Warbird Information Exchange

I actually have an interesting answer to that question. One of the collections that was donated to the museum belonged to a man named Claude R. Burton, who flew 99 missions in World War II with the 315th Fighter Squadron, 324th Fighter Group and 101 missions in Korea. When I was digitizing one of his photo albums (which can be found on the Internet Archive) I came across a six page handwritten document titled "Fighter Tactics". The document starts with the history of aerial warfare in World War II, but one section in particular has an interesting analysis of attacks on B-29s. It reads:

One additional point about the above. I wondered why he would be describing methods of attacking B-29s, rather than, say, a Russian bomber. Sure, the tactics could be applied generally, but was there another reason? Then it occurred to me that the Soviets built a part-for-part copy of the B-29 called the Tupolev Tu-4. Anything we learned from B-29 crews of Soviet attacks would likely be equally useful for American pilots facing the Tu-4.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

So, I decided to do a little more research into the subject of what happened to Command Decision and (in addition to a previous thread) immediately turned up something quite interesting: the question of the authenticity of the airframe goes back as far as 1959. Apparently, there were two different "Command Decisions" at Wright-Patterson at that time and it wasn't clear which was the original:

(Source: Jack Jones, "Which Bomber Is the Real McCoy?," Dayton Daily News, June 14, 1959, 3.)
(Source, image: Wright State University)
(Source, image: Wright State University)

It's interesting to note that the paint scheme on the aircraft in the picture above differs from the one seen at the 1954 Dayton Airshow:

(Source: AirHistory.net)

Aside from the obvious lack of nose art, the text "UNITED STATES AIR FORCE" is painted above the black camouflage, not inside of it, and the scalloping has broader humps. There is also a chance that the text on the original would have been painted red - as seen on other B-29s of the period - although this is not evident from the black and white photograph.

One other quick point of interest: The very tip of the nose that is now missing was mounted to the fuselage for at least a short period of time while it was on display at the museum. It was actually split down the middle and hinged to act as a door of sorts:

(Source: OC Fair & Event Center)

Evidently, it was removed at some point - presumably because it was awkward for guests - and never reinstalled. This happened before the new museum was built, as the postcard mentioned in a previous post shows the fuselage without it while it was still at the old location. Of further interest, the top of the hump of the black camouflage below the canopy rail has been cut off as if a new section was inserted. As seen in the postcard picture, this is mirrored on the opposite side with the green band also stopping at this point. The green band on the aircraft sitting in the weeds does not stop there and goes all the way up to the bottom of the window. These could be useful recognition features for determining which airframe is depicted when analyzing old photographs.

Just to take the analysis one step further, let's look at Baugher's summary of the aircraft's history mentioned in a previous post. Specifically, the part which states:

However, what we see in the above photograph above is that the aircraft was already damaged by 1959. Assuming whomever provided Baugher the information misremembered the date, but was correct on the other details, an interesting possibility emerges. Perhaps the original Command Decision was being used as a travelling exhibit by the "orientation group" - a process which could have involved moving it around to different sites on a trailer. Maybe it was during one of these trips that the aircraft was damaged.

Now, the same summary states that:

However, again, the damage is claimed to have happened after 1961, two years two late for the photograph above. Furthermore, it also claims that the museum acquired the fuselage of 44-62139 after the accident in the 80s/90s:

However, this is clearly incorrect as the museum was displaying the fuselage as early as 1966. If we swap out 80's/90's for 50s/60s, the whole story fits.

There is one more supporting piece of evidence. If you look closely (a bigger version is available from the source link at the end of the article) at the right side of the photograph of the fuselage in the weeds, the very tip of the nose has been cut in the exact same way - vertically down the center - as the one on the fuselage in the museum. This further suggests that the original Command Decision had been used as a travelling exhibit.

EDIT (23-12-19): I came across a picture of the nose of one of the Command Decisions when it was on tour in 1955:

(Source: “Eaton Fire Convention to Display World’s Most Decorated Bomber,” Palladium-Item and Sun-Telegram, June 11, 1955, 16.)

Not only does it show the split nose was in use, but also that the forward fuselage was painted completely differently. However, it also had the narrow stripe that goes all the way up to the window, rather than the later, wider one that does not and the "UNITED STATES AIR FORCE" is painted on top of the black camouflage. While I am hesitant to make judgement, it is possible that this was the original airframe.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

I've taken a look at the aircraft's record card and can provide a history up to the point it arrived at Wright Patterson:

B-29 s/n 44-87657 for Project U-Dom-522B
Available at Boeing, Wichita 07Jun45; accepted 09Jun45; delivered 09Jun45 for 2nd AF, Topeka
Departed Wichita 09Jun45; arrived Topeka 09Jun45
Arrived San Francisco 24Jun45
Departed USA 27Jun45
Assigned to 499th BGp (VH), 878th Bomb Squadron, Isely Field, Saipan and named ‘Off Limits Limited’
Departed ‘BULL’ FEA 19Oct45
Arrived back in USA at Mather AAF 27Oct45 for onward storage at Victorville
Arrived 4196th AAF Base Unit Victorville 27Oct45 (storage)
To 4136th AAF Base Unit Tinker AAF 24May46 (storage/work)
Assigned to FEAF 02Dec47
Assigned to 22nd BGp (H) Kadena AB 21Jan48
Assigned to 19th BGp (H) North Field, Guam 04Jun48
To Sacramento Air Materiel Area, McClellan AFB 28Aug49 (depot maint)
Assigned to 19th BGp Kadena AB 12Jun51; arrived 10Jul51; 28th Bomb Squadron

The aircraft suffered a taxiing accident on 23Aug52 at Kadena with Capt John R Shipley in command; Clyde Durham (a gunner who had previously flown three sorties on Command Decision) later recalled the incident (quote from https://mickmc.tripod.com/clydedurham.html): “Almost a week after our third mission on "Command Decision" four crews, including us, flew a two-hour training mission in the local area. We were the first aircraft to land and the current crew of "Command Decision" followed us. All four planes landed and followed each other on the taxi strip heading to the hardstands. We were about halfway there and I happened to be looking back at "Command Decision" and at that moment I saw the nose of the airplane plunge to the taxi strip and all four props on the big 3350 Wright-Cyclone radial engines dig into the taxi strip. We found out that the taxi strip had given way under the nose gear and dropped about 10 or 12 inches. The sudden stoppage of the nose gear and the forward motion of the airplane collapsed the nose gear. Major Covic [Donald M Covic, previously the aircraft commander on Command Decision] was at his desk when word of the accident reached him. He immediately hopped into his jeep and went to the scene of the accident. It was several hours before he finally got back to squadron operations and when he walked in the first thing he saw was the "Command Decision" model resting on its nose on his desk. Someone had pulled off the nose gear! Maj Covic left it that way until the real aircraft flew again, almost three months later.”

The aircraft then served through the end of the war in Korea. Anthony J Queeno served with the 28th BS from January thru August 1953 and was on the final combat crew of Command Decision. He recalled of the aircraft’s final days in the Far East (http://b29s.koreanwar-educator.org/b29s ... rew4a.html), "We were the last crew to fly her in combat (on) the day they signed the truce . . . in the air just hours before it was to take effect. We were supposed to fly her stateside but our A/C delayed a month so our Radar Operator could keep his promotion. If I recall most of the "nose art" was removed by Feb '53 because of the overfly of the dependant area."

From Kadena its subsequent movements were:

Oklahoma Air Materiel Area, Tinker AFB 10Aug53 for storage
For assignment to 90th SRW (Medium), Forbes AFB 03Sep53 (not actioned)
For assignment to 310th BW Sioux City 12Sep53 (not actioned)
Assigned instead to 40th BW Smoky Hill AFB 01Feb54 (special mission)
802nd Air Base Gp, Smoky Hill AFB 15Feb54 (special mission)
San Antonio Air Materiel Area, Kelly AFB 12Mar54 (transient maint)
802nd ABGp Smoky Hill AFB 16Mar54 (maintenance)
9th Bombardment Wg, Mountain Home AFB 06Jun54 (special mission)
2750th Air Base Gp, Wright Patterson AFB 13Sep54 (transient maint)
‘z’ obsolete Class 32, Wright Patterson AFB 13Sep54

From a quick perusal at photographs, I can say with confidence that the aircraft shown at the 1954 Dayton Air Show is the real Command Decision. The reduction in nose art is backed up by the quote above too.

However I'd also say that the shots of the B-29 fuselage for the article "DOPEY AND DOC, PARTLY OBSCURED BY WEEDS, CONTINUE TO FLIP THEIR COIN IN WPAFB DUMP AREA" are not of the real aircraft: there is a prominent hole below the Flight Engineer's window which is not visible on the real "CD". It looks like an aerial has been removed from that area. I'd suggest that this aircraft is the one now on display in the NMUSAF.

The rest is a muddle. Dropped by a helicopter? Possible but surely that would be easy to check up? Maybe less so the 'other' accident (if there was one). Maybe NMUSAF would have more detail?

I actually requested a copy of the aircraft record card from AFHRA yesterday. So I guess you beat me to that one.


The problem is that there is no evidence of this hole on the one at NMUSAF either, so if the one in the dump area is the one at NMUSAF, then that section of fuselage was replaced at some point. If you look at the picture below, there is a metal plate to the rear of the pilot's window though.

It's interesting to note the varying depictions of the nose art.

Korean War:

(Source: National Museum of the United States Air Force)

Korean War:

(Source: B-29s in the Korean War)

Korean War:

(Source: B-29s Over Korea)

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1959:

(Source: Wright State University)

National Museum of the United States Air Force, 2008:

(Source: Department of Defense)

EDIT (23-12-20): I found a picture of the nose art from when the fuselage was on tour in 1957. It matches the design of the one seen in the dump area:

(Source: "Command Decision," Durham Herald, May 24, 1957, A3.)

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Also the names on the 'derelict' fuselage don't skew with those that were marked in its final version. All of the 'period' shots of the aircraft do show similar noise art. Those do not reflect that shown on the NMUSAF fuselage or the 'derelict' fuselage, which leads me to think that there are two distinct schemes on two different aircraft. I assume that the crew names on the 'derelict' fuselage apply to those on the replacement B-29?

You'll have a wait for an AFHRA reply: currently running at a month or more for a reply. Not sure why but assume staff shortages.

That's an interesting suggestion – checking the names on the fuselage positions. It's not a perfect match with the dump area photograph, as his first initial is "C", not "G", but the National Archives has a photograph of one "1st Lt. Carl L. Hinchey" who was a B-29 pilot in the Korean War.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Interesting. Assuming there's a reason for 'G' rather than 'C', maybe the 'derelict' is a 98th BG aircraft? So it looks like the real Command Decision disappeared between 1954 and 1957?