Best Paint Scheme?

When a new owner acquires a warbird, how should it be painted and marked? Should it be as close to the way it was in actual service, especially combat, should the scheme honor the history of the plane as far as can be known"
Or does it even matter can the new owner just as well paint for a scheme it never worn, even a country it never was in and a pilot who never flew that plane. maybe not even that model.
And I am speaking about real no doubt warbirds not just planes painted in a warbird scheme.
I have my opinon but surprisilgly there are a number who like a busier, even more gariish scheme.

I’m a history buff; I want it to duplicate an exact airplane. I’ll accept changes to aid in safety or longevity (such as gloss paint instead of matte) but want to see pictures of the original to compare.

I understand (and sympathize) with owners of extremely common warbirds who step beyond the bounds of history to create a plane that stands out.

Ron Wanttaja

Great topic! I think that the answer might be more nuanced than it first appears.

First, I personally believe that a Warbird with actual service history should be painted as it was during service. Now, for many Warbirds, this still leaves quite a number of choices. For example, in SEA my airplane was originally gray, then, while still in the same squadron, painted black. Then it came back to the USA, served as a training aircraft at Shaw AFB, then with the IL ANG, and then the MI ANG. So I could chose any number of paint schemes that would be historically correct.

Second, many Warbirds had limited military service. EAA's own Aluminum Overcast is an example. It was delivered too late in the war to be deployed to combat and was quickly declared surplus and sold off. It is painted to honor another B-17 that served in the ETO. I think that this situation applies to a number of other warbirds, including some F-51's that had no combat service and are painted to honor P-51's that served in the Pacific or Europe. I suppose one could include Korea, although I have not seen any like that. I think this is a very acceptable approach, too.

Third...it is the private property of the owner, whether that be a museum, and individual, or a corporation. They can do with their property what they wish. I may not agree with their choice, but it is their choice. Even the USAF Museum works that way. One of their two F-82's is not only painted as an airplane it is not, it isn't even the correct version for the F-82 it is painted to represent.

Two more points. Gloss vs original flat. I think flat is nicer for historicity, but gloss is SO much easier to care for. My airplane is gloss black. It was flat black in service. I re-painted the upper cowling flat black both to reduce glare and to show people what the original color looked like. I probably spend more time on keeping that part of the airplane presentable than the entire rest of the airplane. Nonetheless, if I ever reach the point that it needs a new paint job...well I don't know which way I would go (maybe even back to gray.)

Interior: We need to address the interior, too. Some people try their best to keep the interior, to include all of the instruments, as original as possible. Good for them! Some people strip everything out and go for full glass on the inside. I think this misses the point of owning a flying museum. As for me, I try to keep things fairly original, to include (deactivated) armament and other equipment switches. I make an exception for avionics. My center console is modern, as I have to fly in the modern airspace system. I also have a newer AI and HSI and I am in the process of installing an engine monitor system. I make that compromise because I need to be safe and preserve the airplane in a flying status as long as I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc

Two more points. Gloss vs original flat. I think flat is nicer for historicity, but gloss is SO much easier to care for. My airplane is gloss black. It was flat black in service. I re-painted the upper cowling flat black both to reduce glare and to show people what the original color looked like. I probably spend more time on keeping that part of the airplane presentable than the entire rest of the airplane.

---

Out of curiosity, Chris, what does the extra work entail? Does the matte paint not stick as well, does it need to be scrubbed more because dirt sticks, etc.

Back in my modeling days, I remember a comment on how night fighters painted matte black used to have problems with the paint stripping off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc

Interior: We need to address the interior, too. Some people try their best to keep the interior, to include all of the instruments, as original as possible. Good for them! Some people strip everything out and go for full glass on the inside. I think this misses the point of owning a flying museum. As for me, I try to keep things fairly original, to include (deactivated) armament and other equipment switches. I make an exception for avionics. My center console is modern, as I have to fly in the modern airspace system. I also have a newer AI and HSI and I am in the process of installing an engine monitor system. I make that compromise because I need to be safe and preserve the airplane in a flying status as long as I can.

---

Back when I was a 14-year-old CAP cadet, the squadron senior members were clearing out some old storage and invited us cadets to take what we wanted. Me and my buddy scarfed up some big 'ol radios, which (over the course time) we disassembled and used the bits for other purposes.

Fast forward 35 years. I snagged a ride on "Aluminum Overcast." In the radio compartment, I found the same radios that me and my buddy had salvaged so long ago.

http://www.tech-rocket.com/radios/bc...io-transmitter

Ours hadn't come with the dynamotor, though. I did manage to retain the old-style carbon microphone I found. It holds a place of honor on my antique avionics wall....

Ron Wanttaja

Flat paint. Yes to both, but more of a dirt issue. Black doesn't help with that either, but once dirty, the gloss black is easier to clean.

One of my most memorable...non-life threatening...flight experience was in the left seat of Aluminum Overcast. Sit down, familiarize with the controls, confirm that it responds normally, look out at the left wing and "OMG I AM FLYING A B-17!" One of the two best logbook entries I have.

Flat paint doesn't mean its rough, it can be flat in reflectivity without being matt . My last paint was low luster, thus not shiny. but it was smooth and easy enough to clean, and looked more authentic.
I particularly think that cockpits and interior of warbirds and historic planes ought to be original. Sitting in a 51 ir T-6 or Spitfire, the interior is maybe a third of the area you see, and its part of the experience of the historic aspect of the plane. You lose some of that if you get in a fighter and it looks just like a Learjet or a Cirrus inside. And as for a flying safely, you dont need every gadget to do that. One gps would be nice to have, but I flew all over for 35 years and never had one.
I think as far as fun goes what is under the hood, so to speak, is more vital than a whole panel of Garmin. By the way some, people will claim "all that old stuff is no good, it never works ". That's mostly baloney, how do you think they naviagated from RAF bases deep into Germany in the war? They used "that old stuff" like the standard large British compass which works better than any modern one I have used. And they didnt have any Garmin or Apple gadgets.

Bill, good point about flat vs matt. I have learned that some diligence with 0000 steel wool can get the flat paint smooth and easy to clean. (To the point where I could polish it...but then that eliminates the whole purpose of having flat paint.) Black paint, which I have, always seems to show up any dirt -- same as on my car. I think that "easy to clean" may have been a mis-statement. The gloss parts maybe don't show the dirt as much, making it easier to APPEAR clean.

I commend and appreciate you or anyone else who keeps the the panel as close to 100% original as you can. My circumstances are just somewhat different than yours.

Some folks get really passionate about this but I believe in the Golden Rule - he who spends the gold gets to decide. I appreciate authenticity and think it should be the goal for museum static displays. But that has a cost and most museums don't have the budget to go full bore original. That said, I also prefer operating planes and have no problem with any changes the owner wants or needs to fly it rather than have it rot in a static museum. My plane was not in the military and has lots of mods. I painted it in a military livery so I can tell the story of those that did serve. Being able to fly it often and widely gets the story spread that much further. Some may cringe at a flying purple and pink P-51 but I think it's better than a pile of scrap it might be otherwise.

"A pile of scrap" ???? The color or scheme or type of paint has nothing to do with a plane flying or not. I have seen some strange paint jobs, and the plane flew as normal. But it can also fly and look like what it was built as, a matter of preference or taste.The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is one which has a long history of showing history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood

"A pile of scrap" ???? The color or scheme or type of paint has nothing to do with a plane flying or not. I have seen some strange paint jobs, and the plane flew as normal. But it can also fly and look like what it was built as, a matter of preference or taste.The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is one which has a long history of showing history.

---

I was referring to the folks that take a pile of scrap or a data plate and invest a ton of time/cash to make a flyable airplane. It's a flyable plane that otherwise wouldn't be so I don't care how they paint it.

I'm a strong believer in preserving the scheme that honors the history of the WarBird as far as can be known... I advocate keeping the scheme and change the WarBird if you don't like it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BusyLittleShop

I'm a strong believer in preserving the scheme that honors the history of the WarBird as far as can be known... I advocate keeping the scheme and change the WarBird if you don't like it...

---

Few warbirds have any combat history behind them. Those that saw combat were usually scrapped overseas rather than bringing them back to the US. The exceptions, like Memphis Belle, are locked into museums. So, if one reproduces a typical warbird's actual wartime markings, they'll probably be kind of plain Jane.

So... why not duplicate the markings of famous aircraft?

The other factor is having your warbird stand out from the crowd. There are over 600 T-6/SNJ aircraft on the FAA registry. Surely, if the owner of S/N 75-3473 does WANT to be one of the ~50 aircraft with Kelly Field markings, he or she should be able to opt for duplicating the markings of a more unusual example?

Ron Wanttaja

Discussion on this thread has exposed yet another of my misconceptions. Can someone explain the difference between "flat" paint and "matte" paint? I've always used the terms interchangeably.

Ron "Flat wrong" Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

The other factor is having your warbird stand out from the crowd. There are over 600 T-6/SNJ aircraft on the FAA registry. Surely, if the owner of S/N 75-3473 does WANT to be one of the ~50 aircraft with Kelly Field markings, he or she should be able to opt for duplicating the markings of a more unusual example?

Ron Wanttaja

---

I still find it hard in my mind to classify T-6's as Warbirds. Yes, they were used to train our pilots during war, but they were not really a combat aircraft. And when I think of Warbird, I thing of combat aircraft, or at least used on the battle field. But that is just my humble opinion.

Kurt

Guess it doesn’t help when some vendors use flat/matte as a sheen and others use flat and matte as separate sheens. The way I understand it that flat has high porosity and therefore is less reflective. Matte has a somewhat less porous texture, therefore has some reflectivity. Not being a paint expert; not sure that the rule of thumb holds true for all types of paint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krw920

I still find it hard in my mind to classify T-6's as Warbirds. Yes, they were used to train our pilots during war, but they were not really a combat aircraft. And when I think of Warbird, I thing of combat aircraft, or at least used on the battle field. But that is just my humble opinion.

Kurt

---

You should lookup the history of the T-6. They have seen combat action by a number of governments and were used as FAC aircraft by the US in Korea and even early Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Few warbirds have any combat history behind them.


Ron Wanttaja

---

I had to check that out. Quite a few of the "combat" airplanes in the WoA registry actually served in combat. (Airplanes beginning with A, B, C, F, O, and P, and Navy equivalents.) Most of the B's (B-25s...none of the B-17s), maybe 1/3 of the C's, 3 of the 4 O-2's and about 1/3 of the F and Ps. (Only 1 of the L's). I am assuming that if the airplane's description/narrative does not include combat assignment, then it didn't serve in combat.

As for mine, I am fortunate enough to have several different pictures of my plane in SEA (in different paint schemes!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airmutt

You should lookup the history of the T-6. They have seen combat action by a number of governments and were used as FAC aircraft by the US in Korea and even early Vietnam.

---

I did look them up and did see that, but still is a stretch to me to consider all T-6's combat aircraft when only a handful were used as FAC by the US military. But again, that is my opinion only. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

So... why not duplicate the markings of famous aircraft?
Ron Wanttaja

---

Would the real big Beautiful Doll please stand up...

Attachment 8675
Attachment 8676