So I was shopping in Tesco (Euopean Wal Mart as I understand it) yesterday and saw a ton of models in the toy section, mainly Revell Germany.
Anyway, I came to a rack of 1/72 kits by Kopro. I saw a MiG-17 PF, MiG-21 and an L-39 Albatross in Thunderbirds (!?) markings.
Now I know the USAF has one or two L-39s on evaluation at Edwards AFB, but surely they didn’t paint one up in T-Bird markings, did they?
They should have if they didn’t, it looks real slick in them on the box art[:D]
There are several L39s in the T-Birds markings. These are all spurious schemes used on civilian machines. The Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis has 6 L39s, but they are done up in Eastern European schemes and are used to keep the pilots current on the other jets. There are approximately 100 L39s on the civil rolls here in the states, depending on the source you use. Most are done in their original schemes but some are done in these “optional” schemes. I saw a pic during one of my net cruises of an L39 and a L29 done in a solid red colour.
I’ve seen those silly (IMHO) looking L-39s in Thunderbirds livery. And then there’s that one painted with the the yellow stars and navy blue background of an F4D. Owned, I think, by an airline pilot who either was in the Ford squadron or just likes the scheme. Of course, if I could have my own Albatross to play around in, I wouldn’t care what anybody thought about my paint scheme.
What does gall me, however, is when owners of rare warbirds, on which they’ve spent a million or more dollars, or even the T-6 and and T-28 owners (the latter costing up to about a quarter-million plus to buy ten years ago), put absurdly spurious markings on them. IMHO there is a responsibility that goes with the privilege of owning a piece of history. Anyone who can afford to own and maintain a Mustang or, for that matter, a T-6, can afford to pay one of us (or any other halfway educated a/c buff) to research the proper color and markings. In fact, I’m sure most of us would – and some of us have – do it for free.
But mate -
If you’ve got the money to do anything you want, then that’s just what you can do…
Yes, but surely the notion of noblesse oblige is not completely dead. Suppose, for example, Notre Dame Cathedral went up for sale and I bought it. Then I put garden gnomes and lawn jockeys and old tires all over the grounds, and painted the building pink and purple. When you are the owner of, say, one of the last four or five flying P-38s in the world, just because you don’t have to doesn’t mean there isn’t some obligation to history there. Used to really get me burning when Lefty Gardner would come taxiing up to the CAF ramp in his absurd white P-38 with the red and blue stripes on it. Maybe I’m old fashioned and naive, but am I the only one who feels this way?
that sounds good to me. wish the stateside walmarts would improve their hobby sections.
joe
Welcome to joy of Tesco, Britain’s answer to Walmart.
We don’t get kits in the ones in the UK, obviously haven’t worked out a margin on them yet!
As for the Albatros colour scheme, I guess if it’s your plane, it’s got little to do with anyone else. However there is no accounting for taste![;)]
karl
For you Gringos, if you are in Mexico, hit their version(s) of Walmart, for you will find the old Revell box-scale kits, with original “Suitable for Framin” box art and some older Monogram kits on their shelves in the toy dept. I also found a nice little 1/48 Mooney in a maker I never heard of.
If somebody wants to spend his money on a “warbird” (almost none of the old aircraft flying saw any part of a war) and paint it in his personal markings, so be it. That’s what the original pilots of these aircraft did, so in a way they are preserving history. The history of pilots naming their own aircraft. When you see a beautifully restored 1940 Ford or a '57 Chevy do you get upset because it’s not painted in factory colors or as Richard Petty’s NASCAR racer for that year? I am happy that I can just SEE & HEAR a P-38 or whatever fly. I really don’t care if it’s red, white, & blue, has the name “Glacier Girl” on it, or has what looks like pretty close to the right markings on it.
Interesting input folks,
I had no idea there were so many L-39s state side, let alone in civilian hands.
Anyway, it was just a point of intrest for me, I had more of an eye on the radar equiped MiG-17, I’ve never seen a model of that particular “Fresco” variant before.
I wish my local Tesco had kits too!
Well, now, you wanna talk about a homely airplane only a mother could love, take a look at one of those all-waether Frescos. Not quite in the same ugly-category as the duel MiG 15, but not a beauiful bird, IMHO. But a rare bird to run across in an American airport, you bet it’s a gem.
When I spend my hard-earned money on something, I have no obligation to anyone but me. Just because someone else thinks that I should be obligated in some way doesn’t make it true. Not that I own a REAL P-38, mind you…
Well, there are those who believe in preserving history for posterity, and there are those who simply give cheap lip service to that noble endeavor, and then there are those who believe that being a member of a free society means they have no obligation to make that society better. Preserving that history, especially when that hisory, such as WW II, represents our society at its very pinacle, is IMHO a moral obligation that, among other things, educates later generations on the meaning of freedom vs. murderous tyranny. But, It takes all kinds, as the cliche mongers like to say;
I didn’t say that I wouldn’t preserve the P-38 (as an example) in it’s original colors if I had the chance; indeed, I would consider it an honor to do so. BUT, I don’t believe that just because I own one makes me obligated in ANY way to someone elses ideas or ideals for something that I own. For example, I’m in the process of restoring a 1972 Chrysler New Yorker with 24,700 original miles on it. I’m doing it because I want to (actually, to probably make a profit on it, but that’s another issue), not because I feel that I have some obligation to somebody. Obligations seem to take the fun out of things. Sharkskin, you state that “there are those who believe that being a member of a free society means they have no obligation to make that society better”. Even though I don’t agree with your obligation sentiments, I did my part in helping to make our society better: I served in the USMC. I believe that everyone in the USA should feel obligated to serve a hitch in the military, if they are physically able. Not everyone agrees with that, and I don’t hold it against them if they don’t. It’s just my opinion.
As far as preserving history goes, I LOVE building aircraft models. That’s my way, and many others’ way it seems, to do that. But then we meet other modelers who seem to want to make you obligated to build a kit as historically correct as possible. When that happens, it just sucks all of the fun right out of the hobby. I’ll build it the way I feel it should be built. I’ll do my best to make it as accurate as possible, but don’t try to make me feel obligated to it. The only thing I’m absolutely obligated to is my family and my country.
Sorry guys, I’ll now get off of my [soapbox]
Sharkskin, I hope I’m not coming across as “yelling” about all of this. Actually, I love these kinds of discussions. Gets the old mind to thinking, so to speak. Unfortunately, it’s hard to convey tone in this type of medium (at least, it is for me, as I’m not a professional writer as you are), so, sometimes, people take things the wrong way. I would love to be able to sit down and discuss this face-to-face over a beer one of these days. You sound to me as though you have a convservative point of view on most things (which I like).
I think that real planes can be painted in whatever scheme, but it is nice to see them in original schemes. But then I’m not a rivet counter, so if its in drab, thats near enough for me. As for models, I think that there is more of a range of accuracy than the rivet counters allow for. Books I have seen show markedly different schemes than the pedantic among us allow for. I do try for reasonably accurate colours with weathering , repaired damage etc. By the way, the tin cans they used to use for skin repair, were they always colour side in?
I’ve bitten my tongue for a while and just read this thread, but since I’ve worked around several of these aircraft, I had to sound off with my $.02. Having seen a certain P-40 at various airshows in Flying Tigers colors, it irked me that an original P-40E was in that scheme when it actually saw action in the Aleutians with the 11th AF. Not as glamourous as the AVG, but certainly historically significant, and they had some awesome paint schemes. Yet I was told it was in the AVG markings because “that’s what people want to see” (read “that’s what pays the bills”). It frustrated me to no end. Then again, the B-17 flying as “Fuddy Duddy” never saw any combat. It was a VB-17 that happened to have carried such VIPs as Ike and MacArthur. But I understood this paint scheme because the bomber was being displayed pursuant to its original function, not an executive transport. The link to the original “Fuddy Duddy” was through one of the crewmembers, who happened to be a member of the museum. That’s one hell of a way to honor a Veteran! [:)]
Of course, seeing a P-40M that’s currently on the airshow circuit in AVG markings really gets me burning, but that’s another story entirely. If it is the correct type of aircraft and has no history of its own, go for it, if it has a history, honor it.
I think that if I was fortunate to own an aircraft that represented a piece of history, I’d want it to reflect the times that it represented, if I was able to do that with research, money, time, etc. I would be sufficiently awed by the machine and what it represented, and probably would want it to be “restored” to it’s original look. But, that’s just me and only my humble opinion.
Thanks, John
The walmart here has the worst selection of models and supplies I’ve ever seen.