands more than the same car perfectly restored to beyond new mint condition.
Survivors are the most highly sought after classic cars bar none.
Nobody in their right mind here would tear into a mint ultra rare original low mile classic & over restore it.
The truth is most restored classic show cars in the U.S started out as complete wrecks or just a pile of parts that could not be driven in the first place.
In that case who cares how new or shiny you make it!!!
Im sorry for my rant, but your post came off like only brits have any sort of culture & Americans are a bunch of knuckle draggers who would destroy a part of our history & culture just to shine it up & make it new.
I just thought that was a little stuck up.
As far as airplanes go, I like them to look original as they would have during their time in service.
But I’m not going to freak is a plane is too shiny, I’m not the one who put thousands of dollars & work into it.
Until I do I have little room to gripe about what I think is right.
Besides I'm just happy people are taking the time & money to save these classic aircraft.
Last edited by Phantom1200 on Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:14 am, edited 4 times in total.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:08 am
Like Vulture, I gotta say the obvious, You buy it, You paint it. I too am happy that they are just there. Flying is an extra bonus.
Having cleaned airplanes after using them, I am all for shiny, waxed, slick and pretty. It is way-way-way easier to clean.
JDK, ole WIX buddy, you aint gonna like my T28B when I get it.
It's gonna have a black tail with a big Playboy bunny on it. Mildly pornographic nose art on both sides of the cowl. Rack shot for sure. Checkerboard cowling. 4 Q's somewhere on it. And have the hull numbers and insignia's of a couple three submarines on it. A named engine. A four leafed clover and a green heart. And it'll all be very shiny.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this for awhile.
Having cleaned airplanes after using them, I am all for shiny, waxed, slick and pretty. It is way-way-way easier to clean.
JDK, ole WIX buddy, you aint gonna like my T28B when I get it.
It's gonna have a black tail with a big Playboy bunny on it. Mildly pornographic nose art on both sides of the cowl. Rack shot for sure. Checkerboard cowling. 4 Q's somewhere on it. And have the hull numbers and insignia's of a couple three submarines on it. A named engine. A four leafed clover and a green heart. And it'll all be very shiny.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this for awhile.
Re: just a thought
Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:09 am
Vulture wrote:You know, I hate to be the one that throws a blanket on a hot conversation, but I am kinda wondering if the paint,( that is removable btw...) is of any real concern in the end.
Well, yes, otherwise people wouldn't care, and we wouldn't have had a steady improvement in authenticity and variety (see the new Eagle P-40 scheme...) Thanks for wondering though, and paint is minor compared to safe flight. But then warbirding is a minor niche interest too.
Vulture wrote:I am kinda wondering if the paint,( that is removable btw...) is of any real concern in the end.I am just happy and appreciate that aircraft like these are flying.
Depends if you see them as toys or historical artefacts / memorials.
If there's a genuine (rather than 'I'm getting a tax break') intent to commemorate historical sacrifice, getting it right is a no-brainer.
If you go down the gratitude route, then on the other hand it's a pity a significant number of pilots have taken historic aircraft with them on the occasions they kill themselves*.
You are quite right that the W.W.II paint was made differently and applied differently. Modern paints are one of the unarguable (I think) agreed compromises. Modern paint can, however, replicate pretty much exactly what it would have been like - with better wear and cleaning properties if you want. The limitations are the owner / operator's effort and attention to detail, currency on the choices of paint available, in today's market, quality of research (which can be obtained free for the price of asking in many cases) plus the competence of the paintshop as well as the usual time and money.
It is clear some warbird operators don't value authenticity over getting a competent GA paintshop to do what is essentially a specialised job.
It's also ironic that Gary Austin's (in his view) quick, dirty and rough scheme on 'Ol 927' is one of the most realistic, albeit fictional schemes out there - by virtue of hand brush painting in areas, and a degree of rush and incomplete paint prep, etc. - just like it was when there was a war on...
Thanks for the input, folks. I must remember to bug Ed about the correct polka dot diamater...
Regards,
(*And think of the caveats, please, before going off on one at me. AFAIK there's been no suicides in warbirds, and many accidents are not the pilot's fault, and no-one's life is worth less than a warbird etc. However there have been important aircraft lost due to ego. If we are honest, most of us have seen pilots who shouldn't be trusted with valuable and sometimes any aircraft.)
Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:13 am
Phantom1200 wrote:As an American & a car enthusiast who’s been in the American Muscle Car scene for many years I have to say your statement about the car hobby in the U.S is totally ignorant & untrue.
Ok, OK, please breathe. Not an area I have any direct knowledge of, and I was just relating to some observations by some British car enthusiasts, specifically relating to (I think) Pebble Beach Concors?
I hold my hand up to being ignorant of the area, and apologise for the (unintentional) offence.
Alright?
Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:29 am
It's all good, no worries.
But asking a Brit who works on vintage european marks about the American car culture is like asking a pig farmer Alabama about finer points of Soccer
It's a whole other world.
FYI Pebble Beach only accounts for the smallest part of car cuture here.
Those are mostly million dollar pre war europen cars owned by hollywood & old money types.
The large & booming section of the car hobby here is made of classic American iron from the 40's-70's.
But asking a Brit who works on vintage european marks about the American car culture is like asking a pig farmer Alabama about finer points of Soccer
It's a whole other world.
FYI Pebble Beach only accounts for the smallest part of car cuture here.
Those are mostly million dollar pre war europen cars owned by hollywood & old money types.
The large & booming section of the car hobby here is made of classic American iron from the 40's-70's.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:40 am
Phantom1200 wrote:It's all good but asking a Brit who works on pre 1960's Jags about the American car culture is like asking a pig farmer Alabama about Soccer
The code here is Australian Rules. Real men, pointed balls, no advert breaks and no padding. (and not my scene...)
More seriously, there's certainly a reasonable awareness of US car heritage here and in the UK, more so than vice-versa, I'd say. Doubt you get many UK and Aus car shows on US TV, whereas...
In Aus were are blessed with a kind-to-cars climate, and imports from everywhere. You might like a glance at this show from January - no muscle cars (not my bag) but lots of interesting stuff.
http://forum.planetalk.net/viewtopic.php?t=3232
Phantom1200 wrote:FYI Pebble Beach only accounts for the smallest part of car cuture here.
Those are mostly million dollar europen cars owned by hollywood & old money types.
So unlike the Warbird biz...
Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:22 am
Thanks for the link.
We have all the European car mags in our book stores & BBC America plays Top Gear (TLC used to air it).
Speed plays the V8 super car races from your country; our new GTO was based on your Holden Monero as will our up coming Pontiac G8.
All the big Performance cars from Europe & Japan are imported here, minus a select few like the old Nissan Skyline GTR.
The Japanese & European import tuner scene is huge here as everywhere.
Classic car culture here is pretty much American iron, would only make sense it's what we grew up with.
Though there are plenty of people into classic European cars as well.
America is a melting pot thus there are many different subcultures when it comes to cars, you will not find a better mix of performance cars than in the states.
Speaking for myself I like anything fast & clean.
After the war my grandfather went to work for GM, so I have always been around cars.
I grew up with the muscle cars that my father & friends raced.
But my passion for performance cars extends beyond my loved muscle cars into European sports cars & some Japanese performance cars.
I just don’t like anything that’s looks like it came out of the Fast & Furious movie.
As far as racing goes I like GT class road & endurance racing the most followed by Drag & Rally racing.
Unlike most I find the two biggest forms of motorsport on the planet the most boring, NASCAR & F1!!
We have all the European car mags in our book stores & BBC America plays Top Gear (TLC used to air it).
Speed plays the V8 super car races from your country; our new GTO was based on your Holden Monero as will our up coming Pontiac G8.
All the big Performance cars from Europe & Japan are imported here, minus a select few like the old Nissan Skyline GTR.
The Japanese & European import tuner scene is huge here as everywhere.
Classic car culture here is pretty much American iron, would only make sense it's what we grew up with.
Though there are plenty of people into classic European cars as well.
America is a melting pot thus there are many different subcultures when it comes to cars, you will not find a better mix of performance cars than in the states.
Speaking for myself I like anything fast & clean.
After the war my grandfather went to work for GM, so I have always been around cars.
I grew up with the muscle cars that my father & friends raced.
But my passion for performance cars extends beyond my loved muscle cars into European sports cars & some Japanese performance cars.
I just don’t like anything that’s looks like it came out of the Fast & Furious movie.
As far as racing goes I like GT class road & endurance racing the most followed by Drag & Rally racing.
Unlike most I find the two biggest forms of motorsport on the planet the most boring, NASCAR & F1!!
Last edited by Phantom1200 on Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:28 am
Phantom1200 wrote:America is a melting pot thus there are many different subcultures when it comes to cars, you will not find a better mix of performance cars than in the states.
...and I shall stick to aircraft, I think! Glad you liked the link.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:22 am
What O.P. no invasion stripes on your T-28?
Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:21 am
First off,.. Australians have pointed balls ? Too much info for me but thanks for sharing James. I guess.... 
Back to paint, A-26s in Korea were operated mostly as night strike attack aircraft, matte black was found to create a " black hole ", if you will. Gloss black was used, I've seen color photos of P-61s were they appeared to be painted gloss.
We are currently repainting the Collings Foundation F-4 Phantom to replicate Robin Olds' aircraft that he was flying during Operation Bolo. There are very few photos of the aircraft and even fewer still in color. I have researched this aircraft to best of my ability and all marks applied will be photodocumented. Will it be perfect ? In a word, ... no. But since the original is at the bottom of the South China Sea ( it was shot down several months later while being flown by another pilot ), we are doing the best we can. A gentleman who had built a highly detailed model of the aircraft was contacted to ask him about his research material, we hoped he might have had additional photos. His model is fantastic ! We recieved a reply from the builder that while polite, the writer began to take us to task for daring to paint a D model Phantom up in a C model paint scheme ! He suggested that if we changed the radome and a few other things it might not be so bad ! I suggested in a reply that maybe we will be forgiven for our transgressions by most folks who will focus on the fact that a lot of effort by the all volunteer crew goes into making this aircraft fly.
Besides when she goes screaming by at 500 kts +, I guarantee you the last thing people will care about is that the tail code is off or the dark green color may be slightly off shade !
( It's not, so don't bother looking )
Just so those who might wonder if this change was brought about by Gen. Olds passing, it wasn't. The idea to change the look of the F-4 is much like the idea to repaint the B-24 periodically. We felt that it was time to honor another hero from the Viet Nam era, Robin was contacted and he liked the idea, he was asked which aircraft he would like to see replicated, his answer was 680. He pased away just a few days later, and we understand that he was pleased that 680 would fly again, at least in spirit.
Back to paint, A-26s in Korea were operated mostly as night strike attack aircraft, matte black was found to create a " black hole ", if you will. Gloss black was used, I've seen color photos of P-61s were they appeared to be painted gloss.
We are currently repainting the Collings Foundation F-4 Phantom to replicate Robin Olds' aircraft that he was flying during Operation Bolo. There are very few photos of the aircraft and even fewer still in color. I have researched this aircraft to best of my ability and all marks applied will be photodocumented. Will it be perfect ? In a word, ... no. But since the original is at the bottom of the South China Sea ( it was shot down several months later while being flown by another pilot ), we are doing the best we can. A gentleman who had built a highly detailed model of the aircraft was contacted to ask him about his research material, we hoped he might have had additional photos. His model is fantastic ! We recieved a reply from the builder that while polite, the writer began to take us to task for daring to paint a D model Phantom up in a C model paint scheme ! He suggested that if we changed the radome and a few other things it might not be so bad ! I suggested in a reply that maybe we will be forgiven for our transgressions by most folks who will focus on the fact that a lot of effort by the all volunteer crew goes into making this aircraft fly.
Besides when she goes screaming by at 500 kts +, I guarantee you the last thing people will care about is that the tail code is off or the dark green color may be slightly off shade !
( It's not, so don't bother looking )
Just so those who might wonder if this change was brought about by Gen. Olds passing, it wasn't. The idea to change the look of the F-4 is much like the idea to repaint the B-24 periodically. We felt that it was time to honor another hero from the Viet Nam era, Robin was contacted and he liked the idea, he was asked which aircraft he would like to see replicated, his answer was 680. He pased away just a few days later, and we understand that he was pleased that 680 would fly again, at least in spirit.
Last edited by RickH on Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:47 am
RickH wrote:First off,.. Australians have pointed balls ? Too much info for me but thanks for sharing James. I guess....
Don't worry, only those that play AFL footy, and I think there's tight shorts involved...
More seriously, thanks for making all that cutting and pasting worthwhile with a response from the 'frontline'. Exactly as you've said, research can be frustrating, and it's about reasonable compromise, with a clear aim in mind. You've given a perfect illustration of how it works... Like many things, it's not as simple as 'right' or 'wrong'.
RickH wrote:Back to paint, A-26s in Korea were operated mostly as night strike attack aircraft, matte black was found to create a " black hole ", if you will. Gloss black was used, I've seen color photos of P-61s were they appeared to be painted gloss.
Again, good examples of the not invented here or reinventing the wheel syndrome. When dedicated night-fighters were underway in early W.W.II, the RAF tried a very flat (sooty) colour called 'Special Night'. It, as you said, stood out as a totally black hole in the sky (not their term, of course - black holes not having been discovered...) By the end of the war, it was realised a subdued equivalent of the day fighter's scheme made sense. (See late war night-fighter Mosquitoes.) Interestingly, the Germans also learned that lighter non-matt colours made sense; see the Nachjager schemes...
While this might seem to say the A-26 specification was dumb, there is a difference between ground-air and air-air aircraft observation at night. The colour theory (rods and cones in the eyes etc.) is fascinating, and leads on to the USN's 'invisible' anti-submarine aircraft...
Cheers,
Wed Oct 03, 2007 8:12 am
Some photos to illustrate:
Here's a Beaufighter Mk.II in the quickly wearing Special Night...
And a Defiant in the slightly glossier 'Night', used after the special night was found to be unworkable and counter-productive:
A Mosquito NF-30 in Belgium. Note how the scheme is tonally quite similar to a day scheme:
(Incidentally, a British design fitted with American radar and used by the Belgians!)
And a Nachtjager Bf-110 in the RAF Museum. Note that tonally and in the colours this is very similar to today's air superiority fighter schemes. Different purpose, but it's an interesting coincidence.
Closer to Rick's original A-26 point neither really flat matt or a high gloss is a good idea - something in between is better, as shown above, too.
Here's a Beaufighter Mk.II in the quickly wearing Special Night...
And a Defiant in the slightly glossier 'Night', used after the special night was found to be unworkable and counter-productive:
A Mosquito NF-30 in Belgium. Note how the scheme is tonally quite similar to a day scheme:
(Incidentally, a British design fitted with American radar and used by the Belgians!)
And a Nachtjager Bf-110 in the RAF Museum. Note that tonally and in the colours this is very similar to today's air superiority fighter schemes. Different purpose, but it's an interesting coincidence.
Closer to Rick's original A-26 point neither really flat matt or a high gloss is a good idea - something in between is better, as shown above, too.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:57 am
JDK wrote:snj-5 wrote:How does that saying go? Never say never...
Thanks (I think) Bella!
Wanna bet it wasn't polished with jeweller's rouge?
(I should know when to quit.)
No, I won't take that bet! I don't know what they used back then,
and I'll grant you they probably didn't rub on it as long as some
folks do these days. Nice looking airplane anyway....
BTW, I didn't realize the previous link I posted required a log in
to the Yahoo Groups page to view the picture. Here's a link
everyone should be able to get to:
http://www.havasreti.com/images/BuNo90726.jpg
Bela P. Havasreti
Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:08 am
I think that if the aircraft is a flying restoration that the gloss scheme doesn't bother me because there are operational needs in there as well. Although the gloss doesn't bother me at all anyway. I think that museums that have the aircraft on staticdisplay should make an attempt at having the right matte finish. But even then, sometimes the gloss just looks nice. The NMNA glossy F4U is sweet. In the end, I am just happy that they are around to see.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:18 am
Thanks, MD,
I've been told and shown by people who do this stuff that a properly prepared satin type finish can be made that's as easy to clean as a high gloss. Easier at times. The 'gloss for cleaning' is an old approach, that some people don't want to move on from, a convenient excuse for others, and sometimes justifiable.
History isn't 'nice'. It's just history. Some of it's more important than nice, awesome or cool toys.
mustangdriver wrote:I think that if the aircraft is a flying restoration that the gloss scheme doesn't bother me because there are operational needs in there as well.
I've been told and shown by people who do this stuff that a properly prepared satin type finish can be made that's as easy to clean as a high gloss. Easier at times. The 'gloss for cleaning' is an old approach, that some people don't want to move on from, a convenient excuse for others, and sometimes justifiable.
mustangdriver wrote:Although the gloss doesn't bother me at all anyway. I think that museums that have the aircraft on staticdisplay should make an attempt at having the right matte finish. But even then, sometimes the gloss just looks nice. The NMNA glossy F4U is sweet. In the end, I am just happy that they are around to see.
History isn't 'nice'. It's just history. Some of it's more important than nice, awesome or cool toys.