Stuka in Maine

In article ,
Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T
wrote:

In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
the governments or political parties of those countries.

I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas.
If
I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.

With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
different.

The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.

Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
Buffalo:

http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg

Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

I remember, about 40 years ago, looking at a Revell kit of a FW-190 and
seeing "The markings shown are not correct, as it would be against the
spirit of Democracy to include them in this kit."

What a load of PC crap! Who do they think we are -- somebody who can't
distinguish between an authentic representation of a combat plane from
some kind of Nazi fan?

John T wrote:
German markings: Most swastikas were a small one on the vertical fin.
Leave it off if you want. German crosses, IMHO, are OK.

Japanese markings: as far as I'm concerned, copy them 100%. I seriously
doubt there are going be many people concerned about it, other than the
PC types who think the Japanese were "victims" because of the the nukes.
For them, I give a eye roll.

Some things, like the swastikas, can offend a race of people, even if
its historically correct, becasue of its connections.

OTOH, I know of no markings from the Japanese that would be offensive.
The rising sun, maybe, but I doubt it.

I suppose China, Burma, Korea and the like would not be a good place
to fly your airplane if it has Japanese markings.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Those places don't exactly encourage homebuilding, or even private
pilots too much, do they?

John

John T wrote:
Those places don't exactly encourage homebuilding, or even private
pilots too much, do they?

John


That doesn't mean they might not have an airshow sometime, now does
it? In any event my observation was about the Japanese markings and your
comment about no one being offended. I notice you didn't bother to
attribute.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Kyle Boatright wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


snip



That's a good point. One might make a similar argument regarding
swastikas (yes, I know the Nazis didn't invent nor do they own the
swastika) on replica German aircraft and especially when one appears
on a non-replica homebuilt aircraft.

Leads one to wonder of the builder, "What was he thinking?"

--

FF

Probably the same thing as the guys who build replica P-51's, P-47's,
P-38's, Spitfires, Hurricanes, etc. I wouldn't make a big deal over it...


Please note my last sentence was IRT the immediately aformentioned
"non-replica homebuilt aircraft". Sky-Pups, for instance.

--

FF

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
...

Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
Buffalo:

http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg

Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)


Which is one of the reasons I was quick to note that the Nazis
neither invented nor own the swastika.

--

FF

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T wrote:


In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
the governments or political parties of those countries.


I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas. If
I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.

With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
different.

The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.

Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
Buffalo:

http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg

Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Well, in that case you could point out the Finns used the swastika on
their aircraft before being taken over by the Nazis, that for them it
wasn't a Nazi symbol, that the U.S. Army had an arm patch with a
swastika ( NM national guard? ), that the swastika has thousands of
years of history world wide as a sun symbol or good luck symbol etc.


IIUC the Finns were NEVER 'taken over' by the Nazis.

During the Winter War, the Finns fought the Russians who
were cobelligerants with Germany. The Finns allowed German
troops on Finnish soil during or just after Operation
Barbaraossa which drew them into the Continuation war in
which they were allied with, but not 'taken over' by the
Nazis.

The terms of the armistice that ended the Continuation War
required Finland to fight any German units remaining on
Finnish soil. They did so, driving the last of them
accross the border into Norway.

The US sold buffaloes to Finland during the Winter War,
but they did not see combat until the Continuation War
during which the US sold Buffaloes to the Soviets.

Were there ever any Finnish Buffalo v Russian Buffalo
dogfights?

--

FF

wrote:

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T wrote:



In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
the governments or political parties of those countries.


I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas. If
I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.

With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
different.

The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.

Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
Buffalo:

http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg

Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Well, in that case you could point out the Finns used the swastika on
their aircraft before being taken over by the Nazis, that for them it
wasn't a Nazi symbol, that the U.S. Army had an arm patch with a
swastika ( NM national guard? ), that the swastika has thousands of
years of history world wide as a sun symbol or good luck symbol etc.



IIUC the Finns were NEVER 'taken over' by the Nazis.

During the Winter War, the Finns fought the Russians who
were cobelligerants with Germany. The Finns allowed German
troops on Finnish soil during or just after Operation
Barbaraossa which drew them into the Continuation war in
which they were allied with, but not 'taken over' by the
Nazis.

The terms of the armistice that ended the Continuation War
required Finland to fight any German units remaining on
Finnish soil. They did so, driving the last of them
accross the border into Norway.

The US sold buffaloes to Finland during the Winter War,
but they did not see combat until the Continuation War
during which the US sold Buffaloes to the Soviets.

Were there ever any Finnish Buffalo v Russian Buffalo
dogfights?

You are correct about the "taken over" term, it was ill chosen on my
part. It's my personal opinion Finland wasn't exactly autonomous once
the Nazis arrived.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:09:22 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
wrote:

Actually one would have to be fairly close to an aircraft and
looking at it to see the markings. The siren's sound would be heard by
people indoors or out.

Not sure that the sirens operated unless in a dive. I think it took
dive velocity winds to make it shriek.

Corky Scott

wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:09:22 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
wrote:


Actually one would have to be fairly close to an aircraft and
looking at it to see the markings. The siren's sound would be heard by
people indoors or out.


Not sure that the sirens operated unless in a dive. I think it took
dive velocity winds to make it shriek.

Corky Scott

That may be so, but the people I have met who have heard them said
they could be heard indoors. I would hope they could be turned off when
not needed. It would seem to me they would drive the aircrew nuts when
flying cross country.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired