Am I the only one that feels that there is too much of a bias towards the military when it comes to historic aviation in the UK? I only have to look at Julys Flypast mag and of the major articules not one is about civil historic aircraft. The only civil items are in the news sections. I love historic aircraft, but civil ones, failing that military transports and 50’s jets. I was brought up under the Heathrow flight path, the nearest military bases were 30 miles away so I became very civil orientated.I also love vintage light aircraft.
All this countries large museums are run by the military unlike most of Europe where the large national civil/military museum is the norm. Why with the UK’s massive airline industry,experience and wealth could we have not kept a Viscount or Hearald flying by a company similar to the DDA?Air Atlantic seem to be our only sucess story.Why is it that historic civil aircraft take such a back seat when it comes to being featured?
By: paulc - 25th July 2003 at 13:02
Another problem is the actual cost of operating any form of flying machine – the bigger and more complex they are, the more expensive they are to a)maintain b) operate and c) insure.
A group I know of has an airworthy PBY and find it very difficult to get sufficient funds to operate it regularly. I am sure it would have been very welcome at RIAT but the operating costs & logistics may well have been prohibitive.
By: Steve Bond - 25th July 2003 at 08:09
Generally I agree with everybody (should have been a politician!) My first love is undoubteduly with the military, but I too find a lot of civil aeroplanes fascinating – a Connie – tedious? I particularly enjoy pre-war aeroplanes, but we have to face reality that the great airshow-going public is by and large, not interested in them, and they are the people who pay the bills that help keep vintage aircraft flying.
Nevertheless, there must be room for some, especially the more exotic types and I for one can’t wait to see the HP.42 replica doing pleasure flights at Duxford!!!
By: Seafuryfan - 24th July 2003 at 23:29
Aeroplane Monthly used to go on and on about the ‘inter-war’ civvie (and sometimes military) types (e.g. ‘The Airspur Monocoupe – Gestation Years 1921-1925’) the military coverage (it seemed to me) was pretty sparse. That’s why I used to prefer Flypast. Now they’ve changed emphasis for the better, thank goodness.
I think that more people find military aircraft more exciting than civvies, even though the civvies have obviously made a major contribution to aviation. And by neccesity the most exciting developments in aviation occur when there’s a scrap on.
By: kev35 - 24th July 2003 at 23:25
Snapper’s touched on an interesting point ‘They remind me of people who faced something I won’t have to.’ And for me that’s probably the most important point. If it wasn’t for the people who fought in Fairey Battles, Blenheims, Hampdens, Lancs, Typhoons Spitfires et al the world would be a very different place and we wouldn’t have seen a range of magnificent post war aircraft that are now just a memory. I have fond memories of Viscounts and Heralds passing overhead into Birmingham. But, to some we owe a debt, and perhaps my continued interest in the military side of historical aviation might just go some way towards paying that debt.
No disrespect intended towards anyone interested in civil aviation, just that it doesn’t hold the same importance for me.
Regards,
kev35
By: Snapper - 24th July 2003 at 23:12
I like flying guns. Period. They remind me of people who faced something I won’t have to.
By: mike currill - 24th July 2003 at 22:10
Vintage Light Aircraft
I cannot think of any aviation magazine which gives a great deal of coverage to vintage light aircraft, about the best we get is the occasional article in one of the normal aviation mags.
By: David Burke - 24th July 2003 at 22:03
Erm Nitram – What makes a Dakota in military markings more interesting than the same machine in a BEA scheme ?
Was the Avro York doing sterling work in the Berlin Airlift alongside
civil Halifax’s tedious ?
How about the incredible Miles Aerovan or the Islander ?
I would much rather see beautifully preseved airliners which are open to the public rather than rows of military aircraft which are completely out of bounds !
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th July 2003 at 22:01
Re: historic militay bias
I think it’s down to what little segment of history they represent. The deeds of your average Second World War aircraft and it’s crews will probably strike more of a chord with the public than, say, a Viscount. Personally, I can sympathise with you to an extent, especially on the old flutteries, that was the REAL age of aviation pioneering, the likes of which we’ll never see again.
[/i] All this countries large museums are run by the military unlike most of Europe where the large national civil/military museum is the norm.[/QUOTE]
Eh? Never been to Duxford / Newark / East Fortune / Coventry / East Midlands / etc, then? 😉
By: nitramMkII - 24th July 2003 at 21:28
To answer your question (Concord, flying boats and pre-war biplanes excepted) they are all mind numbingly tedious
Sign In
July 24, 2003 at 9:15 pm