I flew on the Super Constellations many, many times in the late 1950s. I loved the look and the feel of them. I usually went first class, thanks to a generous Dad, but sometimes not. So I sat in all parts of those wonderful, powerful machines. And in those days one travelled with suit and tie and was served a full course meal on a tray held in the lap. Very classy. And long flights were only slightly longer than today....with none..none..none.. of the airport hassle.
Yes, as a kid model maker I fell in love with all sorts of planes early on.. I'm not a pilot but wish I was. Went to the air museum in Ohio last suimmer....that was a treat! WC --- On Thu, 3/19/09, Michael Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "Innovation of new objects seems to go more and more toward the development of tawdry junk for the annual Christmas gift market.b > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 10:15 AM > On Mar 19, 2009, at 10:48 AM, William > Conger wrote: > > > Push for getting the engineers and designers, with > their rolled up sleeves and > > procket protectors back into the front windowed > offices and reseat the bespoke > > suited salesmen in the inside offices where they don't > have as much authority > > to tell a engineer to put a doo-dad in and take a > washer out. > > The development of microelectronics offers an interesting > and converse corollary to this. > > In the 50s, the USSR "beat" the US to space with Sputnik > and other "firsts" because, among other reasons, they had > developed far more powerful rockets. They could just throw > heavier things up into orbit. The US rocket development > teams couldn't match the Soviet pound for pound for a long > while, so in order to get comparable results from lower > throw-weights, the US had to reduce the bulk of the things > being put into orbit. Thus, the US led in the > miniaturization of electronic components because of the > limitations of the launch engines. > > Another thing: airplanes are far more dependent on > functional design of their outward shape than cars. If the > shape of the plane is deficient in some critical way, it > might fall out of the sky from an altitude of 10,000 or > 30,000 or more feet. And the landing won't be survivable. > Not so the car. Ugly or beautiful, sleek or boxy, trinket > filled or spartan, they can all go 60 or 80 or 100 MPH, and > they all have comparable survivability. They won't fall far > because, frankly, they're already on the ground. Car shape > has practically no relationship to any critical functional > demand, such as airworthiness. > > I love the design of airplanes. They are wonderful things, > and even the ones that seem to depart radically from what we > expect are mesmerizing, such as the two stealth planes, the > sharp-angled Stealth Fighter (which looks like a flying > doorstop in profile!) and the Stealth Bomber (which frankly > doesn't look like it can get aloft and remain stable). One > of my all-time favorite airplane designs was the Lockheed > Super Constellation. [See http://www.superconstellation.org/B ] > > But I am making William's argument: these beautiful things > were made by engineers, not ad-men! > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [email protected]
