Nose art, AAF versus USN?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

I assume the reason that WWII Navy aircraft were relatively monotone and devoid of personalization while the AAF allowed everything short of outright nudes on the nose was that there was Navy reg forbidding anything beyond basic unit identification?

[ACarey]

Most carrier-based aircraft were void of nose art but not land-based units, especially patrol squadrons. Here's some samples:

[Mark Allen M]

Rare for carrier based aircraft but a few here and there ...


TBM Avenger of VT-83 nicknamed 'Santas Helper' from the USS Essex CV-9 1945


TBM Avenger of VT-83 nicknamed 'Georgia Peach' form the USS Essex CV-9 1945


TBM-3E Avengers with Torpedo Squadron Thirty-Four VT-34 from the USS Monterey CVL-26 1945

[SaxMan]

Bill Tate gives a VERY detailed answer on this question in a previous thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=48832&hilit=Navy+Nose+Art

[Mark Allen M]

The most dominant factor being that very few carrier based Navy pilots ever flew the same airplane on a regular basis and the fact that Navy air wings were rotated and replaced in a matter of a few months at a time. There were very few personal mounts for the Navy guys to get personal with. Not to say there weren't exceptions at times though.

[The Inspector]

The most dominant factor being that very few carrier based Navy pilots ever flew the same airplane on a regular basis and the fact that Navy air wings were rotated and replaced in a matter of a few months at a time. There were very few personal mounts for the Navy guys to get personal with. Not to say there weren't exceptions at times though.

TBM 417 is Satans Helper not santas Helper, Ho3