Aviation, Masculinity and Good Books

[Guest SrPilot]

For those of you looking for something to read, Alan Meyer's 2015 book on "Weekend Pilots" probably is laying on a shelf somewhere towards the rear of your nearest bookstore.

 

Here's a review of the book:

 

H-Net Reviews

 

Described as a "bottom-up, cultural analysis of the history of post-WWII aviation", "Weekend Pilots argues that postwar private pilots created and maintained a culture and community that 'demonstrated and celebrated ideals and behaviors traditionally associated with masculinity in America,' and that this culture shaped the evolution of private aviation during the period . . . ."

 

Having flown the Cessna 337, I am a mite intrigued by the author's argument that the "masculine culture also rejected technologies aimed at simplifying or automating the process of flying—as he demonstrates with the failure of the Cessna Skymaster to reach widespread acceptance among pilots." I thought it was the shortcomings in the airplane, not the need for masculinity bolstering in the pilots.

 

The reviewer further notes: "Chapters 3 and 4 explore the delicate balance between skill and safety as pilots sought to emphasize their masculine identity and prowess as pilots."

 

And all these years of owning and flying both conventional and tricycle geared airplanes, I never realized that I could have better projected a masculine persona by sticking with the taildragger. "In explaining the persistence of some pilots’ preferences for tail-dragging landing gear over tricycle landing gear, Meyer points to a group of pilots who linked their masculine, highly skilled reputations as pilots to their ability to land this comparatively difficult style of plane. Meyer points to this association as a reason for the persistence and popularity of taildragger aircraft."

 

Me? If I can find a copy, I have yet to read Sir Gordon Taylor's The Sky Beyond.

 

 

[rgmwa]

You might like this recently published book then: The Man Who Saved Smithy - Rick Searle - 9781760113407 - Allen & Unwin - Australia. Probably available on Amazon, and well worth reading.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[IBob]

M....can't say I regard my enjoyment of aviation as being linked in any way to my gonads, but there are always people who will, along with the inevitable egos and 'experts'.

 

My most recent enjoyable flying read was Ernest K Gann's 'Fate Is the Hunter'...I'd heard the title for years, but never realised it was about flying. It's refreshingly free of gonads too....

 

I also greatly enjoyed Weekend Wings by Frank Kingston Smith....no brandishing of the cojones there either...

 

And there was a book about the Flying Tigers, which went on to describe the extraordinary proliferation of secret CIA ownership of aircraft around the world....undoubtedly lots of nuts there..but I can't recall the title

 

Oh and The Right Stuff was good, too..........the book, that is...definitely needed big ones for some of that!

 

 

[gandalph]

An interesting review SrPilot, I look forward to seeing Kaz's take on it.........

 

 

[facthunter]

Having been around during that period, in a country where we had many famous women pilots, (Certainly not a majority, or even a large %) I can't recall a great emphasis on "masculinity" real or imagined relating to flying activity. Just about ALL planes were tailwheel so no attempt to be a hero by flying one.

 

Surf life Saving clubs and football, cricket and beer drinking would eclipse the flying scene, as a ballsy, men's pastime, here. Women don't go to Flying shows to get/see masculine men. Many of the desirable planes were single seat.

 

A Flashy motorcycle or particularly a fast car, or speedboat cruiser would be more of a chick magnet. A "fat" wallet is pretty attracting for many. Owning a plane makes you look rich but makes you poor. I challenge the assumption in the book. You couldn't afford to take a woman out and in those days, if you were flying much. Also in those days the MAN paid for Everything, if you asked someone out. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

in those days the MAN paid for Everything, if you asked someone out. Nev

You mean you don't nowadays, Nev??

 

 

[facthunter]

No the religious charity organisations don't discriminate. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Maybe the big gonads of pilots are only in relation to those who envy them.

 

 

[IBob]

Maybe the big gonads of pilots are only in relation to those who envy them.

Whatever theory fits the socks stuffed down ya jocks, i suppose?

 

 

[Garfly]

SrPilot,

 

Thanks for the reference to Alan Meyer's book:

 

Weekend Pilots: Technology, Masculinity and Private Aviation in Postwar America.

 

He's probably over-egged the pudding, as academics are wont to do, but still, I'd say he's on to something. It is, after all, a sociology piece attempting to dissect a 'culture'. It shouldn't be surprising that members of the group-under-study refuse to recognise themselves in it. It's not like he was saying that those (cultural) attitudes are consciously held, front-of-mind, across the private aviation sub-culture.

 

But to take the tail-wheel issue. You don't have to dig deep (in your memory or in Google's) to turn up the out-there notion that 'real-men fly tail draggers'.

 

First on the search list:

 

"Nose wheels are skinny and flimsy. Taildraggers are MANLY. On rough sod or grass airstrips that REAL MEN use, the big, strong main wheels in front pound over the humps (should I pursue the phallic metaphors… ?). "

 

 

Tricycles Are For Kids. REAL MEN Drag Their Tails!

 

This idea crops up all over the place, even on this site, and the fact that it's mostly used in jest doesn't make it any less 'meant' at some level; kidding-on-the-square. For social scientists, the search for the source of such notions (beyond what's on the surface) is their meat and potatoes. (A good reason to trust, but verify what they say.)

 

Obviously, that particular idea could only have formed after tricycle gear became established in the 50's and 60's as the 'easier' alternative for the less skilled (read less heroic).

 

Conventional gear clearly had to wait until it wasn't to attain valour status.

 

For me, it's not hard to cotton on to the idea that a 'hero-culture' has grown up around aviators from the beginning. (The cultural evidence is legion.) And furthermore, that hero status in our culture generally (with some notable rule-proving exceptions) attaches mostly to males. So it's not hard to accept that there'd be cultural trickle down even to the likes of us.

 

After all, Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines didn't spring from nowhere.

 

And for us baby-boomers, WWII sure gave it a shot in the arm

 

It wouldn't have occurred to me that female flyers would be affronted by Meyer's book in the way that males seem to be. I'd assume that women have had the chance to observe the 'culture' from the outside. Wouldn't they complain only that his thesis is but a penetrating glimpse into the obvious?

 

I reckon Meyers has a point when he says "masculine culture ... rejected technologies aimed at simplifying or automating the process of flying". I've been reflecting along these lines myself in the context of the on-going BRS (airframe parachutes) debate.

 

Of course, there are lots of technically valid reasons on the nay side (as there are for nose draggers and in-line twins) but I've often felt that unconscious arguments - along the lines Meyers suggests - were sometimes feeding into the anti-BRS case. This feeling came as much from examining my own thinking as anyone else's. It was almost like there was a hidden agenda being pushed by the 'culture' which argued that taking away any chance of a heroic forced-landing was some kind of insult to airmanship. Apropos that "delicate balance between skill and safety as pilots sought to emphasize their masculine identity and prowess as pilots." quoted by SrPilot above.

 

It was Richard L. Collins (Flying Magazine/AirFacts Journal) of all people, who confirmed to my satisfaction that 'masculinist culture' indeed exists in GA and that it makes good sense to defy it when needs be.

 

He recently wrote in AirFacts Journal:

 

"There were a couple of notable Cirrus chute uses recently. In both cases, the engine failed and in both cases the pilot apparently decided to use the chute instead of fly to a conventional forced landing. Is that a manly action? Absolutely. If a pilot has any doubt about a situation and has a chute available, it should be used ... The pilot’s job is to minimize risk. I have nothing but admiration for the chute-poppers and feel that what they did was get their money’s worth out of the device. "

 

If you lose control, it'll ruin your whole day - Air Facts Journal

 

 

[Marty_d]

Tricycles Are For Kids. REAL MEN Drag Their Tails!

So do dogs with worms...

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Get a firm grip on your joysticks gentlemen.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

But to take the tail-wheel issue. You don't have to dig deep (in your memory or in Google's) to turn up the out-there notion that 'real-men fly tail draggers'.

Oh I know that some people think that taildraggers are more the man's airplane. Had several myself and sometimes at airshows I could almost feel the envy from Cessna drivers as they looked at my Hiperbipe, RV3A, GlaStar or Citabria. In fact, at an airshow at an Air Force base, the A10, F15 and F16 drivers were all over looking at my Citabria while I was trying to get them to let me sit in their airplanes.

 

Myself? I like 'em all, but maybe the "real" men fly neither trikes nor t-draggers but airplanes with a "bicycle" gear - i.e, U-2, B47, B52

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNYg2i9Jgvs (U2 landings)

 

 

 

 

 

[Garfly]

True Sr! It comes down to this:

 

 

Versus this:

 

 

(or this ... ;-)

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

That last one can't be good for the CG.

 

 

[IBob]

Erm...before we lash ourselves into a frenzy of chest-thumping here...one has to say...looking around the ageing membership (absolutely no pun intended) of your average aeroclub...that with the glorious exception of a few magnificent peacocks, the Right Stuff candidates are...one can only assume...very cleverly hidden???

 

 

[cherk]

That last one can't be good for the CG.

Marty, I think that's the point.........look at the elevator !!

 

 

[Marty_d]

Marty, I think that's the point.........look at the elevator !!

With an extra load at the back I would have thought the elevator would be pointing a bit downwards to maintain level flight...

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It must have been an early advertisement for Superglue.

 

 

[IBob]

I think anyone who has been outside an aircraft in flight will tell you that he's sitting on the tail while they turn her over on the ground...and...Photoshop is born!!!

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not convinced it's shopped. The flow effect on the clothing hair etc Planes flying slow have up elevator. Nev

 

 

[Garfly]

IBob, sure, recreational-aviation is the new lawn-bowls.

 

But that doesn't stop old silverbacks thumping their chests!!

 

And sorry Nev, this time the cynic might have a point.

 

 

Elevator-music is born!

 

 

[Marty_d]

I'm not convinced it's shopped. The flow effect on the clothing hair etc Planes flying slow have up elevator. Nev

I didn't think it was shopped either because of the lack of pixellation around the outline - but as Garfly has just proved, Photoshop has become a lot better since I last used it!

 

But in terms of the flow effect on clothing and hair, if he was sitting there when the engine was running I'm sure prop wash would have a similar effect.

 

 

[facthunter]

True, It's got full up elevator as it would when running up. Nev

 

 

[Garfly]

Well, Marty, now you've forced me to fess up ... this one is also slightly improved.

 

Aye, that'd be me in the Flying Flea! Yet such a flea, I never did see.

 

(There ya go ... the desperate attempt of a tri-gear guy to fake his masculinity rating!)