Here's an opportunity that won't be taken up unless I'm VERY surprised!

To anyone such as WINCO, who think the design is "Dreadful" - what would you have designed that would be better?

Feel free to post your better versions...


(I won't hold my breath though!)

A couple of smokewinders would have been nice. :rolleyes:

P6, paint it gloss white all over. Or matt black with shark's teeth. Camoflage with invasion stripes. Metallic purple with chrome alloy wheels, slammed suspension and a pink fur cockpit. Or, what the hell, Union Jack* the whole damn thing.

Anything's better than the chosen design.

*it's a verb I've invented.

Thanks for the post. The colour scheme looks good. The RAF will never have the fancy graphics that we've seen elsewhere; they're wonderful to see, but not the MoD's style. The Typhoon there looks great. Fly high, 29.

Or, what the hell, Union Jack* the whole damn thing.

You rang?:cool:

Jack

Utterly uninspiring! It's a good job it makes loads of noise....

It wouldn't make me want to join....again....

There are some very nice 'tweaks' to this scheme on the FIGHTERCONTROL website. I believe Squadron Prints submitted some pretty stunning images to the MOD as part of the process.

For me, the current scheme just needs some Daily Telegraph stickers down the side of the jet - to fill in the gap between tail and canards.

Sorry ... But someone posted a cracking comment on the RAF Facebook page in response to the scheme ... Made me chuckle :ok:

It's a Mint Job !

http://www.britishcornershop.co.uk/i...e/QWOP2017.jpg

Well, for starters the RAF don't have painters and finishers anymore, thus the work is contracted out to SERCO thus will cost extra. Also the rules for special markings have to be approved at CinC Air Command level after going though a number of hoops including a working group who's role is to approve camouflage schemes. Also any aircraft that has more than a 25% repaint requires weighting and re-ballasting (if required) as the paint does actually have mass, which of course is now a depth maintenance function and again costs. You could of course totally ignore the rules as one Squadron did and paint an aircraft all over, which in the scheme done, was rumored to have overloaded the aircraft's environmental control systems due to the effects of absorption of more solar/aerodynamic heating (the Camouflage working group were aware of the problem, as it wasn't the first time that that type of scheme had been painted on that aircraft). It was also rumored to have put the aircraft massively out of limits on center of gravity and that wasn't picked up until after it have been flown a few times. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Yes, there are RAF personnel that can do this type of stuff, the best example was this one (which I did play a part in, as it was my Jaguar drawing computer file on which the basic scheme layout was designed (and the original draft schemes looked nothing like what was finally painted). 6 Sqn had to get outside sponsorship to paint it though (and a couple of painters from a certain car company).

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...8a14&mode=view

Coff/Roland, the rules don't allow sponsorship logos in the design, period. Though the guys who painted the Spotty Jaguar managed to get their company logo in but it was very well hidden (on the outside of the frame).

MAINJAFAD,

You seem to have most of the answers so it should not be too difficult to create and introduce a design that we all would be proud of. I'm sure that CinC Air Command and indeed, the whole of the Air Board would love to see the Premier RAF aircraft displayed in a 21st century graphic design and not a 1950s paint job. I know that we got rid of our painters and finishers and so are stuck with a contractor, Serco at present. In my experience there is normally a way to generate goodwill from most reasonable contractors.
Courtney, you state that other nations "fancy graphics" make their aircraft look good but that is not in the MOD's style. Well maybe it is about time that the MOD updated it's style.
It is quite galling to see German, French and Turkish aircraft turned out at a standard to make their personnel and publics proud. I'm tired of the attitude that "we know we are the best" so we don't try very hard. I'm also fed up with hearing all of the reasons why it can't be done rather than inventiveness and cunning to overcome modern day bureaucracy.

Mainjafad ...

Love that Jag scheme ... well done you with the original concept :ok:

I do recall a little jape (which I may or may not have been involved in :hmm:) ... In the 70's I think it was Esso that gave out strips of mock bullet holes with every tank of petrol ... One of these said decal sheets ended up on the Boss's Chipmunk strafed across the external front cockpit fuselage wall ... He thought it was highly amusing :)

I didn't design the scheme, Aber Ratman did, I did a Jaguar profile for another project and he used it (after I taught him how to use the software that was used to design the scheme on). The original design was just the Fin, spine and drop tanks. The final design was based on the wishes of the OC 6 Sqn at the time and was based on keeping the amount of paint under the 25% limit (Had Aber known that AOC 1 Gp wanted a Pink Gulf War 1 jet as well (there was still one operational GR3 which had taken part in the 1991 conflict at the time and its the only aircraft to be painted in a permanent finish of Desert Pink (all other aircraft ever in that scheme were painted in a temporary ARTF finish)), he may have gone the whole hog on the Jaguar (big cat) camouflage instead of having it look like the outer paint job was peeling off to show what was underneath. A 74 sqn Phantom was painted up in a full tiger scheme in 92, but it never flew in that paint scheme.

The basic problem is that any Typhoon or Tornado in service has to be an operational and deployable airframe, which limits what scheme can be put on the aircraft (and as stated in my first post, there can be unknown effects on aircraft systems caused by what colour the aircraft is painted (the normal schemes will have been trialed first), plus the fact there are major parts of the airframe that cannot be painted (i.e. Radome and aerial covers, etc). The Jaguar scheme was approved because the fleet was already non operational when CinC Strike approved the scheme on 31st March 2007 (it was one of the last actions ever done by a CinC Strike). The Tucano / Hawk boys can get away with it because the aircraft have a 2nd line role only.

As for me doing it, Already handed in the ID card I'm afraid, though if I'd done that scheme, the bird head on the fin would have been gold to make it stand out. They may have tried to do that and the paint shop shot it down. The Jaguar was to have had A type (Red/White/Blue) fin flash on it, the paint shop at Conz couldn't / wouldn't do it so a standard jag fin flash was used instead.

What is wrong with letting the techies loose with a few paint brushes. Here's one we prepared earlier (no issues with CofG and Environmental whatsit either!):



http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1.../SS0003613.jpg

The Spotty Jag would have looked something like that, as the original peeling paintwork plan was the same colours as a real jaguar (light brown upper surfaces with black rings), until it was noted that the jet in that finish looked like somebody had dropped diarrhea on it, thus the change to an orange with black rings jaguar marking scheme.

Shot from a Tristar on 1st Apr....

The Photoshop 'What If' Thread...

Now, this is how you do a striking tail design...

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/ass...t-tail-928.jpg

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/ass...t-tail-928.jpg

News Article | Royal Canadian Air Force | News Article | New paint celebrates 30 years of pilot training

-RP

Hey Rhino, I do like the painters making sure no one was going to forget about their contribution! :D:D:D:D:D

149 FW - Texas ANG - "Gunfighters" - 65th Anniversary:

http://teresainfortworth.files.wordp...sary-pic-5.jpg

140 FW - Colorado ANG - "Minute Men" - 50th Anniversary

http://www.140wg.ang.af.mil/shared/m...-0381R-483.jpg

Belgian AF - 31 Sqn - "Tigers"

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...9&d=1269594799

Proper liney there..:ok: