"And while I can find no other pictures to corroborate it, I can find no pictures of any of the pilot's aircraft, leading me to believe that it is more likely that this skin is accurate,"
That's a non sequitir. ("it does not follow")
That's not logical at all.
You can't find ANY references of the real plane, so it must be accurate?
I'm sorry but I've run across MANY color profiles that are wrong, inaccurate, poorly colored, you name it! It's an artist interpretation, and the older the book often you run into printing problems where they can't replicate the proper colors (say, turning a grey into nearly black-green, or something).
You can't use those as reliable resources, unless it happens to match similar other planes, or has no special markings (say a generic camo on a 109f, which was semi-standard) or some other reason.
You just can't justify skinning this plane. I'd have done it years ago if I could have.
What I mean was, I have a profile of this aircraft. I have searched for photos to corroborate this. I have found none. I have searched for other aircraft flown by the same pilot, both profiles and photos. Found none. So I have one profile for this, and none against. So unless you consider a lack of corroborating evidence to be proof that it DOESNT exist, whos to say it didnt? In other words, its 1:0 for the skin being real.
Thats not to say I know better than any of you and I insist it does, I simply mean I dont see any reason to believe its wrong, and while all sorts of people have come on saying it doesnt LOOK right, have any of you found pictures or profiles of your own that say its wrong?
Krusty says I shouldnt do it, no response from Fester yet, anyone else have an oppinion as to yes or no? (Not an instigation, I seriously want oppinions)
