Who Painted The Belle?

by Graham M. Simons and Dr. Harry Friedman, M.D.

There is a small but captivating mystery regarding Boeing B-17F Flying Fortress #41-24485, Memphis Belle – who painted the original artwork on the nose? We say ‘original’ for we know the artwork has been applied at least five times – originally in 1942; before the return to the U.S. and the War Bond Tour in 1943; sometime in the 1960s when the aircraft was on display outside the Armory in Memphis, Tennessee; again in the 1980s before going on display at Mud Island in Memphis; and finally before being unveiled at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force^TM.

The mystery of the Memphis Belle artwork persisted long before our 2008 publication, “Memphis Belle – Dispelling the Myths.” Our quest for the truth continued despite the lack of primary evidence at the time. Even in May 2018, at the restored aircraft unveiling at the Museum, the mystery remained. Still, we had accumulated a wealth of information over the years, fueling our determination to unravel this enigma.

We have always shied away from this topic because of the rumors swirling around social media from some armchair warriors claiming that so-and-so had that honor. Over the years, we must’ve heard at least ten different names, but no matter how we looked at it, the challenge was clear – there was insufficient, if any, primary source documentation to back up these claims.

That changed in April 2018, when we received an email from Kim Bragg, a descendant of a potential artist. “I am looking for some help with information as to the artwork on the Memphis Belle B-17,” she wrote. “It is a family legend that my Great-Grandfather Anthony Hebert from Veazie, just to the northeast of Bangor, ‘painted the Memphis Belle’ during his time at Dow Air Force Base (Godfrey Army Airfield) in Bangor, Maine, in the early 1940s. Do you know where I might find information to confirm or deny this claim? There does seem to be information to support this on your website (www.memphisbelle.com) in the article ‘What’s in a Name?’ but I am curious if anyone has any more knowledge or records as to when the plane was painted and/or what work was done on it by whom in Bangor.”

This family’s quest for truth is a journey we can all relate to, and the email re-ignited our interest. Not only did we question Kim, but also her mother, Judy, and Anthony’s daughter, Sandra Caudle, about the family legend that Anthony painted the original “Memphis Belle” nose art at Bangor. Sandra and Judy remembered a picture of Anthony in front of an aircraft displayed in his house many years ago, but no one knew its current whereabouts.

Artwork – and differing versions

First, let us look at the artwork to clear up several mysteries and myths surrounding the pictures of the girl in a swimsuit.

At some point during its short stay in Bangor, Maine, B-17F 41-24485 gained a name and a painting of a girl in a swimsuit on either side of its nose. But how exactly did the name and artwork come about?

In the days before television, the public got its news from newspapers, and contemporary newspapers of the day reported simply that the pilot had named his aircraft in honor of his fiancée, Margaret Polk, his Memphis sweetheart, and left it at that. Bob Morgan said, “I liked southern belles, and Margaret was a southern belle, so I just called it the Memphis Belle.”

James Verinis, the Belle’s co-pilot and Bob Morgan’s buddy, remembered it slightly differently. “It was in Bangor, Maine, in September 1942, just before we flew overseas,” he said. “Bob and I went to see a movie. I don’t remember its title. I only remember Joan Blondell starred in it. In the movie, there was also a Mississippi River gambling boat, and I remember that either Miss Blondell or the boat was called the Memphis Belle.

“We were walking back to our quarters after the show when Bob suddenly said, ‘Gee, that would be a good name for our plane, the Memphis Belle.’”

After much research by the Memphis Belle Memorial Association, it was discovered that the movie was a Republic picture called “Lady for a Night.” It did indeed star Joan Blondell, who played the part of social climber Jenny Blake. She owned the casino steamboat Memphis Belle, with a male lead played by John Wayne. Here is a remarkable coincidence – the name of John Wayne’s character was Jack Morgan. No wonder Bob Morgan paid attention to the movie!

According to all the crew’s memories, Bob Morgan originally wanted to call the aircraft “Little One,” his pet name for Margaret Polk. However, after seeing the movie, he decided Memphis Belle would be better.

Morgan reported the story slightly differently in the 2002 book “The Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle,” which is credited to Morgan and journalist Ron Powers. It seems that when he told the crew what he was going to call the aircraft, no one liked it, so Morgan decided to convince each crew member one at a time by applying liberal quantities of “liquid refreshment.”

This mismatch of stories did not surprise us in the slightest. Bob Morgan had a penchant for changing his stories and recollections, often to glamorize or polish his reputation and ego.

As to where the artwork came from, Bob Morgan remembered it well, as he told Memphis newspaperman Menno Deurksen, author of “The Memphis Belle; Home at Last” in 1987, “I was a reader of Esquire magazine. I have always admired the Petty Girl paintings they run every month. I wrote to the magazine and told them what I wanted. They sent me a picture, and we painted it on the plane.”

Again, the events were described differently fifteen years later in the Morgan/Powers book. On page 99, Morgan says that he called Esquire, got Petty’s phone number, and called the artist directly, telling him that he (Morgan) would like Petty to draw one of his girls to go on the aircraft. According to Morgan, Petty was gracious and thrilled to be a part of things.

So, was this particular item of artwork specifically and carefully selected as is often claimed, or was it just a random, accidental selection brought about by a member of staff at Esquire picking up a back issue and mailing it to 2nd Lt Morgan in response to his request? Or was the artwork created at Morgan’s request, as Morgan and Powers suggested in their book?

Many who have visited the aircraft on display have said that this particular George Petty artwork is called “The Memphis Belle.” They have also said that the painting represents Margaret Polk. Neither of those statements contains a shred of truth.

This particular Petty Girl appeared as a foldout in the April 1941 issue of Esquire magazine between pages 36 and 41 and is thought to have been modelled by either Petty’s wife or, more likely, his twenty-two-year-old daughter Marjorie. The caption that appears on the piece in Esquire itself is somewhat enigmatic. It says, “I’m the one with the part in the back.” The caption in the table of contents is abbreviated to “… the one with the part in the back.” So, is this the title of the artwork? A caption is something very different to the name of a painting. Much of Petty’s work is known to be untitled, and it is likely that this one is. Even the staff of the Art & Architecture Library, University of Kansas, where the original artwork resides, will only say it is ‘captioned’ as “I’m the one with the part in the back.” As to what the caption actually means, for years we have had a sneaking suspicion that it’s a discreet reference to both the line of the hair parting, and the line of the butt-cheeks!

As for it being Margaret Polk, clearly the Petty Girl artwork had been in the public domain for nearly seventeen months when she first appeared in different coloured swimsuits on either side of the nose of a particular B-17 – so at very best, the painting can only be said to represent Miss Margaret! The April 1941 date also clearly repudiates the Morgan/Powers’ suggestion that the creation of the artwork was at Morgan’s request. That edition of Esquire appeared more than sixteen months BEFORE Morgan got his hands on the aircraft that was to become the Memphis Belle!

Unfortunately, no one remembered who originally painted it onto the aircraft. Still, a consensus of opinion among the crewmembers interviewed in the late 1970s suggests that it was originally painted on to the aircraft by a civilian worker at Dow Field before they left the U.S.

However, again, on page 99 of his 2002 book, Morgan claims differently, saying that he ordered Tony Starcer to paint one girl in a red swimsuit on one side of the nose and one in a blue suit on the other. Cpl Anthony ‘Tony’ Starcer of the 441st Sub Depot and Bassingbourn’s resident nose-art specialist touched up and eventually repainted the design before the aircraft left Station 121 Bassingbourn in 1943 to return to the U.S. for the famous bond tour.

However, we have big issues with the claim that Starcer was the original painter, for after the departure from their training field at Walla Walla, Washington, the air and ground echelons went their separate ways, and on different timetables. They did not meet up again until they were at Kimbolton in the UK. And aircraft 41-24485 did not join the 91st Bomb Group (BG) until the air echelon arrived at Dow Field in Bangor, Maine.

Aircraft, air echelon, and ground echelon movements

According to the Form 41maintenance log of aircraft 41-24485 (485), its first flight – one hour forty minutes – was on August 13 in the hands of “Johnson,” presumably a Boeing pilot in Seattle. Two days later, on the 15th, “Captain Hansen” conducted a fifty-minute flight, presumably for Army Air Corps acceptance.

On August 16, there was a four-hour flight with no pilot listed. On August 20, a five-hour forty-five-minute flight was logged, again with no pilot listed. And on August 21, the aircraft made a three-hour, fifteen-minute flight in the hands of 2nd Lt Chesbrough, during which it was reported that the right vacuum pump and AFCL aileron control were inoperative, and the No.2 supercharger was faulty at times. It is assumed that the August 16-21 flights were ferrying flights from Seattle to an air depot, and from the air depot to Dow Field, Bangor, Maine.

Meanwhile, on August 24, 1942, according to the 91st BG diary, the group left Walla Walla, where they had been training. The air echelon departed for Gowan Field, Boise, Idaho, at 8:00 a.m. The ground echelon had departed Walla Walla by 11:30 a.m. the same day aboard five trains.

The diary notes the arrival of the ground echelon in Fort Dix, New Jersey on August 28.

August 29, the group’s diary notes the air echelon turned over their B-17E aircraft to the Commanding Officer of Gowan Field, Boise, Idaho, and received six B-17F aircraft. The same day, approximately sixty men from the air echelon under the command of Col Stanley Wray departed Gowan Field for Denver, Colorado. Bob Morgan managed to hitch a ride with Colonel Wray. The remainder of the air echelon departed by rail under the command of Major John J. McNaboe on one troop train.

On August 30, the air echelon departed Denver in three flights of two aircraft. Of these, one proceeded to Jackson, Mississippi, one to Rentoul, Illinois, and one to Selfridge Field, Michigan.

Bob Morgan was flying with Colonel Wray, who, although heading for Bangor, also had a side trip planned to Jackson, Mississippi, with an overnight stop thrown in. Bob Morgan sent a telegram to Margaret saying he would call her. Margaret was not waiting for that telephone call. “I jumped in the car and took off for Jackson,” she recalled. “It was midnight before I got there.”

September 1, according to the 91st BG diary, the air echelon arrived at Dow Field, Bangor, Maine, where aircraft 485 was awaiting assignment to a crew.

On September 2, the group’s diary notes that the ground echelon: “Entrained from Fort Dix for New York point of embarkation arrived at 1930 hours. Put on the Queen Mary. The Enlisted Men went half into staterooms on ‘B’ deck and half on the Sun Deck, and we were quite surprised to find that they were to sleep on deck. Everyone issued ‘Chow Passes’. Once on board, no one was allowed to leave.”         

Corporal Starcer, mentioned earlier as a potential artist, was attached to the 441st Sub Depot, a group of maintenance personnel who did major aircraft repairs for the 91st BG, as opposed to aircraft servicing on the line. He would have been aboard the SS Queen Mary.

At Dow Field on September 3, the name ‘2nd Lt Morgan’ appears on the log for 485 for the first time – a one-hour flight that in the remarks shows “1st flight OK.”

Meanwhile, the group diary notes that on September 5: “At three-thirty o’clock today, the SS Queen Mary, bearing the entire ground echelon of the Group, sailed from New York Harbor, accompanied only by two escort planes.”

The log of the 401st Bomb Squadron (BS) – a 91st BG unit – describes it slightly differently: “Embarked for unknown destination from New York Point of Embarkation 1500 hours on HMS Queen Mary destination unknown but the bets were down on landing in England.”

On September 7, the 91st’s diary notes the air echelon of the 324th BS (Morgan’s unit of the 91st) received nine new B-17F aircraft and began conversion training.

Aircrew were allowed one flight to a destination of their choice. Morgan’s choice was Asheville, to visit his father. On landing at Asheville, Morgan notified Dow Field that 485 had brake trouble that would take three days to fix. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is no sign of any brake problems in 485’s maintenance log! This trip is reported differently in the Morgan/Powers book. There, on page 100, Morgan says the pretext for the journey was to pick up ‘our’ top-turret gunner Gene Atkins.

Across the Atlantic, on September 10, the 91st BG diary reports, the “SS Queen Mary with ground echelon aboard arrives at Gourock, Scotland.”

Back in Maine, on September 11, the 91st’s diary notes that the air echelon of the 322nd BS (another 91st squadron) received nine new B-17F aircraft and began conversion training.

On September 12, 1942, B-17F 41-24485 landed at Memphis for the first time. Bob Morgan had to get special permission to show Margaret Polk around “his” plane.

Meanwhile, in England, on September 12, the 91st’s diary states, the ground echelon disembarked from SS Queen Mary and proceeded by train to the town of Thrapston and then by ground transport to RAF Kimbolton.

Back in Bangor, on September 14, the group’s diary reports that the air echelon of the 401st BS received nine new B-17F aircraft and began conversion training.

At this point the total number of B-17Fs on 91st BG strength chart was 33. It is believed that before departure overseas, these aircraft were shuffled around to give each bomb squadron eight aircraft with one group spare.

We know Morgan took 41-24485 down to Memphis. We also know he did a trip down to Mitchel Field, New York, probably around September 18 or 19. He put in around fifty hours of flying time total. A little while later, Margaret signed for a registered package from Mitchel Field, Long Island, dated September 21, 1942. This was Morgan’s last stateside trip before departure for England. Inside the package was a diamond engagement ring.

Luckily for us, Margaret Polk kept all of the letters, notes, and telegrams from Morgan, and in the 1980s, we were able to have sight of and copy them. One example provides critical information – Bob Morgan just could not contain his exuberance on their recent engagement, and on September 27, he sent Margaret another telegram ‘Congratulations on our engagement. I am the luckiest person in the world to have found you.’ Not satisfied with sending the telegram, Bob Morgan also sent her a letter. “My dearest darling,” he wrote. “This is our day. I can’t write you very much, but at least you know I am thinking about you all the time. Our job is a big one, and you and I will do it together, always. I hope the ring and the picture arrived safely. The Memphis Belle will ride the sky safely, always. You can be sure. To you, I send my love. Forever yours, Bob”

That letter is the first written reference we have to the name Memphis Belle on the aircraft. We have always suspected that the name and design were already on the aircraft for this trip, but there is no evidence to prove it.

 Flight Order 209, sending the 324th BS of the 91st BG overseas from Bangor, Maine, was dated September 23, 1942, for the ‘Bolero’ flight, the code-name for the journey to the United Kingdom; Morgan and the crew got as far as Gander, Newfoundland, on September 25. According to Morgan, they then found themselves cooling their heels while a group of twin-engined North American B-25 Mitchells – which arrived just after the 324th BS – monopolized their ‘priority’ status for several days.

The trans-Atlantic flight took eleven hours and forty-five minutes total, their longest flight to date. Navigation was ‘on the money’ and the they arrived overhead Prestwick Airport in Scotland on time.

The next day Bob Morgan flew the Memphis Belle and her crew down to Kimbolton in three hours, arriving there around 3 p.m.

From this timeline, it is clear that if the artwork was on the nose of 41-24485 before it left the U.S., Cpl Tony Starcer could not have painted it. The day Bob Morgan first got his hands on the aircraft in Bangor, Starcer was nearly four hundred miles away, about to sail on the Queen Mary. So, who could have?

A conversation with Jeff Duford, the former Senior Curator at the Air Force Museum, sent us back to question our primary evidence again, just to triple-check. “There are significant differences between the two beyond colors of the girl artwork; red/blue clothing, blond/brunette hair,” Jeff said. “For instance, the way the hair was painted, and the shoes are quite different to the point that there could have been a second artist.”

We looked again, and indeed, there was evidence on these datable pictures confirming our thoughts that at some stage, the original work had been ‘touched up’, or more precisely, ‘over-painted.’ Early photographs show the girl on both sides of the aircraft painted as if she had been applied directly to the olive drab and grey paintwork, and, as far as we can tell, was done in the same style on each side, strongly suggesting that it was the same artist. Yes, the hair appears to be a different color on each side, as does the swimsuit, but the tones are softer on the early versions, and her shoe appears to be more clearly defined. 

Later versions show the ‘girl-shape’ outlined in a darker color, including the telephone cable and the laces on her shoes. There are also indications that the hair was done in blocks of color, with details overlaid with either darker or lighter lines. The same seems to have been done with the shoes and the swimsuit. There is also strong evidence – visible in these photographs – that the olive drab area around each artwork and the name was also ‘patched up’. All of this is clear evidence reiterating what we first thought – the work had been overpainted before the start of the War Bond Tour in June 1943.

This takes us back to the enquiry that started all this – the email from Kim Bragg, about her great-grandfather, Anthony A. Hebert. He was born in Worcester, Massachusetts, on November 27, 1903, and appears to have had training in graphic design, painting, and sign writing, and had the natural ability to produce accurate, precise work in a natural graphic style. His skills were much sought after, as demonstrated when he was asked to produce all the gold leaf lettering on the new Bulletin Board that paid tribute to the workers at the First Congregational Church in Veazie – a great honor. For many years, until his retirement in 1968, he was the display manager of the W.T. Grant store in Bangor, Maine.

Hebert settled in Veazie, a suburb just northeast of Bangor, and when war broke out, he went to work at Dow Field as a civilian aircraft painter. There is photographic evidence that in 1944 he was still at Dow Field, but by then he was the Senior Aircraft Painter.

The aircraft had the standard paint scheme and national markings applied at the time of manufacture. At that time, it was olive drab top and sides and grey undersides, along with the ‘stars and bars’ on the fuselage and wings, and the aircraft serial number on both sides of the vertical fin. The camouflage ‘splotches’ were thought to have been added after arrival in the UK. It was in this condition that the aircraft was delivered to the air depot to be assigned to a group and squadron. It was the job of civilian aircraft painters to apply unit markings. In the case of 41-24485, the DF:A was on either side of the fuselage. This could not and did not happen until it was assigned to the 91st BG at Dow Field.

Finally, as a graphic designer who does book layouts, there is a pronounced difference in styles between Tony Starcer and George Petty – Petty is very much in the fantasy-realistic style of the Peruvian illustrator Alberto Vargas. Tony Starcer’s work – as incredibly good as it was, and there is no doubt at all about that – follows a more simplistic, flowing style. Starcer had no formal training pre-war; it was just pure, raw talent. After the war, he attended Chouinard Art Institute in Los Angeles, now CalArt. Indeed, his style caught the eye of Walt Disney, who wanted to hire him, but Starcer refused as he thought there was no money in animation!

The authors are convinced that, on the balance of evidence, timing, and location, it was Anthony Hebert who faithfully reproduced the Petty artwork on both sides of the aircraft. The style difference could not be more noticeable than how the words “Memphis Belle” are so precise and correctly proportional—it’s as if they have been pulled straight from a font style sheet in a directory!

It was fortunate for Morgan that when he decided to have the Petty artwork applied to the aircraft – and he did not have long to do it, so had to use whoever was available –  there was a skilled professional right to hand! Anthony Hebert was the right person, in the right place at the right time. Now, finally, it is the right time to put him in his right place in history – the man who painted the Memphis Belle!

So, that’s our view. You may disagree with us. All we say is prove us wrong with contemporary primary source documentation!