Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:39 pm
As I was one of the first bashers of the B U Ds I won't address that anymore, but you got to admitt at least on this forum you get lots of publicity out of those things, good or bad. Good thing about em is a little alcohol and elbow grease and they can be gone. Drink the alcohol and rip them off. Oh heck here I go again.
Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:29 pm
I guess I've got an opinion too since I've been a CAFer for 23 years. I generally have a pi**ing contest with someone at the Arizona Wing where I participate every two or three years and walk away for a while but I have always come back. Go figure. I think it's just the love for the planes and the chance to get to meet the people who "were there". I have completely ignored all the politics and never go to Wing or staff meetings anymore. I don't want to be in charge of ANYTHING! Been there done that and I've grown weary of getting knocked around for my efforts. It seems like within the CAF that %85 of the people are really neat people and very dedicated to the goals of the organization. It's just that %15 that really make it unpleasant. I don't mind the CAF logo but I wish it could be displayed beneath the horizontal stab like the CAF wording used to be. Taylor, I really appreciate your passion for the organization and Lord knows I never would have gotten the opportunities in aviation without the CAF. But I've also seen countless good people run off or so spit on by some of the egos that the CAF seem to draw, that I can certainly understand the negativity that the organization generates. I feel like what Gary did to enhance the safety of the aircraft even to the point of grounding many was vital to the long term goals of the CAF but all I heard from various members was that he thought he was God or something. Well, if he hadn't done that, some of our members might have been meeting God a lot sooner. Yet even Gary, after all the good that he had done, got fed up. It just seems like that within the CAF the adage that no good deed goes unpunished seems to thrive. I really do hope the CAF can grow and find the financial foundation to secure it's future. Like I stated earlier, most of the members are great, but the ones that suck ruin it for me. I'll just keep working on the MiG-15 in the back of our hangar. It's great because no one else wants anything to do with it so I can take some of the Cadets and put them to work and teach them everything I know. (5 minutes or so). I just can't deal with all the egos!
Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:40 pm
So what's the deal with the CAF? I've known some really nice people there, and like everywhere there are a few grouches. I'd say a 10:1 ratio.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:42 am
Hey.., good points here. Let's get drunk, wrip off all those lousy decals and in a few years you can put all of your airplanes on STICKS in front of Municipal Airports!!!
FIFI on a STICK!!!!!
Can't wait!
There are problems with EVERY organisation fella's! EVERY ONE!!!
The only people that care about the darn stickers are you (us). The general public notices them, hopefully, but could give a flying F**K when they see these amazing aircraft scream by just above the deck!!!
They come for the sites, sounds, smells and to possibly get the chance to even touch or crawl into something their Grandfather, or Father once risked their lives flying or maintaining!
The same way the WIX Moderators screen out words like SH*T, D*MN or F**K.., they should screen out BUD, CAF DECAL and TRAMP STAMP.., and we can lay this puppy down and get back onto a REAL TOPIC(s)
just my three cents
FIFI on a STICK!!!!!
Can't wait!
There are problems with EVERY organisation fella's! EVERY ONE!!!
The only people that care about the darn stickers are you (us). The general public notices them, hopefully, but could give a flying F**K when they see these amazing aircraft scream by just above the deck!!!
They come for the sites, sounds, smells and to possibly get the chance to even touch or crawl into something their Grandfather, or Father once risked their lives flying or maintaining!
The same way the WIX Moderators screen out words like SH*T, D*MN or F**K.., they should screen out BUD, CAF DECAL and TRAMP STAMP.., and we can lay this puppy down and get back onto a REAL TOPIC(s)
just my three cents
Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:47 am
the330thbg wrote:The same way the WIX Moderators screen out words like SH*T, D*MN or F**K.., they should screen out BUD, CAF DECAL and TRAMP STAMP.., and we can lay this puppy down and get back onto a REAL TOPIC(s)
Now there's an idea!
Ryan
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:09 am
So let me get this straight. You want to filter these words so that no one can talk about the facts or feelings about something being done with a major owner of warbirds. Are you serious? If die hard aviation and warbird fans don't like it,then doesn't that and should that tell you something? Is that the defense? The same people we make fun of on here for doing stupid things at airshows don't mind it so it must be a good idea. Of course the people here care. WE ALL ARE WARBIRD FANS. We better care. If we are going to filter those phrases let's be sure to add NMUSAF,NMNA,and NASM to the list of what to filter.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:24 am
mustangdriver wrote:If we are going to filter those phrases let's be sure to add NMUSAF,NMNA,and NASM to the list of what to filter.
The idea was getting back to more productive catfights! Not filtering the words, really. It's just sad when folks can't seem to disagree and still be friendly about it.
Ryan
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:36 am
I am being nothing but friendly, but I still disagree with it. So what I gather is those other cat fights are fine when it is mustangdriver vs everyone about the NMUSAF. But not ok if it is caf talk. My point is that we all have flavors of koolaide that we drink, just remember how it feels to try and defend something you enjoy and work hard at while others complain. Not a good feeling is it. To say that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss what is going on with major operator of warbirds is not right. I have a great deal of respect with for the caf. They started the whole thing, but they need to evaluate what they are doing. If it takes a place like wix to make them realize it. Then so be it.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:36 am
I am being nothing but friendly, but I still disagree with it. So what I gather is those other cat fights are fine when it is mustangdriver vs everyone about the NMUSAF. But not ok if it is caf talk. My point is that we all have flavors of koolaide that we drink, just remember how it feels to try and defend something you enjoy and work hard at while others complain. Not a good feeling is it. To say that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss what is going on with major operator of warbirds is not right. I have a great deal of respect with for the caf. They started the whole thing, but they need to evaluate what they are doing. If it takes a place like wix to make them realize it. Then so be it.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:39 am
Y'know, there's two little words that everyone here with a copy of Photoshop should recognize straight away... clone stamp. Use the clone stamp tool to erase the offending bits out of your images, and voila- problem solved! Although Holedigger's handheld mask suggestion isn't bad either, LOL. 
I also think the decals are hideous, a poor solution to a legitimate issue- the balance of funding versus providing visibility for the funding source. How many of us here saw the awesome De Havilland Sea Vixen morph from a stunning example in operational livery into a supersonic clown car when Red Bull slapped it's logos all over it? How many of us here looked on with awe at Ezell's incredibly gorgeous work in restoring Lefty Gardner's "White Lightning", then cringed when those ubiquitous red bulls got applied to it when it reached Europe? This is the direction the CAF is headed, and as a historian, author and modeler, I cannot help but find any movement AWAY from authenticity to be equal parts disheartening and appalling.
Here's another question... since the CAF has established that these logos must be visible in air-to-air shots, are they charging a license fee for publication of photos of their aircraft with that logo? If not, what exactly is the purpose of the logo? What good does it do to have the logo front and center? Why is a clear photo caption or a flag flying from the cockpit when the aircraft is parked not considered sufficient? Please understand I am not in any way taking umbrage with those who work so hard to keep these aircraft in the air, but from a corporate perspective, this seems to be more about expediency than a well-thought out response to an honest requirement.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn
I also think the decals are hideous, a poor solution to a legitimate issue- the balance of funding versus providing visibility for the funding source. How many of us here saw the awesome De Havilland Sea Vixen morph from a stunning example in operational livery into a supersonic clown car when Red Bull slapped it's logos all over it? How many of us here looked on with awe at Ezell's incredibly gorgeous work in restoring Lefty Gardner's "White Lightning", then cringed when those ubiquitous red bulls got applied to it when it reached Europe? This is the direction the CAF is headed, and as a historian, author and modeler, I cannot help but find any movement AWAY from authenticity to be equal parts disheartening and appalling.
Here's another question... since the CAF has established that these logos must be visible in air-to-air shots, are they charging a license fee for publication of photos of their aircraft with that logo? If not, what exactly is the purpose of the logo? What good does it do to have the logo front and center? Why is a clear photo caption or a flag flying from the cockpit when the aircraft is parked not considered sufficient? Please understand I am not in any way taking umbrage with those who work so hard to keep these aircraft in the air, but from a corporate perspective, this seems to be more about expediency than a well-thought out response to an honest requirement.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn
Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:18 pm
Trust me, logos are not an issue in our wing’s maintenance hangar! We are too few trying to keep a Bearcat, Hellcat, Zero, Spitfire, C-46, two SNJ’s, a PT-19 and a PBJ project going.
I just had a brain fart! Why don’t some of you do something really meaningful? It is easy to criticize. The hard thing is to come up with solutions. If you don’t want to see logos then come up with a better way to promote the CAF. Give us ideas as to fundraising. Help us find ways to increase membership. It takes a dedicated workforce and a pile of money to keep these aircraft in the air. I must admit it hurts a little when after all the hard work somebody dimes you for a logo.
Dan
I just had a brain fart! Why don’t some of you do something really meaningful? It is easy to criticize. The hard thing is to come up with solutions. If you don’t want to see logos then come up with a better way to promote the CAF. Give us ideas as to fundraising. Help us find ways to increase membership. It takes a dedicated workforce and a pile of money to keep these aircraft in the air. I must admit it hurts a little when after all the hard work somebody dimes you for a logo.
Dan
Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:21 pm
Lest ya'll think that the CAF are the only ones that have logos like that...
Maybe we should contact them for copying our idea... J/K
That's been on the plane since we bought it I think.
Ryan
Maybe we should contact them for copying our idea... J/K
That's been on the plane since we bought it I think.
Ryan
Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:05 pm
lmritger wrote:I also think the decals are hideous, a poor solution to a legitimate issue- the balance of funding versus providing visibility for the funding source. How many of us here saw the awesome De Havilland Sea Vixen morph from a stunning example in operational livery into a supersonic clown car when Red Bull slapped it's logos all over it? How many of us here looked on with awe at Ezell's incredibly gorgeous work in restoring Lefty Gardner's "White Lightning", then cringed when those ubiquitous red bulls got applied to it when it reached Europe? This is the direction the CAF is headed, and as a historian, author and modeler, I cannot help but find any movement AWAY from authenticity to be equal parts disheartening and appalling.
If it means those aircraft are saved and continue flying I have no problem with it. Paint can always be removed or covered with a little money. While I'm not a fan of how Red Bull paints their aircraft at least I know they're being well maintained and shoud the day come they decide to part with them, they'll be repainted.
I personally have no problem with the logos. I could understand people getting pissed if the CAF was modifying airframes or things like that but it's a decal! It can come off with about 20 minutes of elbow grease!
I just can't fathom all of the outrage. If it means that the CAF can continue to fly their aircraft through these difficult economic times I'm all for it.
Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:10 pm
Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:26 pm
kzollitsch wrote:If it means those aircraft are saved and continue flying I have no problem with it. Paint can always be removed or covered with a little money. While I'm not a fan of how Red Bull paints their aircraft at least I know they're being well maintained and shoud the day come they decide to part with them, they'll be repainted.
I personally have no problem with the logos. I could understand people getting pissed if the CAF was modifying airframes or things like that but it's a decal! It can come off with about 20 minutes of elbow grease!
I just can't fathom all of the outrage. If it means that the CAF can continue to fly their aircraft through these difficult economic times I'm all for it.
There's been a lot of talk about "keeping the aircraft flying", and yes, that's absolutely admirable- I'd dare say that right there has the full support of EVERYONE on both sides of this argument, and I challenge you or anyone else to find a single word uttered to the contrary.
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.
If the prime goal is simply to fly old airplanes, then obviously it doesn't matter WHAT they look like. But if the prime goal even tangentially involves educating the general public about the men, the machines, and battles they fought, then context MUST be taken into account- and it seems to me that this was not taken into consideration by CAF leadership. This is not being expressed in terms of "outrage", I am simply trying to shine a brighter light on something which appears to have been either overlooked or sidestepped at the highest level, and should not reflect on the hard-working operators and ground crew which tend to these aircraft. Based on the comments I've read, it seems fairly clear their input was not solicited in this decision.
Cheers,
Lynn