Flanderian

Connoisseur
While not entirely Art Deco, the boat planes of the '30's were fabulous conveyances, especially compared to current alternatives. 😢 And redolent of the era.

Able to land beyond the reef of a vacation paradise, properly dressed travelers would be met by a stylish motor launch to ferry them in.

What price progress!? 😭


FB01.jpg



FB02.jpg



FB03.jpg



FB04.jpg
 
Last edited:

Oldsarge

Moderator and Bon Vivant
I think the reason I was so eager to see Raiders of the Lost Ark was because Jones took a Pan American Clipper to Asia. I have several Hawaiian shirts with flying boats. Haven't worn any in years but I do love the images.
 

Fading Fast

Connoisseur
While not entirely Art Deco, the boat planes of the '30's were fabulous conveyances, especially compared to contemporary alternatives. 😢 And redolent of the era.

Able to land beyond the reef of a vacation paradise, properly dressed travelers would be met by a stylish motor launch to ferry them in.

What price progress!? 😭


View attachment 46857


View attachment 46858


View attachment 46859


View attachment 46860
Incredible pics - that plane is such a wonderful mess - and, of course, love that style of travel. To be sure, I'd be the guy in the overalls sweeping up the hanger and not the guy elegantly attired flying in the plane, but fun to dream anyhow.
 

Flanderian

Connoisseur
Incredible pics - that plane is such a wonderful mess - and, of course, love that style of travel. To be sure, I'd be the guy in the overalls sweeping up the hanger and not the guy elegantly attired flying in the plane, but fun to dream anyhow.
You made me revisit my post. And upon doing so, saw I had mistakenly typed contemporaneous travel, rather than current, and immediately thought of you and your fondness for rail travel, realizing in the process that rail of that era did indeed offer some fabulous ways to travel.
 

Fading Fast

Connoisseur
You made me revisit my post. And upon doing so, saw I had mistakenly typed contemporaneous travel, rather than current, and immediately thought of you and your fondness for rail travel, realizing in the process that rail of that era did indeed offer some fabulous ways to travel.
Can't unring the bell, but after WWII, I sure wish we had invested in rail the way we did in an interstate highway system. We'd have one heck of an interstate rail system today if we had.
 

Oldsarge

Moderator and Bon Vivant
After WWII, Americans were so starved for the ability to travel that cars were at the top of their wish lists. Besides, the interstate highway system was designed to allow the transport of armies across N. America. That is allowed civilians to take to the open road was just a side benefit.
 

Fading Fast

Connoisseur
After WWII, Americans were so starved for the ability to travel that cars were at the top of their wish lists. Besides, the interstate highway system was designed to allow the transport of armies across N. America. That is allowed civilians to take to the open road was just a side benefit.
I get it and, maybe, the interstate was the better choice, at minimum, at the time. I believe we could have done both, but we starved, literally, starved passenger rail out of business. The least we could have done was maintained what we had and started building toward a high-speed rail network.

Now, for a lot of reason that would quickly become political conversations, we can't build a mile of high-speed rail for anything shy of a ridiculously high price.

And don't get me wrong, I love America's car culture (just watched "Ford v Ferrari" and got an adrenaline shot of American car culture), just wish we hadn't neglected rail to the point that we can't seem to get it back let alone move forward.

It's only a feeling, but I've always wondered if some of the "transporting of armies" argument was more about politics needing a way to sell the interstate to the public as we seemed to move armies pretty well - on rail - without it during WWII.
 

Oldsarge

Moderator and Bon Vivant
I get it and, maybe, the interstate was the better choice, at minimum, at the time. I believe we could have done both, but we starved, literally, starved passenger rail out of business. The least we could have done was maintained what we had and started building toward a high-speed rail network.

Now, for a lot of reason that would quickly become political conversations, we can't build a mile of high-speed rail for anything shy of a ridiculously high price.

And don't get me wrong, I love America's car culture (just watched "Ford v Ferrari" and got an adrenaline shot of American car culture), just wish we hadn't neglected rail to the point that we can't seem to get it back let alone move forward.

It's only a feeling, but I've always wondered if some of the "transporting of armies" argument was more about politics needing a way to sell the interstate to the public as we seemed to move armies pretty well - on rail - without it during WWII.
True, but we weren't defending a seaboard from invasion and after masterminding Operation Overlord, that's exactly what Eisenhower was worried about. After all, the closest Soviet port to the US was on the Pacific.
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.