The CAF "Tramp Stamps" (a photo essay)

[LadyO2Pilot]

Thanks! It was great to have her back as well. Making Airsho was a big goal, as was doing our first load of ride-for-hire.

We were thinking of bringing her (and the P-39) home on Thursday, but I'm going to push for bringing the Rose home on Saturday. Brownwood has their quarterly BBQ fly-in that day, so we might be able to stop in and sell some PX and cockpit tours, and possibly rides, without having to burn much more fuel.

How do you find out about the Brownwood quarterly Fly-in? I've been wanting to get together a gaggle of L-5's up there sometime and that sounds like a good excuse. Can't go this weekend, though.

Ryan

Ryan, I'm on their email mailing list for events; also on the one out of Fayette County. I'll try to retrieve the email about Brownwood and send you or ask them to include you on list. I'm pretty sure I have your "other" email.

[bluehawk15]

Sorry Karen, I was about to PM the info to him, but when I opened the PM page, I had one from Ryan asking about it. I had the info handy, so I sent it to him.

Here it is for anyone who might want to get on her E-mail list:

Sharlette Bain
Airport Manager
Brownwood Regional - BWD
Ph: 325-643-1482
Fx: 325-643-3162
sbain@ci.brownwood.tx.us

Sharlette will also E-mail about other fly-ins that she finds out about.

[Taylor Stevenson]

I was a caf col until politics with hq and the tramp stamp stuff came up. You can not say that you care about the aircraft first then cover up it's paint scheme with a stupid looking logo like that. Look at sentimental journey for petes sake. That looks stupid as heck.

Chris- I CAN say that the CAF cares about the aircraft first. The whole point of the logo is to package the CAF as a brand, leading to potential sponsorships, and increased invitations to airshows which in turn leads to greater revenue for the aircraft, increased membership, etc. All of these are ways to build funds to keep these aircraft YOU ENJOY flying. If keeping the aircraft flying at all costs isn’t caring about the aircraft then I don't know what is.

The individual units fork out a lot of money for the priviledge of cartaking the aircraft, so HQ does not shell out a dime for aircraft upkeep that are not assigned to HQ.

skymstr02- The individual units 'fork out' ANUAC to HQ to retain the privilege of flying these aircraft, you are right. You are wrong however if you think that this money just goes into HQ's pocket. The funds go towards the insurance for the aircraft, administrative costs of running this multi-thousand member organization, etc. Skymstr02, this money doesn't go into someone's pockets in Midland, stop acting like it does. We are called a non-profit for a reason…

Where do the membership dues ($200/Colonel/year) go, and what do they do?

skymstr02 (Wish I knew your name so I could address you directly)- Once again, I feel you underestimate the amount of money it takes to run a large organization. It is a struggle in this economy to keep the lights on, the airplanes insured, while trying to ensure that these VERY EXPENSIVE aircraft are able to fly into the future.

I've been in the CAF long enough that I've seen three uniform changes, one with each regime change. I refuse to comply with the latest business casual attire change.

skymstr02- I'm sorry if the change of fashion somehow takes away from your experience, what we wear is not what the CAF is all about. The new 'casual attire' was meant to unify the look of the organization in an affordable way, so the average joe schmo airshow attendee would ask "Who are all these people in Blue shirts and khakis". I liked the former Greys and Khakis, but they were not worn in uniformity. People wore them in various fashions depending on region, aircraft, etc. It was hard at times to tell who and who was and wasn't with the organization. Flightsuits look the same to the average joe. I guess it was another branding of sorts. By the way, my father pushed for the more uniform look while Chief of Staff, so I'll pass on the "constructive" criticism you have voiced.

Thats OK Taylor, you just keep sipping the CAF kool aid, but the CAF is not the future of warbirds.

skymstr02- I will keep sipping the 'koolaid' because I believe in the CAF. I have been a part of this organization all 20 years I have been on this earth and I consider the members my second family. I have been privileged to be present at countless general staff meetings and discussions on CAF policies and while many decisions may or may not have gone over well, those who enacted them had nothing but the best interests of the aircraft at heart. With 160+ aircraft that are viewed by millions of people, flown by those qualified who may not have millions to spend on a fighter of the own, and with a mission to ensure that the memory of those men and women who served during WWII is never forgotten, the CAF IS the future of the warbird movement, that I believe.

'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.
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.

Gee can I post here
I prefer big ugly stupid decal. But hey whatever Some of them look good but not the case for the ones on the airplanes.
I noticed a "member" BUSD (big ugly stupid decal) on a airplane.
Taylor when's yours going on the L-5?? I'd have assumed you'd be first in line to get one

Jack- I am honestly getting tired of explaining certain things to you over and over again, but here goes. I am not a big fan of the decal. Yes, it takes away from the authenticity of the aircraft in some ways. No one here cannot say that I am not a stickler for authenticity (look at the L-5), but I see the idea behind the branding. I am not putting the logo on my aircraft because it is MY aircraft and frankly I think I do more to promote the CAF verbally than the decal could on my plane. The difference is that CAF aircraft are owned by the C A F, mine is owned by me. Jack, you are a great asset to the community, but sometimes your comments take away more than they contribute and with a WIX community that takes your word as gospel, your pessimistic words really promote negativity on WIX against the great organization that I hold dear. Nothing personal, we just don’t see eye to eye. I look forward to meeting you one of these days.
bluehawk15- Thanks for the support and for your contributions to the organization. Keep up the good work!

I am only a greasy airplane mechanic. I couldn't possibly "think", be "unfair", or "uninformed", as I am only someone to step over or around while the Colonels show off "their" airplanes. I was only part of the pesky overhead costs. Sorry I attempted to have an opinion about things that I couldn't possibly have the ability to understand.
Scott the chastened.

Scott- Mechanics keep the aircraft flying more than money or pilots do. Your contributions and the contributions of many mechanics are greatly appreciated by those around these aircraft. I am sorry you had a negative experience. The airplanes are yours as much as the other colonels. I hope you will one day return with your talents.

And yet FiFi flew for many, many years with "Confederate Air Force" in massive black block letters that extended from just behind the Cockpit to just in front of the rear sighting bubbles....

Guys, "Brands" have been a part of the warbird movement for many, many years in many ways. Why is it that it was "okay" back in the 1970s but not now?

One must identify themselves or be lost amongst the masses. In addition, one must thank those whom make their operation possible. In the case of the Collings Foundation, they put the names on their airplanes. In the case of the CAF, they put one name on the side of the plane in the form of the decal to represent all of the members of the CAF that help in many ways to keep all of the CAF's aircraft in the air.

CAPFlyer – Couldn’t have said it better. Great points.


To all- I am getting kind of sick of the negativity towards the CAF on this board. For 50+ years the CAF has made dreams possible and will continue to do so. Don't forget that. There are several individuals here on WIX that do so much good for the Warbird movement, however I feel that there are a lot of 'armchair' members who do nothing but complain about minute details filled with resentment of those who actively participate. To those of you who are involved in any capacity with warbirds: pilot, mechanic, PX, wiping the hangar floor, docents, etc. THANK YOU. To those of you who complain for complaining sake, hold grudges, only point out flaws, etc. Get involved, or get a life.

Figure I'll hear some feedback from this one, but you all need to hear it.

[N3Njeff]

Hey taylor..........all bashing off here.
I understand the need...........nope I dont like it but I am not a CAF member so whats my opinion. My only question is did they ever consider the size of the decal as per the size of the aircraft???? After the photo essay, the ones on the bombers dont look that bad but when you got the same size decal on a P-40 then throw it on a Stearman or a even smaller L-4 or L-5...............WOW I am sorry but its just too much. Is their a option for a reduced size???

[retroaviation]

Dang it, I wasn't going to get involved in any of this, but since my name and my work on the B-24 have been brought up, I figured I better defend myself and set the record straight.

Taylor, the B-24 WAS going to be painted in an accurate paint scheme, but it was the CAF who had me paint it incorrectly. The black, which should be painted all the way towards the upper portion of the fuselage, was left down towards the bottom, as I heard nothing but complaints about how hot the airplane would be while giving tours if I painted it correctly. Its true that I'm the one that painted it, but it was not the way I had intended. The nose art on the airplane is another example of that. And I'm sure that you'll find it somewhere on the B-24 thread here on WIX, that I was opposed to the idea of the noseart from the very beginning. However, it was because the CAF insisted that we make the airplane "more sellable" that we went forward with the noseart idea. Did the artwork turn out great? You bet it did! Am I happy with the over all result of the B-24 (especially after only 8 months of work)? Sure.

I just don't think it's fair for you to use the B-24 as an example of us here on WIX being hypocritical regarding authenticity, as the things you mention about it being un-authentic, are things that were caused by the CAF.

And believe it or not, I too, am tired of all the CAF bashing. (EDIT...I must admit, however, I certainly have my own share of personal problems with them from time to time.) It is a neat organization with potential to be great, and has done some great things in the past. I think, however (and remember...it's only an opinion), that even though it may be tough to hear or read, perhaps someone from the organization should start trying to listen to some of the complaints and actually try to address them. Naturally, some folks just can't be pleased, but others can...they just get progressively pissed off if they're thoughts go unregarded. I reckon what I'm getting at is there might be a reason that the CAF gets bashed frequently. There are other museums and collections that get bashings as well...some bashings are warranted, others are not. But for the most part, people tend to complain for a reason.

Oh, and I SURE hope you don't consider ME an "armchair member" here, as you mentioned in your earlier post.

Gary

[CAPFlyer]

Hey taylor..........all bashing off here.
I understand the need...........nope I dont like it but I am not a CAF member so whats my opinion. My only question is did they ever consider the size of the decal as per the size of the aircraft???? After the photo essay, the ones on the bombers dont look that bad but when you got the same size decal on a P-40 then throw it on a Stearman or a even smaller L-4 or L-5...............WOW I am sorry but its just too much. Is their a option for a reduced size???

Jeff - yes, there are several sizes available. HQ's criteria is that it be "recognizeable" in Air-to-Air photography. This has been interpreted different ways, but generally it should be smaller for smaller aircraft, but in the end, it depends on how well the unit communicates to HQ the location on their plane and why it should be a certain size. If they don't, then HQ will tend to put the biggest one they can on. That's why the one on the R4D and the other C-47s in the CAF fleet are smaller than they wanted (and Steve's said half jokingly that he'd love to put wings that took up all the space between the cockpit and first set of passenger windows on both sides of the R4D if the sponsors would let him) and on the tail. The sponsors communicated why they wanted it there and that size and HQ obliged.

I just don't think it's fair for you to use the B-24 as an example of us here on WIX being hypocritical regarding authenticity, as the things you mention about it being un-authentic, are things that were caused by the CAF.

Gary - Taylor wasn't saying that you did it inaccurately or anything, he was simply mentioning that no one complains that the B-24A's scheme isn't accurate while they complain that the Martlet's scheme is. No judgement or opinion was being made by him on it. He was just using it as a perfect example of why many CAF members here get tired of the bashing. In addition, I think the point is that the reasons the B-24A is painted the way it is should be exactly why the Martlet should be given a little more "slack" and people stop being so harsh about the decals (namely that the Martlet isn't presented as being a "perfect" or "authentic" paint scheme, nor is the B-24A being presented as being in an "accurate" or "authentic" paint scheme. Both are being presented as "representative" paint schemes).

Last edited by CAPFlyer on Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Taylor Stevenson]

Gary, I understand that it was others that wanted the paint scheme the way it is today on the 24, but I still feel that it is a good example of the hypocrisy present. People here bash the FM-2 and praise the B-24, when they are both equally as inaccurate. What is the difference between the color inaccuracies on the FM-2 and the design inaccuracies on the B-24? I like them both because they are clean and flying. I only brought your name into this to make sure you knew the jab wasn't directed towards you since you had so much to do with the restoration. I think I needed to make that more clear. You are indeed no armchair member and everyone knows that. Thanks for the work you did.

[Paul Krumrei]

I am certainly not bashing the CAF in anyway. It is just my opinion that some of the branding is well rather detracting from the beautiful aircraft that the hard working CAF folks work on and own.

Maybe they should have had a T.O. made for placement and color and design to standardize the sticker on the aircraft so that people when they seem them, know where the stickers are and who it represents.

The aircraft are all wonderful works of art that the CAF folks put back together and maintain and I thank everyone who is on this board who does such a wonderful job in keeping them flying.

I just think maybe a little more consistency in placement and size, etc. etc would be a more standard practice among groups of the CAF.

But, I still think some of them are ugly.

[skymstr02]

[skymstr02- The individual units 'fork out' ANUAC to HQ to retain the privilege of flying these aircraft, you are right. You are wrong however if you think that this money just goes into HQ's pocket. The funds go towards the insurance for the aircraft, administrative costs of running this multi-thousand member organization, etc. Skymstr02, this money doesn't go into someone's pockets in Midland, stop acting like it does. We are called a non-profit for a reason…

Then what is that invoice that our wing receives that is titled "Insurance". It is for the wing assigned aircraft in addition to the insurance to cover the CAF in case of a slip and fall in the wing owned hangar? And we can beat the rates, but HQ bumps up the values to help cover other CAF owned assets, ie, non assigned aircraft, HQ assets, and misc assets, that are not in the control of the local wing.

This is the Robin Hood syndrome, where HQ takes from the units to support the Sheriff of Midland, I mean, Nottingham.

[sdennison]

Wow, this is an interesting thread. I really don't mean to sh*t in anyones oatmeal, but WTF?

We have an organization that with all it's "apparent" faults, still is the largest provider of WWII warbirds to the flying community and we are p*ssing and moaning about a friggin' decal? C'mon boys, bigger fish exist out there, no? How about putting some effort in to get more aircraft to the decal stage?

I come from a world where every square inch is for sale to make sure the "show goes on". They even pay people to calculate how long a viewer sees that decal on TV. I can choose to participate or choose not to. Same goes with you guys.

Now I agree that size matters. There could certainly be a standard set for location and size based on the aircraft involved but until anyone else out there comes up with a plan to put that many aircraft in flyable condition, knock it off. Everyone acknowledges that it may cost the wings too much for their percieved value but I don't see many walking away from the opportunity.

Sit on the sidelines, in the stands and bitch or get you butts to the garage area and build an alternative show.

Now, keeping it real, at least on the aircraft, the "tramp stamp" won't sag or go "South" as the years go by.

Carry on, Lads.

[Taylor Stevenson]

sdennison- Great points! We are all on the same team that shares a common goal of seeing these airplanes fly, which is why I hate to see people degrading their teammates. Keep 'em Flying!

[JohnH]

Thanks for posting. I have read about this here...but I figured people were just talking about the standard CAF lettering. I didn't know this was what they meant. Yuck.

[Jack Cook]

I didn't know this was what they meant.-Yuck.

[mustangdriver]

Trust me I know what it's like to be on the other side of an attack like this trying to defend a place I love. But you can't say that the planes come first when you take an amazing plane like sentimental journey and screw it up with that logo. Once again I like the logo but not on the planes

[EDowning]

Finally. something worth posting about.

Rightly or not, I tend to "like" warbird owners (notice I mention ownership, too often people tend to refer to the CAF as an "operator" when they in fact are an owner) in direct proportion to the good they do with respect to saving/operating/sharing warbirds with the community at large. Based on those criteria....I like the CAF alot. Actually, more than any other Warbird organization. I support the CAF, and more importantly, their right to market their organization as they see fit.

Oh, BTW, the fact that they let me join and be involved with warbirds back when I couldn't afford to rent a Cessna 150. That's kind of hard to forget.

Last edited by EDowning on Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.