Transcontinental air travel in 1930 in the Tin Goose

Ford's venerable Tri-Motor - NC8407

If you had flown across the USA on a commercial airliner in 1930, the chances are good it would have been on this airplane -- or one similar to it. 


There were about 300 of these built, and they were obsolete in less than 5 years (1935).  The next generation was the Boeing 247 (for a short time) and then the magnificent Douglas DC-3, the capabilities of which engendered the explosion of airline travel that took place very quickly thereafter.  But the Tin Goose was the first real step toward the "modern" airliner, and was very rugged and safe -- not only for its time, but even today. They were built from about 1927 up into the early 30s.


Back then, you would have only flown during daylight hours. You and nine other lucky passengers typically changed to the train at dusk, at least in the beginning. Either way, the speeds were about the same -- 80-90 mph on the train, not much more on the airplane (about 105 mph). Overnight airline flights were still mostly a thing of the future (not until the mid-nineteen-thirties).   Trivia: Shirley Temple was a passenger on the very first westbound overnight airline flight on a DC-3!


You would have landed about every 300 to 500 miles along the way, to fuel up the three thirsty radial engines in places like Liberal, KS or Winslow, AZ where Charles Lindbergh sited the airfield and arranged for services. It wasn't only fuel - they burned LOTS of oil. This was part of the engine design and helped to keep the motors cool.  So they topped off the oil tanks as well as the gas tanks. 


Most of these old Fords came with Wright Whirlwind engines of about 300 hp ( 3 motors, so 900 hp total).  Later models switched to early models of the Pratt and Whitney radials that produced 450 hp.  The Pratts increased the airplane's climb performance, but decreased its cruise speed to about 90 mph. This had less to do with engine power and more to do with propeller design. 

These were air-cooled engines of similar "technology" as the motors installed on Harley-Davidson motorcycles.  They were reliable way beyond other engines of their day. This particular airplane (NC8407) later got upgraded with two 450 hp motors, and one 550 hp motor - making it the most powerful Ford 4-AT-E Tri-Motor ever built.  Just for contrast, the single engine of a P-51D fighter in 1944, 15 years later, produced 1,500 hp!


In-flight service in those early days was mostly coffee served out of a thermos - just like today, there was no such thing as an in-flight hot meal on most flights (but for different reasons). Unlike today, the passengers would get off the airplane at intermediate stops for meals, when that was necessary.

Ford Tri-Motor at Lake of the Ozarks, June 1968

The total trip time, coast to coast, was probably in the range of about 30 hours or more of flight, in a noisy, drafty and cold cabin. There was no cabin pressurization, so the Fords flew low and slow - along the way, you were still a part of the passing environment (and weather), not soaring above it like we do today.  Because of that, crashes (and deaths) were frequent.

Cabin heating was very ineffective. But most folks considered it an adventure!  This was the cutting edge of the most advanced technology existing -- and only 27 years after the Wright Brothers first got into the air. 


I took these pictures of NC8407 in 1968 at a little airport in Missouri - but you can still fly on this airplane today. It eventually found its way into the ownership of the EAA, and makes its way around the airshow circuit on a regular basis. If you search on the EAA's website, you can view some of their photos of this aircraft, in flight, inside and out.  They bought it years ago, and restored it from a storm-damaged wreck into beautiful condition.  These aircraft were built so strong, that this aircraft is probably just as safe today as it was in 1929 when it was built. 

The Big Jet

This, my friends, is the great granddaddy of that Big Boeing Jet that takes you to wherever you are going today in just a few minutes or hours - it was the Model T Ford of airliners. We went from the Tri-Motor to inter-continental jet travel in just 30 years.  Flying was certainly quite different when this venerable Ford was first on the line.  As for me, I'd rather fly on an old Tri-Motor than I would a new 737 - just for the sheer fun of it!

Reality and the Nature of Death

Cranky Sage

Mortality has been on my mind. Before we start, I should tell you that I am not an atheist, although I lean in that direction. I hope that will be made clear should you read on and that you will see why I would think it important to make that distinction. That said, do you still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?  Do you cling to the idea that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the universe and that all other celestial objects revolve around it?

Each person must arrive at their own “truth” regarding what they believe about the nature of life and the universe, but there is probably only one reality and every other belief will be dead wrong.  I suspect none of us are anywhere close to real truth, with our narrow minds and myopic frame-of-reference. 

I am more than willing to leave you (and everyone else in the world) to your own beliefs, and furthermore, not to say or do anything to convince you to believe the way I do, or to damage your ability to believe in your own chosen way.  This is why I do not often engage with those who talk about their religious faith. But I cannot in good faith participate with you in what I believe to be falsehoods, lies even, though I think that quite often, religious ceremony and traditions of many kinds are beautiful and comforting for some. 

I do not pray.  I do not ask the intervention of a god in worldly affairs or outcomes. My beliefs are obviously different than most others around me.  However, for the same reasons that I don’t accept religion in general, I am not certain that what I think is the most logical reality is in fact the truth. Further, what I believe is probably truth is not what I’d wish was truth.  What I hope for (but cannot logically accept) is that a benevolent and loving God exercises supreme authority over all, that there is a spirit world, that there is life on some plane after earthly death and that I will see my loved ones again.  I wish I could believe that there is biblical justice. I also wish, in much the same way, that there is truly a Santa Claus. 

Of course when I "hope" for these things, my hope is for you, because quite obviously, I'd be destined for the "other" place, since I am not a "believer." That's a joke, sweetie.

Alas, what I hope for is not what I believe is real. I think the reality is that there is no god (or gods), there is no spirit world, nor ghosts, and dead is dead; ashes to ashes, dust to dust means exactly that. - there's nothing else left.  There is no separate entity that we could call a "soul." We humans are not special and we are only unique in our own celestial neighborhood to the extent that we have developed and evolved. Any belief otherwise is a function of ego - and fear.

I am agnostic.  I have no confidence or belief in those things that I wish were true but that I cannot believe are real.  The idea of Christian “faith,” for example, as sufficient basis for belief is convenient. comforting nonsense (and in its extreme manifestations, it is often manipulative and dishonest). The fairy tale of religion is simply not credible.  

Religious beliefs (including a trust in a life after death) are a manifestation of our inability to accept the harsh truth that we have a very short existence, that this short life span is the extent of everything that is and that we are not the "center" of anything. The only thing we are the "center" of is our own limited imagination.

Do not quote the Bible to me – or any other religious book of any persuasion.  I do not accept that these texts are of a divine origin, any more than I believe in a virgin birth, that anyone has ever performed “miracles” or that virgins await the faithful Muslim jihadist in "heaven."  In the case of the Christian text, for example, from the very beginning, the wise men could not even agree on which books should be in it, and "truth" changes regularly based on exigent needs.  At best, those books contain learned wisdom; at their worst, they are toxic.

Atmospheric Wonders by Mandy

I hear and see people point to events, things, beauties, serendipitous coincidences, always with the comment that “there must be a God, because right there is evidence of God;” a beautiful sunset or the beauty of a landscape, for example, or when something has happened that is attributed to “godly intervention,” such as the seemingly miraculous recovery of someone who was near death, or who escaped death in some unbelievable manner. In every such case, the doubting side of my intellect thinks (but rarely says) that there is no logical connection, that there are other more realistic explanations.  

If you shared my cosmology and beliefs, attaching the intervention of “god” to such things is just as illogical and fanciful as is a belief in omens as predictors of the future, or the position of the stars as a control on earthly events and happenings, or a full moon as the “cause” of malevolent occurrences, or that the message in a fortune cookie is true. When you "give it over to God," I roll my eyes and say "please."  If you want something, or have some need, you are the one who can get it for yourself, not some imaginary supernatural deity.

You might ask, “why are we here? What is the purpose of life?"  I would turn your question around. Does there have to be a purpose; I'm not convinced. Believing that everything started from nothing by the hand of a “god” is just as unbelievably fantastical as believing that it wasn't, however unsatisfying that conclusion.  We can’t answer the question of how that might have occurred any more than we can fathom how a god might have done the same thing, or of how that god might have come about, or why that "loving" god lets the innocent suffer. 

We do not have to answer those questions here and now (but that's probably some of the difference between me and you). We cannot answer those questions of the why and the wherefore with the information that we have – or that will ever be known to us here.   We need to come to an acceptance of that unknown, because we can’t change it and we cannot solve it. 

The future of the sun - a Nova

Life is fragile – life is, while (I believe) universal, at best temporary and an aberration.  The possibility of life is strictly limited to a specific set of environmental limits; because the conditions of our celestial environment change over time, life as we know it is transitory.  Think about the fact of climate change at its extreme - our planet will in fact be hostile to life at some future time. 

What we should do is to accept life the way it exists for us (in our observed reality) – we must live with what we have and make the very best of everything that we can accomplish.  What we need to do is simply live. Like the old sayings – "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade" or "grow where you’re planted."  You get the idea. 

For me, this philosophy includes facing, accepting and making peace with the likely truth that this very short life is all there is.  I'm willing to bet that life is not a do-over (or something that continues past death).  My advice, therefore, is plan accordingly and practice good stewardship, because when it's over, it's over. Whether the fat lady (or Bob) has sung or not.