|
Post by retiredav8r on Jan 30, 2022 11:53:48 GMT 12
When talking about paint jobs on aircraft, are you talking the real thing or just a model?
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Jan 30, 2022 12:54:27 GMT 12
Ok....I'll try this again. About to post, then a blip on the screen and it was all lost.... I would like to make a comment regarding paint schemes on the basis of an often quoted reply by Sue Parrish when questioned as to why her P-40 was painted pink...she is quoted as having said "...so what colour is your P-40..?" I have provided about 40 paint schemes for airworthy aircraft here in Oz and around the world. They are all warbirds and range from Mustangs, Baghdad Fury, Boomerang, Harvards, T.6, T.28, Hudson, Canberra, C-40, Spitfire, Wirraway, Catalina, Tiger Moth, MiG.15, MiG.21, Strikemaster, Jet Provost, PV-1, B-25 to even a Skyraider. When I undertake the prep and drawings for these schemes, my aim is to ensure that the drawings....(most produced to full size so that paint spray masks can be manufactured), are accurate down to the smallest detail. I currently have two P-40s for which I am producing schemes and one is very controversial with regard to colours. Sometimes the research required is astronomical. Sometimes, despite the detail to which I go, the owner/s decide not to complete the aircraft absolutely to the letter of the drawings. Some add further features, some remove parts of the scheme. I provide detail for the exact paint colours but sometimes the owners just want a 'closest match' in two-pack rather than go to the effort of matching and mixing. Sometimes they finish the aircraft in gloss rather than the flatter finishes that were specified to make cleaning easier (although this with modern paints is a myth). There are times when I go to an airshow or look at a magazine where one of 'my' aircraft is featured or appears that I am disappointed. That's life. I have no objection to 'no name' aircraft being finished in a scheme that accurately represents a more famous aircraft of the type...provided that the scheme portrayed is accurate to the original. My Birdog is to be finished in a representative scheme as its original was a 'blah' scheme seen on lines of Birdogs at Ft.Rucker or the other US stateside bases. That's my choice as owner. What I really would like to see is a totally accurate representative scheme......but that's my preference, not necessarily that of the aircraft owner. These are my comments....and many disagree with me. That's their privilege. Airworthy aircraft............not models. One of "my schemes" garnered, in part, a major award at Sun N' Fun for its owner
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jan 30, 2022 14:09:23 GMT 12
Ok....I'll try this again. About to post, then a blip on the screen and it was all lost.... I would like to make a comment regarding paint schemes on the basis of an often quoted reply by Sue Parrish when questioned as to why her P-40 was painted pink...she is quoted as having said "...so what colour is your P-40..?" I have provided about 40 paint schemes for airworthy aircraft here in Oz and around the world. They are all warbirds and range from Mustangs, Baghdad Fury, Boomerang, Harvards, T.6, T.28, Hudson, Canberra, C-40, Spitfire, Wirraway, Catalina, Tiger Moth, MiG.15, MiG.21, Strikemaster, Jet Provost, PV-1, B-25 to even a Skyraider. When I undertake the prep and drawings for these schemes, my aim is to ensure that the drawings....(most produced to full size so that paint spray masks can be manufactured), are accurate down to the smallest detail. I currently have two P-40s for which I am producing schemes and one is very controversial with regard to colours. Sometimes the research required is astronomical. Sometimes, despite the detail to which I go, the owner/s decide not to complete the aircraft absolutely to the letter of the drawings. Some add further features, some remove parts of the scheme. I provide detail for the exact paint colours but sometimes the owners just want a 'closest match' in two-pack rather than go to the effort of matching and mixing. Sometimes they finish the aircraft in gloss rather than the flatter finishes that were specified to make cleaning easier (although this with modern paints is a myth). There are times when I go to an airshow or look at a magazine where one of 'my' aircraft is featured or appears that I am disappointed. That's life. I have no objection to 'no name' aircraft being finished in a scheme that accurately represents a more famous aircraft of the type...provided that the scheme portrayed is accurate to the original. My Birdog is to be finished in a representative scheme as its original was a 'blah' scheme seen on lines of Birdogs at Ft.Rucker or the other US stateside bases. That's my choice as owner. What I really would like to see is a totally accurate representative scheme......but that's my preference, not necessarily that of the aircraft owner. These are my comments....and many disagree with me. That's their privilege. Yup, I agree. Authenticity has an importance in aircraft preservation whether it be in a museum or warbird context, but it is subjective for many reasons. What colours we choose to mark up our aeroplanes is up to us, but museums have a greater incentive or societal responsibility to portray their exhibits with a degree of authenticity and honesty, something that not all museums are capable of doing to our satisfaction as the attendant public, which again is subjective. Expectation of what and how museums should portray their exhibits has changed and it will continue to do so. Museums are far more answerable to public expectation these days more than ever before and the call for authenticity among their exhibits is greater than ever before. But museums are constrained by lots of different things, the cost of correcting previous mistakes, the search for exact representation and choice of depiction of objects, reasons that will inevitably not be able to satisfy every demographic. The RAF Museum regularly undergoes online vitriol for the choices its staff make - British enthusiasts are among the most outspoken lot out there, but museums do have an obligation to keep things honest- it should be mentioned that surveys the RAFM undertook over several years revealed that around 6 percent of museum visitors per annum were self declared enthusiasts, which puts their priorities way down the list, so there's some of that subjectivity I mentioned. The RAF Museum had a policy once of acquiring types that served in the RAF but did not have any RAF provenance, such as the Danish Catalina and the TB-25, which is scheduled for disposal, but the museum has a vast collection and getting rid of stuff that has no RAF provenance seems to be the path ahead today. That doesn't mean it'll be shedding all those airframes that have no RAF provenance, simply because of political and historical issues, but it kind of makes sense from the museum's point of view when the collection as a whole is too big to be housed within the facilities available. Paint schemes will always be a source of controversy for different reasons - does a museum choose a representative scheme because of a gap in a collection or does it go for accuracy to the provenance of the airframe it has? Sometimes its wise to go for something more generic and representative. The previous RAF Museum director received a lot of flak for suggesting the Wellington should be returned to T.10 status, which meant the removal of its armament and placing it in a training scheme of silver with yellow stripes, as that aircraft was never a wartime bomber. No one wanted to see that, so the Wellington is, to my knowledge remaining as a Bomber Command depicted example. Regarding the Air Force Museum Spitfire and its 'inauthentic' depiction of the colour scheme, that's the museum's choice and again, priority might mean that decision might get put off, or it could be that the museum doesn't see it as being a particularly relevant issue, we can only guess unless we ask. This is something I urge all enthusiasts to do since museums are public assets and enthusiasts in our particular field get very little representation compared to other demographics, so if we feel things need changing or we don't want things to go the way they might appear to be going, we need to show support for the organisation in whatever way we can in order to be represented, otherwise, things aren't gonna change into a way we want them to.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2022 14:20:11 GMT 12
Mention of Sue Parrish's lovely P-40N instantly brought this to mind: Untitled by Zac Yates, on Flickr Getting back on track, I should say I've not been to Wigram since late 2007 and I am very, very much looking forward a return when able.
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Jan 30, 2022 14:24:33 GMT 12
The policy at the museum about representative schemes has changed since the days when that Spitfire was first painted into No. 485 (NZ) Squadron colours. Sadly many in the management are not so keen on the idea of a non-RNZAF airframe representing an RNZAF type, or for that matter an RNZAF airframe representing a different RNZAF airframe. I think it is best not to get them thinking about it or next it'll be back in some boring postwar RAF Auxiliary Squadron scheme that it wore in the late 1940's or something dumb. Some good discussion around the various schemes and representation of Spitfire TE288 (and clones) in a previous thread here ( link)
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jan 30, 2022 14:33:31 GMT 12
Having just read through that thread, Peter Arnold, the spitfire guru said this about the museum's decision surrounding not painting a serial on TE288, in a lengthy post.
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Jan 30, 2022 14:49:11 GMT 12
Perhaps we just need to wait until the next round of postings comes out and maybe whoever are the honchos after that may be happy to have aircraft that are relevant but not necessarily with RNZAF provenance
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Jan 30, 2022 14:52:18 GMT 12
I have the Harvard, Anson (although I believe it may have parts from NZ406?) and the Tiger Moth...unless it's now finished as NZ825 and I missed it! Did you forget the Avenger?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2022 6:44:34 GMT 12
I have the Harvard, Anson (although I believe it may have parts from NZ406?) and the Tiger Moth...unless it's now finished as NZ825 and I missed it! Did you forget the Avenger? Wasn't it renumbered in the last two years? Or was that only a stated aim?
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Jan 31, 2022 8:53:16 GMT 12
The Avenger is carrying its correct serial number NZ2504 and has been painted in its representative 1944 scheme before being converted to TT. Harvard NZ1087 has been painted as NZ948 to represent one of the first batch of Harvards to arrive in NZ.
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Jan 31, 2022 9:11:21 GMT 12
A postscript to the above. It is most pleasing that the Avenger is now displayed with the wings extended. Followers of the type and its RNZAF history will be aware that it was extremely rare for any of the operational Avengers to have their wings folded. I have yet to see a photo of them when in service (Apart from storage) with the wings folded.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 31, 2022 9:48:10 GMT 12
Yes sadly the Avenger wears its own serial again now, rather than paying tribute to the crew lost in NZ2521 which was lost in 1944.
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jan 31, 2022 10:58:28 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Jan 31, 2022 17:22:22 GMT 12
The PSP near the Avenger needs to be laid staggered.
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Feb 1, 2022 9:47:15 GMT 12
Yep I think your right about the PSP it was laid in a herring bone pattern to prevent lifting of edges when being run over by aircraft wheels
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 30, 2022 0:29:56 GMT 12
PRESS, 7 NOVEMBER 1978
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Aug 30, 2022 9:50:02 GMT 12
Not quite correct, as NZ2504 was one of the Avengers retained in NZ NZ2501-NZ2506 as they didn't have the internal plumbing for wing pylon tanks if required for extended range operations in the SWPA
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Aug 30, 2022 13:22:21 GMT 12
Well spotted Paul!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 30, 2022 14:29:40 GMT 12
I spotted that too, but did not comment. The media, cocking up stories since ages ago.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 16, 2022 0:23:13 GMT 12
Here is an article from the very beginning of the Air Force Museum of new Zealand, from The Press on 26 June 1975.
AVIATION MUSEUM AT BASE
Tacit approval has been given for the establishment of an aviation museum at Wigram Air Base.
It will be the only Royal New Zealand Air Force museum, and will be established in the gymnasium at Wigram. No decision has been made on whether aircraft will be displayed in the museum or just memorabilia such as photographs, records and flying equipment.
Articles of interest are already being collected for the museum. Among these is a silver cigarette case presented by Sir Henry Wigram in 1917 to one of the trainees at the air base.
It is not yet known if the museum is to be open to the public. The gymnasium is a converted hangar, and it is thought that another hangar will be converted into a new gymnasium.
|
|