tonyjohnson
Well Known Member
Although I considered marking this as OT, I think it applies to many of us and is RV related.
I am building an RV8A, but I own and fly a 1942 Taylorcraft L2. It was owned by the Army during the war and used as a training aircraft. It is painted in the Army training paint scheme that all of you are familiar with, yellow wings, blue fuselage, red and white striped rudder. Recently I stopped for fuel at a Florida airport. I was approached by the pilot of a Mooney or maybe it was a bonanza, who asked "Is that airplane owned by the military". Being a polite guy, I did not say "thats a pretty stupid question, it is clearly an aircraft that the military would no longer have a use for" I replied, "not any longer, I get to fly it now". He just walked away.
It only occured to me later that he was being critical of my flying an airplane, as a "civilian" with US ARMY painted under the wings.
I am very proud to own and fly a piece of history, and think that painting a genuine warbird in civilian colors ought to be a criminal offense. I view its paint scheme as entirely appopriate and a tribute to the men who learned to fly in it and later flew the T-6's then the Mustangs and other aircraft during WWII. This guy would have been happy to see my airplane painted pink, or some other civilian color, which I think would be an insult to its former pilots.
It never occured to me to be critical of the RV's painted in warbird schemes, as many of them are. By the way, my guess is than many of you who have warbird schemes are military veterans showing your pride in your branch of service. The rest of you are showing your respect.
Have any of you been criticized for the warbird schemes on your RV's?
I am building an RV8A, but I own and fly a 1942 Taylorcraft L2. It was owned by the Army during the war and used as a training aircraft. It is painted in the Army training paint scheme that all of you are familiar with, yellow wings, blue fuselage, red and white striped rudder. Recently I stopped for fuel at a Florida airport. I was approached by the pilot of a Mooney or maybe it was a bonanza, who asked "Is that airplane owned by the military". Being a polite guy, I did not say "thats a pretty stupid question, it is clearly an aircraft that the military would no longer have a use for" I replied, "not any longer, I get to fly it now". He just walked away.
It only occured to me later that he was being critical of my flying an airplane, as a "civilian" with US ARMY painted under the wings.
I am very proud to own and fly a piece of history, and think that painting a genuine warbird in civilian colors ought to be a criminal offense. I view its paint scheme as entirely appopriate and a tribute to the men who learned to fly in it and later flew the T-6's then the Mustangs and other aircraft during WWII. This guy would have been happy to see my airplane painted pink, or some other civilian color, which I think would be an insult to its former pilots.
It never occured to me to be critical of the RV's painted in warbird schemes, as many of them are. By the way, my guess is than many of you who have warbird schemes are military veterans showing your pride in your branch of service. The rest of you are showing your respect.
Have any of you been criticized for the warbird schemes on your RV's?
Last edited:
