The February 2001 issue of "Airways" magazine has an article in it that may be of interest to Railfans. The article is "The High Cost of Nostalgia" by Brian Lusk. Lusk does an excellent job pointing out the differences and similarities between history-minded railfans and aviation nostalgia buffs and how the objects of their pursuits (vintage trains vs. airplanes) differ, and the effects these differences have on the way a "fan" can pursue his or her hobby (or obsession, as the case may be.)

Lusk quotes a 1989 "Trains" magazine article by David P. Morgan and in general, demonstrates a good knowledge of railroad history. Among the points he mentions is the effect the advent of jet travel had on passenger trains, and also how restoring and operating fantrips with a historic piece of railroad equipment is at least feasible compared to the near- impossible proposition of doing the same with a vintage 707 or Convair CV880!

Anyway, it's always good to see our hobby accurately and respectfully represented in other special-interest publications, and I know at least some of you are aviation enthusiasts as well, so take a look! IMHO, "Airways" is always an excellent publication if your interests include commercial aviation.

davew833@yahoo.com

It's time for me to come out of the closet! I'm also an airplane buff. I go to airshows and read aviation magazines as well. I have read "Airways" in the past, and I shall certainly purchase this issue. While I love 4-8-4's and E-units, the sight of a Constellation or 707 also pulls at my heart strings. As one of my friends says, "Kevin has an iron mistress and an aluminum mistress."

kevingillespie@usa.net

I'm in the same boat. One great uncle on my mother's side of the family worked for Trans World Airlines starting after he got out of the AAF in 1945 through his retirement in the early 80s. He was A & P (airframe and powerplant) certified and worked on every type that flew for the company during those years. You can't beat the DC series aircraft or the older Boeings. I must say that I was held a bit aghast when Boeing reassigned the 717 designation to the MD-90 series. For those that are familiar with Boeing, the original 717 was the C-135/KC-135 prototype. Though they look similiar, there are significant differences between the C-135 and it's civilian counterparts, the 707-100/200/300 and 720 series airframes.

envlink@voyageronline.net

I must say
> that I was held a bit aghast when Boeing
> reassigned the 717 designation to the MD-90
> series. For those that are familiar with
> Boeing, the original 717 was the
> C-135/KC-135 prototype. Though they look
> similiar, there are significant differences
> between the C-135 and it's civilian
> counterparts, the 707-100/200/300 and 720
> series airframes.

Although this is not an aviation board, I must point out that the original 707/C-135 prototype
was numbered the 367-80. To the best of my knowledge, the 717 series was never used. I was indeed surprised, when Boeing renamed the MD-90, an outgrowth of the DC-9's into the 717 series. Incidentally, if there is a board for airliners similar to this one, I'd like to know the website.


kevingillespie@usa.net

Hardly ironic, as David P. Morgan's brother was an airline pilot, and DPM wrote at least one book on airline travel--something like "The Reluctant Airline Traveler's Diary" or something--and was able (by osmosis?) to spot airplanes as necessary.

LNER4472@gateway.net