Warbird Information Exchange

One thing I've noticed in the various books I've read is a difference in attitudes of AAF and Navy pilots and crews towards their planes. It seems the AAF encouraged the naming of planes, and the planes began to have personalities of their own. Likewise the Navy discouraged this (at least until late in the war) only recognizing their planes by their numbers. For instance, there is no "Memphis Belle" equivalent among Navy planes. Possibly the most famous Avenger, for instance, was the sole survivor from the Torpedo Eight detachment at Midway, and it is simply referred to as 8-T-1 (maybe George H.W. Bush's plane "Barbara" would have some claim as the most famous Avenger).

Most accounts from the pilots and crews seem the same way. I haven't read too many accounts where Navy pilots show the same level of affinity for their mounts at the AAF pilots did. Even with today's restorations, you can readily identify most planes that have an AAF lineage by their nicknames. The Navy planes are usually referred to either who owns them "Collings Foundation bird" or by their number "White 29".

The most curious part of this policy is that the Air Force and Navy have policies towards the recovery of aircraft totally opposite of the "personalities". The AF has basically said anything before 1964 is fair game, as if planes were just implements. The Navy, on the other hand, has jealously guarded their wrecked planes as if they did have their own individual personalities.

Is the difference just in the name, or is it something that was inherent to each service?

Thanks for the post. I would like to respond to the last paragraph.

I feel that the opposite is actually the case. In my opinion the USAF/AAF has, over the last several decades demonstrated a greater interest in preserving the old abandoned wrecks while the US Navy could care somewhat less. By releasing claim the Air Force is allowing the planes to be recovered and preserved. I have had a few dealings with the Air Force and I have found them to be outstanding, proactive and open to working with the private sector to recover and preserve our aviation heritage by getting out of the way!

The Navy had in essence the same policy as the Air Force until the late 70's. I have several letters from the Navy officially declaring that the wrecks of WWII had all been abandoned. One such letter was as late as 1974. Another letter that would have required the Navy to remove a hazard to marine navigation was dated later still. In my opinion, once the Warbirds became valuable some group of civilian government employees (Naval Historical Center) determined that if they declared "new Naval policies" of perpetual ownership they could in effect create law. In doing so they could create a need for monitoring and overseeing these previously officially abandoned planes. So far they have been mostly successful. In other instances they have lobbied Congress to enact new laws to regain ownership. Some of these people I have met face to face and my opinion of their incompetence was not improved.

Pirate Lex
http://www.BrewsterCorsair.com

_________________
An ego is no match for gravity.

Hear! Hear!

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

This has always been my opinion as well although I think it went deeper than just the civvy employees of the NHC.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.

Knowing your first hand experience in dealing with the aforementioned organizations, I will definitely defer to your viewpoint.

But...let's look at the first two paragraphs: Was there a difference between the way the AAF and Navy looked at their planes, through the more common practice of the AAF giving their planes names and anthromorphizing them, versus the Navy's plain jane "number" aircraft?

Well, I think there were two reasons. First, the USAAF operated mostly from established and prepared airfields. As such, there was plenty of parking for each pilot or crew to get their own airplane. Some sharing did occur, but there were airframes and parking to go around for the most part. However, with the Navy and Marines, they were operating from ships or very small islands where space was a premium. Additionally, the Navy had problems with not being able to keep up with the pace of attrition and expansion of operations because they were transiting over much longer distances to the front lines. As such, for a while, the Navy and Marine Corps were lucky to have just enough planes on hand to get 20 or 24 of a given type aloft at a time period from one base/carrier. Many times to get this number it meant that while all the pilots might be from a given squadron, the planes may be from 2 or 3. VMF-214's first mission from the Russell Islands was like this with 20 aircraft being VMF-123 aircraft that they had "taken on charge" when they deployed to the Russells and 4 borrowed from VMF-124. They weren't unique by any means either. Most Marine and Navy pilots rarely flew the aircraft that was "assigned" to them, even later in the war. The name of the game was get in the air and you took whatever was available next, whether it was "your" plane or not.

Saxman, that is a really interesting question. It clearly was a cultural difference. I wonder if WW 2 Navy pilots were assigned to one crew chief and airplane the way they were in the AAF?

_________________
Rob C

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. “

– Michael Crichton

AFAIK the planes still had assigned plane captains (crew chiefs) and some maintenance personnel, but while a plane may have a pilot's name on the side of it, he flew whatever plane was "next up" on the day of a mission, and rarely was it "his" plane. Even today, this is the case with both the Navy and now the Air Force. I wonder how many times "Hacker" flew "his" Strike Eagle (the one that had his name on the side of it)?