SAC Museum B-29 New Name/Nose Art

[APG85]

They've added a name and nose art to the B-29 at the SAC Museum...

http://www.b-29restoration2.blogspot.com/

Saw a glimpse of the tail when I was at the Museum a couple of weeks ago.

One thing I am wondering about - why does the B-29 have a serial number with a "0" prefix indicating an aircraft over 10 years old suggesting a 1954 or later B-29 but it has National Insignia without a red stripe in the star and bars suggesting a pre-1948 B-29?

Is the art work/paint scheme still in progress?

It looks like the "0" prefix s/n on the B-29 is the one worn by the original aircraft when assigned to Hamilton AFB, CA in the mid to late fifties. It does not appear to be an accurate s/n for a B-29 with "Lucky Lady" nose art.

http://www.sasmuseum.com/2008/11/21/b-2 ... rfortress/

[Jesse C.]

Why do they keep doing such generic nose art on these planes? Out of so many pieces out there, why something that looks like a beer ad? Just saying.

I know, why am I bashing this when I should be giving out the feel goods. Ok, great job, but why the lame nose art?

[shrike]

The 0- serial number came up in another thread. If it's USAF owned, they require the 'real' and current number to be displayed, so in a way it's a matter or real life accuracy, rather than historical accuracy.

The generic nose art is probably a PC-ish attempt to give the feel of nose art, while neither singling out any crew, or offending the easily offended. It may be .....uninspired... but at least it's well done, which is better than 90% of the real original nose art.

[ChrisDNT]

I don't understand.

For a static aircraft staying confortably in a museum, why the grey paint and not an historical natural aluminium finish?

Also, as someone already said it, why the rather uninteresting generic pinup, when there are hundreds if not thousands of perfectly documentated nose arts possible?

B-

[ChrisDNT]

"...a PC-ish attempt to give the feel of nose art..."

Possible, but there are also tons of historical nose-arts possible with non sexual subjects, like funny toons, animals, cities names etc...

[Ken]

I did a quick search but it was not clear to me if the tail codes and Lucky Lady art were representative of a real airplane or a fictitious creation. Is it supposed to portray a TB-29 or a wartime B-29? What's the answer?

Regarding the protocol of displaying the "proper" serial, the "O" could have been skipped with its 1945 serial in place without causing any identity confusion. If the "O" theory were true, then every other WWII aircraft at numerous museums, including NMUSAF, would be "in violation". And it's not as if the "O" is a current format anyway.

Seeing as the airplane is without turrets and (I assume) is a TB-29, it would have looked just fine to me to paint it as it would have looked during its own service. I'm not a fan of silver paint, but I do understand that the paint acts a corrosion preventative and possibly hides other scars.

One of the linked articles quoted the gentleman who made some of the crew seats commenting about a lack of guidance for making up the tail gunner's seat, saying that he copied an idea from a cartoon. Is there not sufficient info available via Enola Gay, Bocks Car, the National Archives, whatever? I don't fault him, but I do wonder about a museum of this size that didn't pursue providing workers with the proper details. Unless there is another explanation, I'm puzzled as to this.

Before anyone gets hacked and suggests that I didn't volunteer or donate to this B-29, please grant a "time out". Museums are supposed to be a place of education - where the exhibits will speak long after the actual veterans are gone and unable to tell their story. If we don't get the details right now, while we know better, it's unlikely that future generations will get it right either. There was a talented worker in place who had sufficient tools to apply the serial - I'm simply wondering why the leadership directed that this be the result.

Ken

[sandiego89]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say well done to the museum. While it may be imperfect with the silver paint, the generic nose art and the real serial number, I think it is a great job on a very neglected airframe that sat outside for way too long. The interior looks fantastic. Yes I would also prefer natural metal, more scandelous nose art and turrets, but I say well done. This airframe does not have a particularily historic nature so I see this a good compromise to show the general public what they think a B-29 bomber should look like. If it was painted as a TB-29 like it was in service it would be even more boring. We purists may not be happy, but few museums have a bottomless bank account to make everything "perfect". There are plenty of other projects there that need time, love and money. Buffing out a large negelcted airframe is a huge undertaking so maybe the paint was the best course. So a compromise here might allow the next projects like the B-36, B-52 and Vulcan etc. to get some attention. Please recall that this whole collection sat outside for years with little support.
Yes there are good arguments here on all sides, so just my 2 cents. Standing by for incoming.....

[Steve Nelson]

She really looks great! The nose art may be a bit generic, but at least it looks a bit more "period" than some of the airbrushed beer ads on too many warbirds. The only thing has me scratching my head a bit are the polished cowl rings and stainless panels around the exhausts..they stand out pretty strongly next to the silver paint.

SN

[B29Gunner]

One of the linked articles quoted the gentleman who made some of the crew seats commenting about a lack of guidance for making up the tail gunner's seat, saying that he copied an idea from a cartoon. Is there not sufficient info available via Enola Gay, Bocks Car, the National Archives, whatever? I don't fault him, but I do wonder about a museum of this size that didn't pursue providing workers with the proper details. Unless there is another explanation, I'm puzzled as to this.

Where did you see the article that mentioned the tail gunner seat? I would have gladly supplied pictures, drawings etc of mine if I'd known they needed help!

[APG85]

I think they did a fantastic job with the interior. Some of the choices they made with the exterior are not what I would have done (painting it silver, the tail number, not removing some of the antenna mounts, etc.) but I'm not working there and I'm not paying the bills. Still, it's nice to see another B-29 get some TLC...

[Pogmusic]

I know in the mid-90's guidance came down from the USAFM that all their airplanes needed to be painted. So, that MAY explain the silver paint. Also, is it known that this was a B-29A at some point? The reason asking is that the B-29B's did not have turrets.

[APG85]

I know in the mid-90's guidance came down from the USAFM that all their airplanes needed to be painted. So, that MAY explain the silver paint.

If that was true, Bockscar would get a nice, thick coat of paint. I have a feeling any direction to paint aircraft is directed to planes displayed outdoors...

[Warbird Kid]

I know in the mid-90's guidance came down from the USAFM that all their airplanes needed to be painted. So, that MAY explain the silver paint.

Then why are there aircraft at USAFM that are in bare aluminum?




I applaud the restoration effort they've done, especially the interior, but i think they need to redo the exterior. Even if they have to keep the original serial number, fine, but go to NMF and a better scheme.

Last edited by Warbird Kid on Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.