Someone with a lot more common sense than most of us said:
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
With that in mind, I'll open my mouth anyway. . .
There are many (and I do mean
MANY) warbirds and classics out there today, both flying and static, whose paint schemes and nose art don't appeal to me. I'd prefer to see more historically accurate paint jobs. I generally don't care for civilian airplanes wearing military paint schemes, especially when the owner's intent seems to be passing the aircraft off as something it isn't. That's just me. With all of that being said, I would NEVER walk up to an owner, pilot, or crew member and chastise them because their airplane wasn't painted or detailed correctly. First and foremost, since I don't own the airplane, then it's none of my damned business! It's their airplane, and as long as they're paying the bills, they can paint it to their liking. I may not agree with their color choice, but I'm always mighty thankful for the opportunity to see and enjoy these historic aircraft. I'm forever glad that someone had the vision and the financial ability to save them from the scrapper. When I see an airplane that's not painted to my liking, it may bother me, and I'll probably mutter something about it under my breath, and I may even mention it to a friend. But to complain to the owner, pilot, or crew about their plane's paint scheme or detailing is nothing short of insulting, and there's no call for it, EVER. It is a privilege to just spend time in the presence of these great machines, whether I like the paint job or not!
We used to have people walk up to Chuckie at air shows and start pointing out all of the flaws, imperfections, and non-correct details. I'd let them go on for a while, but I'd eventually stop them and reply, "Everything you say is true. So where's [u]YOUR[/i] warbird? Is it 100% historically correct? Ours could be, too, if you'd write us a nice seven-figure check to finance the restoration!" Shuts 'em up every time. The bottom line is this: Until WE can write someone a seven-figure check to finance THEIR restoration, then WE have no right to whine about the inaccuracy of their plane's unit markings or their choice of ultra-detailed airbrushed nose art.
Occasionally someone will draw a parallel between restoring and showing classic airplanes versus the restoring and showing of classic cars. It's a perfect comparison. I've been restoring and showing classic cars for a long time now. It bugs the crap out of me when some know-it-all walks up to my Mustang and starts pointing out all of the incorrect details (which, by the way, is a six-time national show winner with a total of over 100 trophies, including several Best Paint, Best Interior, and Best Convertible awards, as well as a multi-page national magazine color feature to its credit). I've put my heart and soul into restoring that car, and yes, I did take a few liberties with it, and I'll never even pretend to deny that fact. But just like I've always done with the "Chuckie-bashers", I just ask them where THEIR car is, and would they like for me to go and start judging it? I'm a former Mustang Club of America certified national judge, and I can promise you, there's NO detail that will escape my judging. Funny thing. . . no one has EVER taken me up on my offer to judge their car in these situations. . . I dunno why. . .
Another poster in this thread asked whether WW2 veterans were put off by incorrect paint and detailing. I can't speak for all of them, but I can say that in all of my years of being involved with warbirds, I've never met one.
This entire thread has been VERY eye-opening. And, in some ways, very disappointing.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
