Stuka in Maine

In article kWZYe.29750$dm.25504@lakeread03,
"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote:

Just as a matter of curiosity why not build a full size Ju-87?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It would take too much engine and material. We are talking about
something affordable.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:57:53 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
wrote:


As for the sirens I would be hesitant to use them. There are a lot
of WW2 survivors who moved here after the war who would I assume would
be upset hearing them.


I'd suspect there are very few who were bombed more than once or twice by
Stukas. The JU-87 was dead meat without air superiority, and other than
(possibly) in Operation Torch, Americans ground troops probably had sufficient
air cover.

Ron Wanttaja

I was not referring to just military personnel. A very large number
of civilians came under fire from Ju-87s. Even if it only happened once
it would leave an unpleasant memory. I was in the Army in Viet Nam, to
this day certain sounds or smells bring back unpleasant memories. The
same is true of most people who have experienced a traumatic event.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:57:53 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
wrote:


As for the sirens I would be hesitant to use them. There are a lot
of WW2 survivors who moved here after the war who would I assume would
be upset hearing them.


I'd suspect there are very few who were bombed more than once or twice by
Stukas. The JU-87 was dead meat without air superiority, and other than
(possibly) in Operation Torch, Americans ground troops probably had sufficient
air cover.

Ron Wanttaja

I was not referring to just military personnel. A very large number
of civilians came under fire from Ju-87s. Even if it only happened once
it would leave an unpleasant memory. I was in the Army in Viet Nam, to
this day certain sounds or smells bring back unpleasant memories. The
same is true of most people who have experienced a traumatic event.


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

Then you must be upset about that Yak 52 (or chinese C-6 or whatever it
was) that was done up in FW-190 markings. Didn't notice if it had a
swastika or not.

John

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...

KB

John T wrote:

Then you must be upset about that Yak 52 (or chinese C-6 or whatever it
was) that was done up in FW-190 markings. Didn't notice if it had a
swastika or not.

John


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.

When the 33rd TFW came back from the Gulf War with 16 MiG kills some
unthinking people hung out a banner saying "welcome home storm
troopers." As a Jew who has no maternal family thanks to the Nazis I
could have taken offense, but I knew they intended no offense. As an
aside the 33rd also put 16 green stars (representing the 16 MiGs downed)
and a sign saying "biggest MiG parts distributor in South West Asia"
at each end of the TAC area of Eglin AFB.

One can't avoid offending everyone, but I think an attempt should be
made to offend as few as possible.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

When the 33rd TFW came back from the Gulf War with 16 MiG kills some
unthinking people hung out a banner saying "welcome home storm
troopers." As a Jew who has no maternal family thanks to the Nazis I
could have taken offense, but I knew they intended no offense. As an
aside the 33rd also put 16 green stars (representing the 16 MiGs downed)
and a sign saying "biggest MiG parts distributor in South West Asia"
at each end of the TAC area of Eglin AFB.

One can't avoid offending everyone, but I think an attempt should be
made to offend as few as possible.

Thanks for the insight, Dan... and the understanding.

The paint-job issue is a thorny one. About twenty-five years ago, I saw a
Cessna 140 with a WWII German paint job. I really did like the look, but would
have balked, myself, at adding the swastika to the tail.

I occasionally toy around with Fly Baby paint schemes, including military ones.
The trouble is, most of the American and allied schemes are pretty ordinary.
There are lots of Fly Babies painted like PT-19s, a few in pre-war Navy colors.
One of the Canadian Fly Baby crew is painting his like Montomery's Miles
Messenger...sand and spinach British camouflage, with invasion stripes and the
belly painted bright yellow.

But for exotic paint jobs, you have to go with the Axis. And then, you get into
the issues of the atrocities associated with the wartime period.

At one point I was contemplating a paint job like the Mitsubishi A5M "Claude"
fighter from pre-WWII:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/claudefb.JPG

It's a *very* attractive paint scheme..but then, there's the politics involved
in Japan's actions during the early to mid 20th century. I thought about
putting "FE-XXXX" markings on it (the US put "Foreign Equipment" codes on
captured aircraft). But I still have the fear that somewhere, somehow, seeing
it would cause someone pain. So I've bagged that idea.

Ron Wanttaja

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.

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.

Remember, someone has to play the south in civil war re-enactments.
Thats history, not hate.

John

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

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.

It could be educational.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired