Meddle, I think the main issue there is that (as I said earlier) people fall into two camps. There are those (such as yourself) who think that getting an aeroplane back in their air is a great achievement in itself, and obsessing about what paint is applied to it is simply irrelevant. However, there are of course many people such as myself, who applaud the prospect of getting any aeroplane back into the air, but still find it extremely frustrating when a seemingly minor aspect of the restoration (the colours and markings) is wrongly reproduced. Like I said before, it’s rather like preserving a telephone box and pairing it blue. Okay, it is preserved, but somehow it isn’t quite as authentic as it could/should be.

Okay, I realise that you will disagree, but I’m afraid you will have to try and accept that not everyone who has respect for accuracy has any interest in digging-up engines (I certainly don’t) and you might also care to know that your comment about Britmodeller is probably quite ironic. I have no interest in them, but aircraft modellers (or at least a lot of them) are actually very informed and very knowledgeable individuals, some of whom know an awful lot more about aeroplanes than many aviation “experts” do. So it would be rather foolish to dismiss colour schemes and unit markings as an irrelevant interest pursued only by people who build Airfix kits (as if building models is somehow wrong). In that respect you’re way off the mark if that’s what you really think.

Besides, nobody has suggested even for a minute that the Jaguar is going to be finished inaccurately. Obviously it’s a possibility though, hence the various comments on this thread.If colour schemes and unit markings don’t interest you that’s fine, but please don’t be so dismissive of the subject. In many respects they are a very important part of aviation history, just as much as design, manufacture, weaponry or operations.

Incidentally, your comment about it taking a non-UK restoration team to get a Jaguar flying again is of course nonsense. As 12jaguar rightly says above, the restoration process isn’t the problem – it’s the stifling control exercised by the CAA that prevents such things from happening.

Er… well we could apply that argument to pretty-much everything that is said on this forum! Who are we? We’re mere enthusiasts (I hope), but I would hope that we’re entitled to express a view. I guess one could argue that unless people say what they think, how would anyone else know? You never know, there might come a day when a warbird owner tarts-up his new toy in some bizarre paint scheme and then reads that a lot of people would appreciate it more if it looked like it did when it was in military service, and then do something about it? He might imagine that nobody cares unless somebody says something? Just a thought! 🙂

Those who object to whatever schemes these planes are painted in, I suggest you have a word with the owner. I am sure he will listen to you enthralled!

Not necessarily. As you will have read above, we’re already well aware that some owners regard their acquisitions more as “toys” than historical artefacts. Having the money and ability to buy and restore an aeroplane doesn’t always necessarily mean that you have any appreciation of what you’ve bought.

Of course we are all entitled to whatever emotional response warbirds produce in us – for me it is simply seeing them fly, which produces the buzz. I am not that much moved by their clothes!

I think that’s it in a proverbial nutshell. People seem to fall into two camps – those who simply relish the prospect of seeing a particular aeroplane back in the air, no matter what it looks like, while others find it hard to relate to an aeroplane that doesn’t look anything like it did when it was when it was operated by the military. I guess some people might fall between the two categories though, and some (including myself) who sometimes have to tolerate mixed feelings in some cases, such as the afore-mentioned XH558! 🙂

It’s not all that bad is it?

Some would say that it really is that bad. True, the Union Flag is plastered over everything in tourist shops over in London, and the flag is always wheeled-out if there is some commercial reason to use it. But our flag really is not treated with the same respect as the United States equivalent. I think it’s because British people simply don’t make the same connection with it. They don’t see it as a representation of their country other than in the most general sense. But the main difference is that the majority of British citizens simply don’t have the same pride in their own country.

In this sense we’re very different from the States. We used to defend this attitude by saying that it was a typical British attitude (i.e. – reservation and under-statement) but we’ve created a different society now, thanks to new generations of younger people and large numbers of immigrants, all of whom have different attitudes and values. Obviously, immigrants have no reason to share any pride in this country’s values (or its flag), but we make no effort to encourage them to… unlike in the USA. The same applies to younger people. Having pride in our country would be seen as either “uncool” or jingoistic.

So over on this side of the pond, displaying a flag is seen as slightly odd and/or suspicious (unless it’s patently for commercial gain). It’s a very sad situation. The same issue is even worse when applied to England’s flag. The flag was rarely used or seen, until it became the symbol of far-right political groups. That was the start of a process that tainted the flag, and the problem got even worse when it was embraced by supporters of the national football team. Consequently, if anyone ventures to wear or display England’s flag, they would now be perceived as being either a pseudo-fascist, or a football fan. It’s absurd! 🙂