The CAF 'Martlet' scheme & random thoughts...

[retroaviation]

Okay, I've been mentioned a few times in this discussion, so I thought I should probably say something anyway.

First, the Wildcat/Martlet...Personally, I don't mind the paint scheme, but I also understand how some folks could be turned off by it. There is no doubt that there are better looking paint schemes on Wildcats out there (in my opinion), but this one is still one of the more presentable airplanes in the CAF fleet, whether the color is right or not. I might also add that the airplane is meticulously maintained and is a safe, reliable steed as well.

Second...So if we're talking about perfect, precise, originality, I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned in a negative way, the noseart we placed on Ol' 927. Sure, we beat that topic to death in the B-24 thread, but I'm curious why not here. Now don't get me wrong, like anyone, I don't care to have folks nay-saying our work. However, the fact is that if the lack of perfect originality is a problem for folks on some airplanes, how come it's not on others?

I reckon what I'm getting at is it's just human nature to notice what's wrong, not what's right. For example, the Wildcat/Martlet is scorned upon because it's obviously the wrong color, although the scheme seems fairly correct. Yet, Ol' 927 has been getting nothing but raves because it "looks like" it would've looked during the War (in theory), when in reality, that airplane never had nose art, it just simply retained a nickname (Ol' 927).

This is indeed an interesting thread, y'all. And I must say that it's nice to see that overall, there has been a nice tone from everyone that has responded and nothing too acidic.

So what are your thoughts on my thoughts?

Gary

[JDK]

Thanks for chiming in everyone.

...and do you really want someone telling you how YOUR plane should be painted ? ...

Well, as I understand it, if I had an aircraft, CASA here would certainly tell me a number of things I can and can't do with paint. I also understand I'd need an exemption to only display the reggo under the tail in small letters, and permission to paint it in military colours. I don't mind that, and I certainly want those rules in place for all the other 'clever' buggers.

Personally I always rather liked the CAF white and stripes scheme, and Lefty Gardner always got a big thumbs up from me for White Lightnin' staying in a similar scheme.

As to Ed's chequer Mustangs... Mmmm. Nice.

...combat veteran look. ...This is a scheme I could go for but you average airshow attendee would say ..."oooh what an ugly airplane...I hope is doesn't fall out of the sky" ...not good for the movement...

That's a very interesting point. We have a big enough problem getting over the "Old aeroplanes must be dangerous" ignorance ("They are, darlin', but mainly to the wallet.") without reinforcing the problem.

On the other hand, those warbirds were used hard and weren't a magic protector, which some wear shows, and shiny polished doesn't, so a degree of an awareness of the vulnerability is part of the historical picture, perhaps.

Cheers,

[Ztex]

One school of thought seems to be paint it as you wish (a bunch were done that way in the 60's by the "good ole boys" and the CAF originally had all their airplanes in a white with red and blue stripes scheme)

Umm... the CAF didn't have a choice on paint scheme. When they were founded, the US Government FORBADE them from flying the airplanes in accurate paint schemes. They did not want confusion between privately owned aircraft and aircraft owned by the government. They chose the scheme they did because it was patriotic over the others proposed. It took an act of congress to allow for privately owned aircraft to be flown and painted in the colors of a military aircraft inside the United States.

Wow! I never knew that! It seems funny to think this was the case...especially when you see this at your local airfield...
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/112785.html

[JDK]

Second...So if we're talking about perfect, precise, originality, I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned in a negative way, the noseart we placed on Ol' 927. Sure, we beat that topic to death in the B-24 thread, but I'm curious why not here. Now don't get me wrong, like anyone, I don't care to have folks nay-saying our work. However, the fact is that if the lack of perfect originality is a problem for folks on some airplanes, how come it's not on others?

Hey Gary,
Good to see you are here. I'd thought that 'Ol 927 was important enough to mention in my first post in the original thread. Here it is again:

As has been shown here, WIX can help! Django's wonderful 'Ol 927' artwork inspired by Gary Austin's thread is an example where a new voluntary effort can be an incredible success - so there's opportunity aplenty.

Of course the scheme on '927 isn't original, but it's (I'm sure most would agree) a wonderful idea, and a great tribute to the early B-24s and their crews. The 'Martlet' isn't.

In the 'bullshine' thread, I wrote:

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...

As I also said, some of it's about respect and knowledge, and trust.

I reckon what I'm getting at is it's just human nature to notice what's wrong, not what's right. For example, the Wildcat/Martlet is scorned upon because it's obviously the wrong color, although the scheme seems fairly correct.

You see, from even my limited knowledge I know that the colours are wrong, and the pattern is wrong - British aircraft had a set pattern to follow, and it's generally similar on most aircraft - if you are used to it (as I wouldn't expect a Texan to be ) then it shouts as you when it's out, then it's two colours when it should be three, the markings are the wrong colours and then it's shiny. It hurts my eyes... arghh...

If I was on the airfield with an FAA veteran (some of the bravest around) and the Martlet was there, I'd not want to show it to him because it's that embarrassingly bad. That's an acid test.

I mentioned trust. If the CAF is happy to represent an American aircraft flown by a close ally in such a poor effort at an historic scheme, can I trust the other CAF schemes to be reasonably good when I don't know them as I do the Martlet's? Can we trust the CAF to represent 'our' history?

As it happens I believe that most of the schemes are great representations; not perfect, but good in the spirit. The CAF's moved on a long way, and was, and in a different world has re-established itself as a cornerstone of the warbird and aviation history movement.

Cheers,

[P51Mstg]

One school of thought seems to be paint it as you wish (a bunch were done that way in the 60's by the "good ole boys" and the CAF originally had all their airplanes in a white with red and blue stripes scheme)

Did I miss this one in 7th grade warbird history???????

Someone want to explain?

Mark H

[Nathan]

Hello,

Personally I don't care for that scheme on the Wildcat/Martlet. It's the wrong color and I can't say for the demarcation lines they may be part wrong too. But please all remember I look for authentisity in warbirds. But I am happy the wildcat is kept flying non the less.

Cheers,
Nathan

[NathanT24]

I personally LOVE that Martlett Scheme, I know its not right but being a WW2 Naval Aviation lover I am just glad to see the FM-2 Flying. In 2004 I took a flight in CAFs SBD, well the Martlett was taxing out behind us and I was hoping he would take off and possibly fly in formation but he never did, but that was cool just seeing the FM-2 taxing behind.

[airnutz]

I personally LOVE that Martlett Scheme, I know its not right but being a WW2 Naval Aviation lover I am just glad to see the FM-2 Flying. In 2004 I took a flight in CAFs SBD, well the Martlett was taxing out behind us and I was hoping he would take off and possibly fly in formation but he never did, but that was cool just seeing the FM-2 taxing behind.

Well, if we're gonna love the color scheme..might we get the nomenclature
correct? Correct me if I'm wrong(JDK, ball in your court), but weren't FM-2's
in the FAA referred to as Wildcat Mk VI? Or is the FM-2 supposed to represent an
earlier Martlet Mk type in an incorrect scheme?

[EXPAT0149]

Hmm i take it the original poster is going to paint said aircraft in a colour scheme more accurate then ?

[Second Air Force]

The last time I expressed an opinion about a paint scheme I was nearly banished permanently from a certain hangar . But that P-40---CAW CAW!!!!

Scott

[warbird51]

The CAF FM-2 looks like one of those metal Tonka toy airplanes made in the 50's and 60's. They can paint it however they please. But, I don't have to like it!!

[Chris]

OKay, here's my take on all this. Personally, I like the paint scheme. It's different. I know many out there hate it because of it's lack of authenticity. I respect your right to have and voice your opinions. But consider this. Like Gary said, it is kept in impeccable shape as far as maintenance and cleanliness. It is flown regularly at airshows for the general public to enjoy. It is very costly to strip and repaint an aircraft with a good quality paintjob just because they made a mistake in color and scheme. Perhaps in time, when it does require new paint, then we can all go back and offer our tips as to the correct colors and such. Also, regardless of how it is painted or represented, you won't please everyone. I understand that there was even some pissing and moaning that "Ol 927" wasn't painted in coastal command colors. I just think it's great that it's kept in flying condition so that the average Joe can see a FM-2 in the air. That's what we're here for right?

[famvburg]

One of my fav P-51s was "Lou IV". All that light blue & yellow & invasion stripes over bare metal! Only a few years ago I read somewhere that the camo WASN'T light blue, it was really OD. I've even got a display model of it in OD. It just ain't the same. All those years, everyone thought it was light blue............. I assume it's factual, but............. Kinda like Frankenstein always seen as being green, when in reality, he should just be a very pale skin color, but since light green make-up was used for the B & W film, everyone expects him to be green. Lou IV, is supposed to be blue.

[Second Air Force]

Famvburg brings up an interesting situation by mentioning the "Lou IV" paint scheme. If an item is incorrectly painted and remains that way for long enough, the vast majority will think it to be accurate. I'm personally a stickler for researching a paint scheme and correctly applying it to a representative aircraft--that is why I opened my mouth and got into a bit of a jam some time ago. I understand maintenance factors and marketing have some influence on the schemes selected, as does the personal preference of those footing the bills. The real problem for me isn't so much the flying warbirds as it is those being restored for museums. Why spend all the time to refinish an airplane and paint it in a completely inaccurate scheme when there are so many correct versions available? Again, it comes down to sponsors, politics, etc, and accuracy or the illusion of accuracy goes out the window.

Scott

[Django]

Yeah, but there is no prettier livery for a mustang than the blue with the yellow nose!

So would a bird painted up to be from a particular group and very authentic looking, but completely made up be ok?