|
|
Post by suthg on Jun 11, 2014 17:16:31 GMT 12
Isn't that P40 representing the Pacific Theatre of war and the white tale also has relevance? The P51 was only on static display. Together with the four wheeled Ford variety  |
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jun 12, 2014 6:53:09 GMT 12
suthg
An interesting question. FWIW, the aircraft was restored to flying condition and as part of this, it carried carefully researched 'authentic' markings, as used by the RAAF in the Pacific. No sharks teeth.
It was then sold and the new owners, (for their own reasons) decided 'teeth' were appropriate, even though they are not historically accurate for that aircraft or the theatre of operations it was operating in (although everything else was / is).
I guess it ultimately comes down to which is more important: historical accuracy / authenticity or 'entertainment', and illustrates the point that if you own something, you can do whatever you want with, and to, it . . .
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 12, 2014 16:17:43 GMT 12
Well hang on a minute...
For a start, it cannot be said that ZK-CAG wore "authentic" markings previously because it had a different RAAF serial number on each side (both serials were discovered in the wreckage and it seems the aircraft was and is a bitsa).
Also the No. 75 Squadron RAAF codes of GA-C was only painted on the port side of the warbird but this is not "authentic" as such codes would have been on both sides. And on looking at photos of the aircraft of that squadron it should more accurately have been arranged as C-GA with the squadron code closer to the tail.
Also the current owners have had the aircraft for many years now, from memory since 2006, and it was only last year that they made the decision to give the aircraft a fresh look by adding sharks mouths, which made their public debut at Masterton for Wings Over Wairarapa alongside the other shark's mouth-wearing P-40.
I have heard that the decision to add the nose art was to make it more recognisable to the public since it's now part of the Warbird Rides company. So perhaps if this is true it was more a commercial decision.
And lastly please don't forget that the owners of the aircraft read this forum, and like any warbird owner they can paint it however they choose. They don't owe the public anything. I'm not a big fan of sharks mouths on anything except sharks, but I am happy to see this P-40N flying often around NZ and I don't mind how the owners choose to paint their aeroplane.
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jun 12, 2014 17:04:29 GMT 12
Thanks Dave for your response to my post.
As you have correctly pointed-out, it ultimately comes down to a decision by the machine's owners, for their own reasons. In this instance, as 'brand identification'.
Thank you for the clarification.
As an adjunct to your comments, I would be interested in learning your definition of 'authentic' in respect of markings / colour schemes as applied to the 'warbird' scene (both in NZ and internationally). Should they be applied only to the actual aircraft that carried them or....?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 12, 2014 17:08:36 GMT 12
When (  ) I win $20+ million in a Lotto Powerball jackpot, I am going to purchase an airworthy Spitfire Mk.V and paint it pink with flower-power symbols all over it. It will be MY Spitfire, so it will be MINE to do to as I wish....  
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jun 12, 2014 17:41:20 GMT 12
KTJ I know, 'History be damned' - enjoy (But how will you fend off the 'nit pickers'?) |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 12, 2014 18:13:23 GMT 12
As an adjunct to your comments, I would be interested in learning your definition of 'authentic' in respect of markings / colour schemes as applied to the 'warbird' scene (both in NZ and internationally). Should they be applied only to the actual aircraft that carried them or....? Thanks. The Oxford English Dictionary's description of 'authentic' is: "Made or done in the traditional or original way, or in a way that faithfully resembles an original" So not authentic, as the original aircraft would not have worn two different serial numbers, it would have had codes on both sides of the fuselage, and the codes would (probably) have been ordered differently given the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 12, 2014 18:36:53 GMT 12
The serials and asymetric codes on CAG are absolutely authentic - see "the whole Nine Yards" book on its restoration (with photos of it in service) - It appears as though it was not unique in having a somewhat muddled identity - The Currowong nose art was the only non - original bit of the original scheme. You have to remember it was owned by Charles D'arby who wouldnt have tolerated anything that wasnt in keeping with its history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 12, 2014 22:22:42 GMT 12
So you are saying it flew with two different serials at the same time in the wartime RAAF, Bruce??
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 13, 2014 10:26:41 GMT 12
So you are saying it flew with two different serials at the same time in the wartime RAAF, Bruce?? oddly, Yes, several aircraft in that squadron had a second set of serials - no-one is quite sure why, it was either some kind of propaganda exercise, or more likely they were "Australian Air Ministry" numbers applied in the USA. Its true serial is "448" but the "1050" relates to another, later model P40 which entered service after 448 was withdrawn following an accident, so it doesnt relate to that. Some of the other aircraft had completely ficticious "1000 - series" serials. The single sided codes are also correct as the paint evidence proves they were only ever painted on one side. It was such an unusual scheme Charles D'Arby researched it thoroughly and insisted it was done accurately. Thats one reason I think it is such a shame that the cliche Sharks teeth appeared - Charles would be having kittens! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 13, 2014 10:42:26 GMT 12
Hmm, well then I take it all back. Bloody strange practices. The Aussies always were a bit different though I guess.
So the Currawong nose art was not accurate? Where did that come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 13, 2014 12:58:12 GMT 12
Aircraft on the squadron carried nose art of Australian birds beginning with the aircrafts code letter - as the cowls were missing off this one, they had no idea what, if any art it carried, so they chose Currawong in keeping with the practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 18:24:50 GMT 12
Also, didn't it pick up the shark's teeth just before the Warbirds Over Wanaka where it flew with NZ3009 and Allan Arthur's machine, all three having that art?
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jun 14, 2014 21:18:46 GMT 12
Zac
The 'teeth' pre-date WoW 2014, and were seen at the Cambridge Armistice Day Celebrations in November 2013.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Jun 15, 2014 10:22:24 GMT 12
WOW 2006  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 15, 2014 10:38:59 GMT 12
The Wow 2006 teeth and the Brietling Fighters Tiger were temporary for that airshow.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Aug 3, 2014 12:48:27 GMT 12
Some re-enactor photos - more of the battle at www.flickr.com/photos/errolgc/sets/72157644540544399/ Ardmore1406_1789flr by errolgc, on Flickr Panzershreck!  Ardmore1406_7004_MEflr by errolgc, on Flickr Panzer!**!@#shreck!!!  Ardmore1406_7005flr by errolgc, on Flickr  Ardmore1406_7065flr by errolgc, on Flickr Wait for covering fire!  Ardmore1406_7074flr by errolgc, on Flickr Go!!  Ardmore1406_7077flr by errolgc, on Flickr Come on!  Ardmore1406_7081flr by errolgc, on Flickr  Ardmore1406_7100flr by errolgc, on Flickr  Go Airborne! by errolgc, on Flickr  Ardmore1406_7166flr by errolgc, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Aug 31, 2014 11:51:06 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Sept 6, 2014 18:45:54 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Sept 6, 2014 18:59:34 GMT 12
Gavin Trethewey And flying the Spit...  |
|
