"I do however object to "restorations" which seek to add a spurious glamour to a (fragmentry) airframe by over-restoring it then painting it to represent a plane flown by an "ace" or in the markings of a squadron in which it never served. To me this demeans both the original aircraft and the pilot(s) who actualy flew it."

I am sure the pilots who actually flew would be very proud, that it is flying.
After all they gave the greatest sacrifice so that today in the "FREE WORLD" we can do what the " @#%@" we want.
Its called democracy, I own it so I can do with it what I want !!
When they filmed " Patton" they used converted Buchon's to simulate P-51's as there were none in Europe.
Think about that.

I do however object to "restorations" which seek to add a spurious glamour to a (fragmentry) airframe by over-restoring it then painting it to represent a plane flown by an "ace" or in the markings of a squadron in which it never served. To me this demeans both the original aircraft and the pilot(s) who actualy flew it.

Wingco.

Wingco

Wow. I can think of only a handful of warbirds (flying or otherwise) that are painted as they were in the war. Especially when you're taking about flyable aircraft, many of the birds left today did not actually see action. They tend to be ones which were relegated to training roles or built as the war was winding down. I can only imagine how you feel about ones that are painted in purely fictitious markings.

Sure, it'd be great if there were more planes like "Up Upa Epops" and "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" (any problems with it being painted OD instead of its wartime natural metal?), but the are the exceptions, not the rule.