Nose Art

IMG_0706.jpeg
 
P-47 Thunderbolt “Daddy Rabbit” with an impressive collection of mission symbols! P-47D-28RA 42-29262 Daddy RABBIT. This machine was flown by Captain Neil D. Stanley of 391st Fighter Squadron, 366th Fighter Group 9th Air Force in the European Theatre of Operations during the closing chapters of WWII. Looking at the mission markings:

2 – air combat kills

20 – A/C destroyed strafing

4 – tanks destroyed

5 – locomotives destroyed

8 – fighter sweeps

15 - fighter escorts (top hats)

50 – bombing missions

Still looking for rabbits...?!!

IMG_0873.jpeg
 
I have seen a number of these at various military bases.

A bit of Apollo era history. In the early 60's NASA needed to extend the range of the ground tracking and communications network. To this end, 8 KC-135's were modified with a 7 foot steerable dish in the nose. CAlled Apollo Range Instrumentation Aircraft (A/RIA), they provided a mobile communications link. After Apollo, they were used as Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft (also ARIA). This was the last operational one - it's sitting at the air park at the Air Force museum. It was given the moniker "Bird of Prey" - this is the nose art....

IMG_0973.jpeg
IMG_0972.jpeg
IMG_0971.jpeg
 
Not really a gate guard, but this B-29 was photographed at the old March AFB Museum, which at the time took up some space on the ramp. It and other display aircraft were since moved across the runway next to the interstate where an exit was built so that civilians would have the opportunity to see these aircraft. I've not been to the new museum since I got out of the service, but understand it is very nice. According to Wiki, this is one of 22 surviving airframes with two of those currently flying.

IMG_1175.jpeg
 
Last edited:
What's funny about all of these, they were forbidden by the USAAF! When did they lose control??? :rolleyes:

That's interesting question. This sorta touches on it: Aircraft Nose Art Makes Quiet Comeback, Reviving Air Force Tradition

i am certain by today's standards, the society wouldnt stand for it.

Today, therefore, surely the miltitary has "rules" on this stuff, probably did then too. "Objectifying" women was "acceptable" back then, the military personnel flying/working on planes were men.

I am NOT arguing FOR/AGAINST one thing or another. Aint judging either, however, as a father with daughters and grand daughters, I am cool they toned that stuff down.

We were sending these young men into war, and from which many would NEVER come home. that doesnt make it "OK" to put a naked lady on your bomber, but maybe it helped morale. In context of time/place, I get it.

What's more "obscene" though? A provocative painting of an imaginary lady on your plane, or hosing your buddy's blood & guts out of his turret gun?

It wasnt just the pinup issue. Add to that the copyrights/trademark "infringement" potential .. dunno if Disney, for example, had the outrage to sue the government DURING the war and risk being called "unpatriotic".

1719663374365.png
1719663402853.png
1719663473990.png



Gimme sharks, and dragons, and other fearsome images all day long. Seems that is, and always has been ok.

1719664201360.png
 
Last edited:
That's interesting question. This sorta touches on it: Aircraft Nose Art Makes Quiet Comeback, Reviving Air Force Tradition

i am certain by today's standards, the society wouldnt stand for it.

Today, therefore, surely the miltitary has "rules" on this stuff, probably did then too. "Objectifying" women was "acceptable" back then, the military personnel flying/working on planes were men.

I am NOT arguing FOR one thing or another. Aint judging either, however, as a father with daughters and grand daughters, I am cool they toned that stuff down.

We were sending these young men into war, and from which many would NEVER come home. that doesnt make it "OK" to put a naked lady on your bomber, but maybe it helped morale.

What's more "obscene"? A provocative painting on your plane, or hosing your buddy's guts out of his turret gun?

It wasnt just the pinup issue. Add to that the copyrights/trademark "infringment" potential .. dunno if Disney, for example, had the outrage to sure the government DURING the war.

View attachment 668639View attachment 668640View attachment 668641


Gimme sharks, and dragons, and other fearsome images all day long. Seems that is, and always has been ok.

View attachment 668643
I suspect that the next thing to go are squadron images, etc. like this one:
IMG_1238.jpeg
 
I hope not. I think these are cool -- and the related command patches.

1719665279599.png
1719665381631.png
1719665446339.png
1719665492907.png




I am sure they must "offend" somebody .. but so does a "sunny day". Are those the nex things to go? :poke:
 
Back
Top