Nostalgia...comment from another forum, your thoughts?

[Tom H]

Comment from a non aviation forum by a fellow aviator....

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/sh ... post566682

Post #7

Well worth reading the whole post for a full perspective, but here are a couple comments from the post to start the conversation.

What really bothers me is the way the aviation community in Edmonton focusses on heritage.

I agree!

As a private pilot and aviation enthusiast, it seems to me that there is too much emphasis in Canadian aviation on nostalgia and great times gone by.

and

Nostalgia is great, and once or twice a year I really enjoy going to the aviation museum. But weekly I am always looking what is available, what is new, and current. Few in the aviation community in Edmonton have tried to tap into that interest.

I'd really like thoughts from a broader base (your thoughts) on the comments and post.

I'm very interested to see the perspectives.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Shiny Side Up]

The simple part of it is that there are different interests in aviation. That's good, and it needs to be that way, even if sometimes its tough to understand. I'm not so sure if "nostalgia" is really correct, it doesn't seem to be the right word for the idea that needs to be conveyed here.

I can however see that one of the things that aviation museums do need to do, is make sure that the past, connects to the present and future. One of the things that is so important about preserving Canada's aviation past is how it is so linked to its future, and if its going to grow, people - especially those with a vested interest in aviation - need to make sure those lessons are learned.

The closure of CYXD is one of those hard lessons, which I'm not so sure got through to the "new" aviation crowd. On the last day, there seemed to be a lot fo preaching to the choir. A point that was maybe missed, is how do we prevent this sort of mistake from happening in the future. CYXD may be lost, but there are airports and aviation interests that can still be saved out there. If people could only get the message about how much has been lost, the scope of what's at stake.

Personally, I like old airplanes, its why I do what I do. Someone's going to have to know how to fly them in the future.

BTW, sitting in the Sabre at the museum was really neat. I can't remember his name, but thanks to the old guy who let me. Those boys must have had the time of their lives. Truthfully, sitting in that seat didn't look like it would be that hard. Everything was where it was supposed to be.

[Schooner69A]

"...Truthfully, sitting in that seat didn't look like it would be that hard. Everything was where it was supposed to be."

SSU: it WAS easy to fly... With certain caveats, of course. There were no duals in the RCAF. The hard wing aircraft would snap over inverted if you pulled a little hard turning from downwind to final. The slatted version was much more friendly, but you could still find yourself in trouble if you didn't pay attention. All versions were typical in that increasing the angle of attack on final without adequate power would raise the nose but increase the angle of descent and sink rate. Both of which would have you trundling across the grass short of the runway at best and in a broken heap at worst.

The hard part was working the aircraft - air fighting and gunnery were good indications of your mastery of the aircraft. You are right in one respect though; we DID have the time of our lives! (Three and a half years of it)

John

[Colonel Sanders]

It's true, nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Sorry, just couldn't resist

It's hard to put into words, but aviation today is
a collection of knowledge and skills of designing,
constructing, maintaining and operating aircraft,
that was paid dearly for in blood in years past.

Aviation history isn't something that is abstract
and useless and disconnected from reality.

Knowledge of aviation history is what keeps us
alive today.

Someone that doesn't comprehend (or merely
outright disregards) the above, is doomed to relive
all the lessons of aviation history in his brief but
exciting existence, which he should film for youtube
and the TSB.

Pop quiz: someone offers you a P-51D or a new
Beech Baron with yards of glass in the panel. They
cost about the same. Which would you take? Why?

[MrWings]

I couldn't afford to operate the P-51.

[Colonel Sanders]

I doubt anyone reading this could afford to
maintain the G58, either. Bought any parts
from Beechcraft lately?

[Meecka]

The Mustang. Even if I had to live in her. Mind you I don't fly. I can however fix it!

[frozen solid]

The Mustang. I probably would only use either aeroplane to get somewhere fast, and the Mustang is faster. I'd probably spend more time polishing it than flying it, and the Mustang is shinier. Linemen at an FBO would take better care of it, and since my wife is afraid of small aeroplanes I'd be traveling alone anyway. Plus, the Baron will become obsolete quickly. The mustang couldn't possibly become more obsolete than it already is. And I've always preferred a stick over a yoke, and everyone knows taildraggers are easier to tow and push around. So I guess that's it really. Also you can use it to attack your enemies.

[1000 HP]

I'd take the Mustang. Then I'd outfit it with sidewinders and smart bombs and a 30mm Cannon. I'd update the electronics and market it to the third world as a cheap fighter. Plus, no nasty modern chemicals to give you cancer. Oh, and I'd build them in Bangladesh to keep the labour costs down.
Obsolete? Nah

[Hipster Exterminator]

I considered myself part of the Edmonton aviation community, but the only focus I perceived in the last twenty years was surviving to fight another day.

But ultimately nostalgia is sometimes all you have left. My family is originally from a dreadful little town in Indiana. (My parents moved to Alberta when I was a baby) It is the place criminals in Chicago go to dispose of bodies. But historically it was a major transport centre that was wiped out by modernization, transport trucks and industries moving to the southern states. If you want to meet some people focused on nostalgia and the "good old days" hit them up.

When it comes to our status as "Gateway to the North", well that was our birthright and we have lost it for all time. That justifies some moody retrospective.

[Shiny Side Up]

The P-51 of course. There's only going to be less chances at that as time goes on, there will be plenty of chances to fly some twin with glass. V-12 power with a tail wheel? How can one turn that down? Something different to learn.

[Old Dog Flying]

[Tom H]

Awesome model ODF

The aircraft still exists after a very shaky past and is now in Camo owned by Bob Jens (of Mossie fame) in BC.

That aircraft actually operated from the Museum's hangar in 1946 as part of WEE flight, then was sold surplus and became the aircraft of your model.

If you have more pics of her (the model) you would like to share I would sure love to see them...looks great!

Tom H

[Old Dog Flying]

CF-GMZ is now registered as C-GSPT. Originally on RCAF strength as TZ138 (the only Spitfire to operate off skis!) I'll be building another model as per the 1948 version.

Barney

[x-wind]

Yes, I feel that there maybe too much emphasis on aviation history & not enough on the present state or the future in museums . I'm writing this for you Tom.

Definition of museum: a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited.

Not just historical.

[Beefitarian]

Anyone want to share the story about that five blade prop?

[iflyforpie]

That's what you need when you double the power but still have the original landing gear and wings. Can't make it bigger like the P-47 or the F4U, so you add more blades.

They had contra-rotating six blades I believe before they stopped production. And to think it was a wooden two-bladed fixed pitch prop that the first Spits had.

[Tom H]

Thanks X-Wind

Definition of museum: a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited.

Agree and while not yet where we want it I think we are getting closer.

Our exhibits range the eras of flight right up to the Beech Hawker 125 and the 737 so we can present the evolution of technology.

Our flight simulation is more than the public access as we are developing ( with partners) procedural unts.

Our education programming covers from theory of flight to trades work experience (30+ modules available) as well we are working to bring back avionics and structures training when the New Museum at Villeneuve opens. (we have most of the required equipment already for both and a list of available instructors willing to contract)

Presenters have covered all the ages and technologies right up to a glass panel cockpit course (temporarily discontinued due to lack of space)

Working with the EAA and EHAA we have modern light aircraft fairly well covered.

And our "Art of Flight" art show was our first into the artistic world, plus several theatrical productions we worked with in the facility.

So we are working on it, while staying true to the core mandate.

Thanks again.

[iflyforpie]

Back to the topic at hand.... yes and no.

Aviation favours a focus on the past for a number of reasons. The people who have the spare time to promote aviation are often retired or well advanced in their careers, so are biased to the past. The planes that can be lent to museums and such are old.... because the new ones are still out there earning a living (heck, lots of the old ones are too.... one plane I fly is turning 50 this coming year). Finally, the interest in the past. In WWII, nobody thought the Tiger Moth or Harvard was a special aircraft.... just as nobody thinks a 172 or a Katana is a special aircraft now. It is only with passing decades that we look back with interest and often gloss over the hardships and struggles.

That being said, we cannot march into the future looking backwards. There are many aspects of aviation today that should be focused on as well.... and not just the doom and gloom of airport closures, high fuel prices, sub-standard training, racing to the bottom, and the loss of perks for both flight crews and passengers.

We should focus on things like the opening of commercial sub orbital flights (as close to most of us as a flight on the Concorde.... but still exciting none the less), the ever increasing homebuilt scene, the wonderful new technologies which may be seen as distractions to the purists, but when used properly have made aviation safer than it ever has been before.

As for Edmonton..... I can see it being pretty hard to concentrate on the present as operators and businesses closed and people geared up for the eventual shutting down of the airport. All that was left was what was and what could have been.

[Old Dog Flying]

I could be wrong but all Spitfire prop blades were made of wood with a type of plastic laminated to them. In the winter of 1947, TZ138, enroute from Edmonton to Churchill, encountered bad weather and running low on fuel , landed on the snow covered runway at The Pas, Manitoba. The runway was not ploughed, only rolled and compacted.

The Spitfire high pressure tires went through the crust and TZ138 ended up on its nose. All five blades were destroyed but there was no damage to the engine so new blades were installed and a set of old Tiger Moth skis were located and modified so that the wheels would fit into wooden boxes on the skis. The Spitfire departed and the skis were last seen doing about 120 kts across the lake.

Barney