Old planes

North American FJ-3 Furies.

 When I found the album with photos from my New England grandfather's life, I also found a packet of photos from my Navy grandfather's time in the service, most seemingly from the early to mid-1950s.  They were photos of naval aircraft of that era, at least some of which my grandfather had flown if the comments jotted on the back are any indication.

As I've written about before, he began his career flying Grumman F3Fs

Convair R4Y. Douglas ADs in the background.

before Pearl Harbor, was flying Brewster F2As when the Japanese attacked, switching to the Grumman F4F at the end of that December.  He engaged in his first air combat flying that plane in February, 1942, then flying it through the Solomon Islands campaign before his squadron was equipped with the Grumman F6F, which he flew for the rest of the war.

Immediately after the war he flew the Chance-Vought F4U, which, from the few comments of his I've read about it, he didn't think much of, calling it "the hose nose" and "the pig." His first jet was the McDonnell F2H Banshee but transitioned to the Grumman

McDonnell F2H Banshee.

F9F which he flew on a Korean cruise in 1951 (about which I've written).  His job was flak suppression for the  F4Us and Douglas AD ground attack planes. I guess that was because the jet was faster and so less susceptible to being hit by AAA.

After Korea, he flew several different aircraft, including the Banshee again, which he seemed to like.  It was a time of rapid evolution of carrier fighters, most of them ranging from being not very good to flat-out dangerous -- the Chance-Vought F7U was one of the latter, my grandfather almost losing his life trying to trap in one. Rather than chance another try he was ordered to land at a shore base.

Beech SNB (Twin Beech) flying over a Lockheed C-130.

Aside from assorted aerodynamic dysfunctions, a serious difficulty with these early jets was the engines, which were very slow to spool up so if you dropped below the glide path and needed to add power quickly, you couldn't, and a ramp strike was assured.  It was not until the McDonnell-Douglas F4B and variants came along that the Navy's jets had enough immediate power on hand to eliminate that danger.  Even the Chance-Vought F8E that my grandfather flew in the early days of the Viet Nam war, the last before he retired, had the slow spooling problem.

Anyway, scattered in this post are a few of the photos I found. Looking through them, I couldn't help spotting the Twin Beech in the photo above. It seems like that airplane has been around forever.  The company built 9,000 of them, only ending production in 1970, a run of 33 years, and hundreds are still flying, a number still in commercial service of one type or another.  The C-130 it's flying over in the photo has also been around seemingly forever.  I flew in one in Afghanistan from Bagram to Leatherneck and also on a trip from Futenma, Okinawa, to Iwo Jima.

Lockheed T-33B

I always liked the look of the T-33: simple and clean (like Utada Hikaru's song!) lines, no angles and bends and protuberances. I read somewhere that the nose is that of the P-38, reused when Lockheed engineers designed the original P-80, the fighter the T-33 trainer was derived from.  Save a buck where you can, I guess.  Richard Bong, the Army Air Force's top ace in World War Two, was killed test-flying a P-80.  The main fuel pump failed on take-off from Lockheed Field in Burbank and he had forgotten to switch on the auxiliary fuel pump, even though it's an item on the pre-flight checklist. Instead of remembering, oh, right, the aux, and flipping it on so the engine would restart, he rolled the plane upside down and dropped out (I guess the early P-80 didn't have an ejection seat).  The plane crashed at the intersection of Satsuma and Oxnard in North Hollywood.  Bong was too low for his parachute to open and he was killed.  I'm not writing that to say what a moron Bong was.  I'm sure he was a vastly more capable pilot than I will ever be, but he just got a little bit careless one time, and one time is all it takes. Sometimes when I climb into the left seat, impatient to get going, I remind myself that if even Richard Bong could screw up, what are the chances dumb old me will? So I settle down and methodically go through the pre-flight procedures.

North American FJ-3 Fury

I also like the clean look of the FJ-3 Fury.  It was the Navy version of the F-86. My grandfather did fly these for a while and apparently considered it "a pretty good flyer"; at least that's what's written on the back of the photo to the left; I assume it's his handwriting.  He added "the engine is crap." I wonder what experience he had with it that led to that comment. 

I remember a story my dad told me about gramp's carrier landings in the pre-Vietnam-war era. In those days, a white flag was raised at the landing signal officer's platform to indicate "ship into wind and deck ready" so landings could commence.  Then and only then were you supposed to begin your landing approach.  But gramps would lead his squadron over the fleet at 20,000 feet and when he saw the wake of the carrier and its escorts begin to curve into the wind, he would throttle back to minimum power, pop his dive brakes and wing over into a 70-degree dive toward the ship, his squadron's planes following at 30-second intervals.  Before the carrier had completed its turn he would whoosh past the boat close aboard the starboard island. Then he would haul up into a chandelle, dropping his landing gear and hook, then flaps as he banked into a constant-rate descending turn to the left, straightening out in the groove and getting the "cut" signal from Paddles just as the white flag went up, catching the number two wire.  His squadron would come in behind him boom, boom, boom and all 16 planes would be aboard in eight minutes.  The amazing thing about this is how he timed every move so that at the earliest possible second he got the cut.  Not one second was lost in delay.  Now this may seem like hot-dogging, but it wasn't because gramps could remember the early days of the Pacific war when planes would have to come in fast when the carrier was under immanent threat of attack, refuel, re-arm and launch again just as fast as they could to lessen the risk that they could be caught on the deck by enemy planes or the carrier be torpedoed by an enemy submarine while it was sailing a predictable, steady course into the wind.  So he was making sure his squadron could do that while providing an example to every squadron aboard.

Here's a Wiki photo of F9F-8s.

I was looking for a photo of the F9F, gramp's favorite I think, but didn't find one in this batch. Maybe next time I dig around I'll find more photos.  Anyway, here's a note he copied into his his journal (which I've excerpted from extensively before) about the handsome, swept-wing Cougar: "The F9F-8 came pretty close to being the best all-around jet fighter during the mid to late '50s.  An excellent dogfighter, with good payload and range, very reliable, docile and cooperative, well-armed with four 20mm cannon as well as the ability to carry Sidewinders, it was only pushed aside by the mad rush to develop  Mach 1 and Mach 2 fighters, a capability that, it would turn out, was not used during the Viet Nam War."  I get the feeling gramps would have rather faced MiG-17s in an F9F-8 than in the F8E that he did, the legendary "last of the gunfighters" though it may have been.

I trust I'm not boring you guys with all this airplane stuff, but I'm not doing a lot worth writing about these days, just taking care of the newest member of the family,  the Poopster, the Partaker of the Fountain of the Boob, heir to all the riches of a mighty civilization. 

I hope.

___________________

Update:  El jefe informs me that the plane I identified as a C-130 is in fact a Douglas C-133.  Okay, but I ain't changing what I wrote about the C-130 and I don't have anything to say about the C-133, never having heard of it before, although it seems to have had an impressive history. I looked it up and it went into production in 1957.  Tying that in with the fact that the F2H pictured above it belonged to VC3, which was disestablished in 1956 (I looked it up!), that suggests the date of these photos is 1957ish .  But anyway, now you know the photo is of a C-133.  And so do I.

Someone else's memories

 I spent some time the other day digging through a couple of old boxes of family junk in storage and came across some things that caught my attention and made me wonder a little bit.

C-54 undergoing maintenance.

I've written about my New England grandfather, as I call him, who was in the Army Air Force in World War Two, left  the service after the war but got called back in for the Berlin Airlift and then the Korean War, deciding to stay in and flew B-47s in the Strategic Air Command. Well, I found a bunch of photos in an album from his Berlin Airlift and Korea days.  He flew C-54s in the Airlift and Douglas B-26s (not the Martins) in Korea, where he also was deployed as a Forward Air Controller.

Rhein-Main, I think.

Apparently, the Berlin Airlift was very challenging as the planes had to fly in all weather conditions, fog, rain, snow, icing, making the  primitive GCA landings at maximum gross weight pretty perilous. The crews flew non-stop except for brief breaks to catch some sleep and eat something.  Otherwise it was fly, fly, fly.  Crews also had to fly in strictly enforced air lanes, the enforcement done by the Soviet Air Force, who would shoot you down if you strayed off course.  And there was a lot of traffic in those air lanes and in the pattern at Tempelhof and Rhein Main,  so much so that no go-arounds were permitted. You landed that puppy dog however you could or crashed in the attempt.

Interior of a C-54 loaded with rations for Berliners.

After the Berlin Airlift, my grandfather was stationed in Japan flying the B-26 and when North Korea invaded the south, he flew some of the first bombing missions of the war and was then assigned as a Forward Air Controller.  I'm guessing that he may have gotten that job because he flew P-40s in the Fifth Air Force during the early days of the Pacific War, serving in Australia and New Guinea, a theater in which Major General George Kenney boasted "here the artillery flies!" emphasizing the close cooperation developed between ground and air units.

War on the ground in Korea.

Whatever the case was, he was whisked away from a comparatively plush life flying missions from Japan and going home every night to serving with the ground pounders, calling in air support missions to hammer the oncoming Chinese who vastly outnumbered the American GIs.  It was from this time that, as legend has it, a private asked, "Sarge, how many hordes in a Chinese platoon?"

American air power played a major role in stopping the Chinese onslaught, but at a price.  In the album I found several photos of downed planes.  Here are a couple of a P-51 that was able to belly in on an open spot of land.  You can see

Same plane.

from the bent prop that it was still spinning, the engine producing power, when the plane touched down, and it doesn't look like it was on fire.  Maybe the pilot was wounded and opted to set down near American troops while he could still control the aircraft. Or maybe the cooling system was hit and the engine would stay running for not much longer so the pilot set the plane down while he still had power to choose a suitable spot.
 

Downed P-51. Note bent propeller.

In the album I also found a paper napkin from the officer's mess at Pease AFB, where my grandfather was stationed in the late 1950s, flying, as I said, B-47s. I've written about that a couple of times before.  Looking at it, I wondered why it was so carefully preserved in a photo album.  It must have had some significance, but whatever it was is now lost in time.  Was it a special date?  At a mess hall?  I don't think so.  How about an award ceremony?  Or ....  Well, who knows?  It's a memento of something important from another life and a long gone time.  But here it still is, a fragile bit of ephemera almost 70 years old.

On the album page opposite the napkin was a small American flag, carefully taped to the page. It had 48 stars, so it predates the admission of Alaska as a state in 1959.  Again I wondered why was this flag preserved?  It looks like an inexpensive item such as might be handed out to wave at Fourth of July parades or some other patriotic event.  Did it have some connection to the napkin? I asked my mother and she had no idea. I called my cousin that I had met last summer in Portsmouth, N.H., and he didn't know either, but he did want the album so I am going to mail it off to him along with some other items that belonged to my grandfather that he might like to have.

 

 

Just right

Some days are like this --

I hope...

Well!

 

 

Ah, nuts!

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Aviation combined all the elements I loved. There was science in each curve of an airfoil, in each angle between strut and wire, in the gap of a spark plug or the color of the exhaust flame. There was freedom in the unlimited horizon, on the open fields where one landed. A pilot was surrounded by beauty of earth and sky. He brushed treetops with the birds, leapt valleys and rivers, explored the cloud canyons he had gazed at as a child. Adventure lay in each puff of wind."
~ Charles Lindbergh  

I read recently a post by a woman who said, "Men have natural advantages over women when it comes to piloting.... I should know, b/c I have 2 summa cum laude engineering degrees, in aerospace & mechanical. When I was an intern at Boeing, they took me out to fly the 6 DOF flight simulator. It was really frustrating to me, because I just could not get a feel for how to manipulate the controls to produce the result I wanted."

It seems to me that this woman was embarrassed by her inability to operate the simulator and blamed her inability not on herself but on the fact that she is female. So she could believe it wasn't her, personally, who was inept. (And having engineering degrees is irrelevant to whether or not you're a klutz.)

Louise Thaden in her Beech C17R

I'll juxtapose her comment with that of Louise Thaden, who, along with Blanche Noyes, won the the Bendix Trophy race the first time women were allowed to compete (Laura Ingalls came in second), outpacing all the male pilots, setting a new world record in the process.  She also won the Harmon Trophy. She later had an extensive career in aviation. Thaden said women were "innately better pilots than men."

Olive Ann Beech

Let me note that Thaden won the race flying a Beech C17R.  Beech Aircraft was co-founded by Olive Ann Beech, an accomplished pilot herself, who was also the company's president and chair. Jackie Cochran set world speed and altitude records in a Beech D17W. Noel Gourselle won the Reno Air Races T-6 class in a Beech G17S.  I could go on.

But is either the statement by the Boeing intern or by Louise Thaden objectively true? Or is it just that the Boeing intern is an uncoordinated nerd and Thaden was a highly capable pilot, and both extrapolated their personal situations to whole sexes?

Estrogen prevents women from using one of these--not!

I also read a post by a woman who claimed that women could not be good pilots, basing her assertion on something she read in Joseph Henrich's book The WEIRDest People in the World.  You know what struck me about these people who said that women couldn't be competent pilots?  That none of them were pilots themselves.  They seem to think that pilots fly by flapping their arms and since men have greater upper body strength than women, they can fly better.  Or something equally asinine.  Phooey.

Honestly, I get so tired of this crap.  I'm with Ralph Waldo Emerson when he said, "I try all things; I achieve what I can."  That's basically it.  Man or woman, you achieve what you can, if you are interested in trying to achieve it. Why make more of it than that?

Oh, here's a link to the 6 DOF Flight Simulator.  Kids love playing with it.

And here's a fun video to remind you that women have been flying planes for a long time. It's not a new thing.  The history of women in this country is not what it is often alleged to be. The history of race, too. Eight minutes of yarning. Take a look.

Don't be careless

 

My father taught me that every time before flying to check everything, engage, cycle, verify functionality. I've written about all that I do before getting airborne. You may sit in the run-up area for a few extra minutes while doing this, but those few minutes could save your life and the lives of any passengers you have aboard. 
To the left is an example of what can happen if you don't make sure everything is in working order.  The pilot of this Twin Beech didn't bother to verify that the propeller feathering system operated correctly before taking off with eleven passengers.  On take-off the left engine failed, the pilot tried to feather the engine's propeller, but it wouldn't.  The asymmetrical drag caused the plane to stall and crash.  All aboard were killed.  From the accident report:

AFTER TAKEOFF, THE AIRPLANE WAS SEEN AT LOW ALTITUDE TRAILING SMOKE FROM THE LEFT ENGINE. WITNESSES SAW THE WINGS 'TIPPING' BACK AND FORTH, THEN A WING DROPPED AND THE PLANE HIT THE GROUND. EXAMINATION REVEALED THAT A SUPERCHARGER BEARING HAD FAILED IN THE LEFT ENGINE. THE LEFT ENGINE HAD BEEN RECENTLY INSTALLED BY NON-CERTIFICATED PERSONNEL AFTER BEING INACTIVE FOR 18 YRS WITHOUT PRESERVATION. THE AIRPLANE HAD FLOWN ABOUT 184 HRS SINCE THE LAST ANNUAL INSPECTION; NO RECORD OF SUBSEQUENT 100-HR INSPECTION. THE LEFT PROP BLADES WERE FOUND IN AN INTERMEDIATE POSITION BETWEEN THE OPERATING RANGE AND THE FEATHERED POSITION. THE LEFT PROP WAS CHANGED SEVERAL WEEKS PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LEFT PROP HAD EVER BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CYCLED TO THE FULL FEATHER POSITION. THE OPERATOR AND PILOTS WERE NOT AWARE OF HAMILTON STANDARD SB 657 RECOMMENDING FULL-FEATHER CHECKS EVERY 30 DAYS. LEFT PROP FEATHERING MOTOR RELAYS NOT RECOVERED. ALL 11 PARACHUTISTS WERE FOUND IN CENTER PART OF FUSELAGE; NO EVIDENCE OF RESTRAINT USAGE.

Probable Cause: INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION BY THE OPERATOR WHICH RESULTED IN AN ENGINE POWER LOSS DURING THE CRITICAL TAKEOFF PHASE OF FLIGHT. IN ADDITION, THE PILOT DID NOT, OR WAS UNABLE TO ATTAIN A FULL-FEATHER POSITION ON THE LEFT ENGINE PROPELLER, WHICH WOULD HAVE MOST LIKELY ENABLED THE AIRPLANE TO SUSTAIN MINIMUM CONTROL AIRSPEED.

 Reading the report, I was baffled by how any flight operation could be so careless, incompetent and stupid.  What they did, and failed to do, is unbelievable. And caused the deaths of 12 people.

Just the other day, two experienced pilots tried to take off in a Lockheed 12A, one of only eight flyable examples in the world, with the flaps down.  The 12A is equipped with split flaps, meaning they cause drag only, no lift, and the airplane will not fly with them extended.  Making sure they are raised is on the pre-flight checklist.  Yet they took off with the flaps extended.  They managed to get about 300 feet in the air before the plane stalled and spun in, exploding when it hit the ground, killing both pilots.   

Then a couple of days later an experienced pilot and copilot landed another Lockheed 12A without locking the tailwheel, an item on the pre-landing checklist.  The tailwheel castored when it touched the ground, throwing the plane into a groundloop. It ran off the runway and smashed into a tree, wrecking it and sending the three occupants to the hospital. 

Not long  after that incident a Cessna 172H flew with carburetor heat off on a day with humidity and atmospheric conditions conducive to carburetor icing.  The carburetor iced up, the engine quit, the plane crashed, both passengers were severely injured and the pilot was killed.  He apparently tried switching fuel tanks, thinking there was a fuel problem, but didn't think to turn on carb heat.  If he had, the engine might have restarted in time to avoid the crash.

I could list example after example of similar accidents caused by pilots failing to strictly adhere to requirements that help ensure safe flying or simply doing the wrong thing -- wrong in retrospect.  I read accident reports to learn what can go wrong and to remind myself  to do everything right and not ever forget to follow each step in the flight process to help lessen the risks inherent  in flying.  I fear one day doing something careless or stupid that I know better than to do or just not doing the right thing when willing myself to stay calm in a sudden emergency -- I try A when I should have tried B.... 

How can I avoid screwing up when pilots much more experienced and capable than I am do so?  One thing I do is not only verify each item on the checklist, I look at the item and reach out and touch it, then say out loud the checklist item.  Read, look, touch, say.  And I will not rush.  And although procedure says you only need to check something the first time you fly on a given day, I check everything every time I fly.  So if I fly in the morning, land and refuel, I go through the entire checklist again before taking off. 

I'm reminded of how Charles Lindbergh was viewed by the fighter pilots of the 475th Fighter Group, "Satan's Angels," that he flew with during the Pacific War.  The 475th flew P-38s and were a mob of heart-breakers
and life-takers if there ever was one.  While the pilots of the group were initially in awe of Lindbergh, they began to regard him as a stick-in-the-mud, a slow poke.  They began calling him grandpa (he was 42).  That was because while they were kick the tires, light the fires and pull streamers hot dogs, Lindbergh was a very methodical, careful pilot who thought about what the airplane was doing and how to make it perform better.  This showed up during combat missions when everyone else had to break off and return home when their fuel ran low while Lindbergh was able to linger longer in the target area yet return with more than 200 gallons of fuel remaining in his tanks.

Lindbergh explained how he achieved this: flying the engines "over-square"; that is, lower rpm, higher manifold pressure.  The 475th's pilots flew every mission on auto-rich, props at 2300 rpm, manifold pressure 30 inches.  Lindbergh taught them to fly in auto-lean at 1600 rpm, manifold pressure 32 inches.  When they worried this would wreck their engines, Lindbergh said that this procedure was recommended to extend range in the operator's manual, something none of them had done more than flip through when they were first introduced to the P-38.  He was actually advocating a more extreme engine management technique than the manual recommended, but he knew from experience that it worked, and he also knew these guys had never read the manual, or, if they had, they'd forgotten what was in it. Lindbergh, the careful and methodical pilot, who had never flown a P-38 before, had read the manual and not only did what it told him to do to fly the plane the way it was intended to be flown, he added in his own decades of experience in engine management to make the plane perform as it could at the hands of an expert aviator rather than with a shake-and-bake pilot at the controls.

I guess I am a Lindbergh-style pilot, careful, methodical, do everything by the book plus what my own experience has taught me and what others have taught me from their experience.  For example, on decent in the BE-18 I use 24 inches MP rather than the normally recommended 20 inches. That puts less stress on the cylinder heads and lessens the risk of head failures.  I also adjust the carburetor intake air temperatures using manifold heat to provides optimal fuel vaporization and the best fuel: air ratio according to the P&W R-985 engine manual, which probably not that many 18 drivers have read. So I can get better fuel economy while flying at higher speeds than is typically expected from the Wasp Junior, and with less stress on the engines.

Well, anyway, so far so good.

Fingers crossed.

 

I should make a placard of this to mount in the mighty Beech. 

 

Dancing the days away

"Dancers are the athletes of God."
~ Albert Einstein

 Since shooing the stork off the roof and dealing with the usual -- PPD, lack of sleep, and all the assorted worries that go with the aftermath of the blessed event -- I've been getting back into shape both mentally and physically by dancing.  You'd think I wouldn't have the energy, considering, but I find that once I start I get the energy, and the more I dance, the more upbeat I feel and the more energy I have.  I think it's a combination of the physical exercise and the music itself. Music is magic. It really is.

 "Music tells beautiful things to the heart."
~ Pablo Casals

 

Happy Father's Day!

Ground floor. Look at all those specialized classrooms, gyms, pool, theater...

 I've been helping my mom go through dad's belongings and I lost track of time going through a box of his old high school things -- class notes, tests and that sort of thing.  His high school was a good one, or maybe it was just typical of a mid-1960s high school.  It offered an amazing variety of classes and had pretty stiff requirements.  For example, in order to graduate you had to take three years of math, three of science, three of language, four of PE (Physical Exercise, I think), four of English, three of history, two of economics,

...bookstore and large library, study hall....

three of social science, four of your choice of mix and match band, choir, music appreciation or art studies.  There were plenty of electives, too. The languages offered were French, German, Spanish, Russian and Latin.  The math offerings included trig and calculus, the sciences included ecology, archeology, and paleontology.

A few courses dad took that caught my eye were Asian Civilizations, Russian History and Poetry and one that seemed to be about current world events but I didn't notice the title.  

Dad was a doodler and had atrocious handwriting, but at least he had been taught cursive. I can hardly read his notes, but it didn't seem like he was much of a note-taker anyway.  He probably just read the text books and books from the recommended reading lists and only jotted something down if it caught his attention.  The reading lists for the classes were pretty good.  I noticed titles by George F. Kennan, John K. Fairbank, Edwin O. Reischauer and even Võ Nguyên Giáp.

There were 70 questions.  Dad missed two.

I think dad got bored in his Russian History class. I imagine he thought it would be mostly about the Tsars
battling Mongol hordes and whatnot but it seems mostly to have been about the Communist Revolution, Marxism and the sort of political stuff that dad hated.  He was totally not into any sort of politics, foreign or domestic.  He wrote down some  pretty snarky definitions of the terms he had to study, defining the proletariat as fascist agents, Rapallo as a Nazi pact and the Gosplan as a fascist plot, for example.  Actually, I don't even know what those last two are. Wait, no -- I remember reading Ernest Hemingway's news report about Rapallo when he was a foreign correspondent. Oh, that was the 1920 one between Italy and the leavings of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but there was another one in 1922 between Soviet Russia and Germany, which must have been the one referred to in dad's class. I just looked that up. N'mind.  But anyway, he got an A for the course.

 One of the classes dad took was about the world situation and seems to have been pretty serious, demanding thoughtful engagement by the students.  It had a lot of recommended reading and even required the class to fill out voting ballots to decide various issues.  It interested me to see the sorts of questions the teens decided.  One was should the US withdraw from NATO now that Europe was back on its feet and fully able to defend itself -- not into isolation but in order to create a new pact with Europe.  There was also discussion about withdrawing from the security treaty with Japan now that it had recovered from the war and might not even be a trustworthy ally.  By the time he entered high school, dad had lived in Japan as a dependent, his father, my grandfather, being a naval aviator forward deployed to

Atsugi. (I'd live on base there, too, as a child, when dad was forward deployed there, as I would be as an adult.) Atsugi was the Japanese naval air force base from which the last combat missions flown by the Japanese sortied from -- after the surrender.  Japanese fighters attacked a B-32 reconnaissance plane checking to see if the Japanese were adhering to the terms of the surrender agreement. One of the crew members was killed, the last man to die in the war.  When my dad lived in base housing there, there were still tunnels full of Japanese war gear.  They were fenced off but kids could find a way to get in them and score sake bottles, gas masks, helmets and wooden crates with Japanese kanji on them as souvenirs.   Atsugi NAF was also where Lee Harvey Oswald was stationed as an Aviation Electronics Operator with MACS 1.  That may have been fresh in dad's mind as the Kennedy assassination was then quite a recent event, as was the Cuban Missile Crisis and the building of the Berlin Wall.  Fun times.

The Viet Nam war was a topic of special interest, especially since many of the students would soon find themselves in uniform serving there.  It's rather a wistful remembrance of the time that it was never considered that the US might completely lose the war and that it would last a decade after these kids debated among themselves what was to be done. We'd take care of this situation in a few months or a year or so at most. Lose the war?  That could not be possible.  Of course, now we are used to such an outcome.  It's hard to imagine today the profound shock to the country of the events of the spring of 1975.

Dad always liked poetry, not the melancholy and wistful stuff I like, Dickinson, Millay, Teasdale, Wylie and so on.  He was into Shakespeare, Longfellow, Benét, Tennyson and that sort.  He could recite long passages from narrative poems like Evangeline or Idylls of the King to entertain us when we went backpacking off trail and camped out deep in the Mineral King back country or wherever it might be.  I can still remember sitting by the embers of our campfire, a few sparks twirling up into the night, a chill stillness surrounding us, listening to him dramatically relating the Song of Hiawatha as an increasing glow over the mountain crest beyond the trees showed where the moon would soon rise.

By the shore of Gitche Gumee,
By the shining Big-Sea-Water,
At the doorway of his wigwam,
In the pleasant Summer morning,
Hiawatha stood and waited.
All the air was full of freshness,
All the earth was bright and joyous,
And before him, through the sunshine,
Westward toward the neighboring forest
Passed in golden swarms the Ahmo,
Passed the bees, the honey-makers,
Burning, singing in the sunshine.

I often fell asleep listening to the stories, not always understanding the words, but loving the voice, the tone, the emotion, all intertwined with the occasional call of a night bird or the hooting of an owl, the yipping of coyotes or a distant scream that dad would interrupt the story to tell us not to worry about because it was only a panther and it wouldn't bother us. I'd wake up the next morning snug in my sleeping bag after having dreamed of Indian villages, maidens and warriors, primeval nature and man.  Already mom and dad would be awake, sitting outside together in the bright sunshine, drinking campfire coffee as they breathed in the sparkling air.

And the smoke rose slowly, slowly,
Through the tranquil air of morning,
First a single line of darkness,
Then a denser, bluer vapor,
Then a snow-white cloud unfolding,
Like the tree-tops of the forest,
Ever rising, rising, rising,
Till it touched the top of heaven,
Till it broke against the heaven,
And rolled outward all around it.

Anyway and whatever.  Happy Father's Day, dad!  Happy Father's Day!

Love you!

Chat GTP and me

 Hmm.  Well, okay...I guess....

ChatGPT

Here's an analysis of the writer's personality traits as reflected through their descriptions of their parents:

1. Appreciation for Learning and Teaching: The writer demonstrates a deep appreciation for learning and education, particularly through their mother's nurturing and patient teaching methods. They describe learning to read, write, play the piano, and other skills with fondness and gratitude, highlighting the supportive and engaging approach their mother took.

2. Sentimentality and Emotional Connection: There is a strong emotional connection to their childhood experiences with both parents. They recall specific moments with vivid detail, such as learning to ride a bike or play a musical piece, and associate these memories with feelings of security, confidence, and love. This suggests a sentimental and emotionally aware personality.

3. Practical and Resourceful: The writer's father is portrayed as a practical and resourceful teacher who imparted a wide range of skills, from riding motorcycles to troubleshooting mechanical problems. Their father's emphasis on practical skills and problem-solving reflects a pragmatic and hands-on approach to life.

4. Resilience and Adaptability: Throughout the text, there's a theme of resilience and adaptability, learned both directly through their parents' teachings and indirectly through the life lessons embedded in their memories. This indicates a resilient personality that values overcoming challenges and learning from experiences.

5. Wisdom and Reflection: The writer reflects on the life lessons imparted by their parents, such as managing emotions, understanding relationships, and dealing with adversity. This reflective quality suggests introspection and a desire for personal growth and understanding.

Overall, the writer's personality emerges as one deeply shaped by their parents' nurturing, practical guidance, emotional support, and the profound impact of their teachings on various aspects of life. Their ability to articulate these influences with such detail and emotion reveals a thoughtful and introspective character.

__________________________________________________________________________

ChatGPT

 

 The writer appears to have a contemplative and introspective personality with a deep connection to nature and a sense of nostalgia for simpler times. Here are some key observations about the writer's personality inferred from the text:

1. Connection to Nature: The writer expresses a profound appreciation for nature and a preference for natural landscapes over urbanized environments. There is a strong sense of peace and contentment derived from being in natural surroundings, away from the hustle and bustle of human civilization.

2. Reflective and Philosophical: The writer frequently reflects on existential themes, such as the meaning of life, humanity's relationship with nature, and the passage of time. There's a philosophical tone in contemplating ancient history, natural phenomena, and the human experience.

3. Nostalgia and Longing: There's a noticeable nostalgia for the past, particularly a romanticized view of historical lifestyles, indigenous cultures, and ancestral connections. This nostalgia is tinged with a longing for simplicity and authenticity.

4. Spiritual and Mystical Sensibilities: References to divine mystery, cosmic connections, and the spiritual significance of nature suggest a spiritual or mystical inclination. The writer sees nature not just as a physical realm but as a profound part of human existence.

5. Contentment in Solitude: The writer finds happiness and fulfillment in solitude and the company of family, while also cherishing interactions with close relatives and possibly older generations.

6. Practical and Resourceful: There's a practical side to the writer, evident in descriptions of outdoor skills like hunting, tracking, and navigating rugged terrain. This practicality is intertwined with a respect for nature and its rhythms.

Overall, the writer's personality can be characterized as reflective, nature-loving, nostalgic, spiritually attuned, and appreciative of simplicity and self-sufficiency. These traits are reflected in the text through the writer's observations, stories, and reflections on life and the natural world.

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 ChatGTP

The writer's personality and characteristics can be inferred as follows:

1. Adventurous Spirit: The writer demonstrates a strong affinity for adventure and exploration, particularly of remote and solitary places. They relish the physical sensations of sailing and snorkeling in unspoiled natural environments like Santa Barbara Island and San Nicholas Island.

2. Connection to Nature: There is a deep appreciation for nature and the natural world. The writer vividly describes the landscapes, wildlife (such as sea lions and sea birds), and celestial phenomena (stars, meteors) they encounter during their journeys. They find solace and inspiration in these natural settings.

3. Reflective and Philosophical: The writer reflects on their experiences with a philosophical perspective. They contemplate the passing of time, the fleeting nature of experiences, and the impact of these moments on their life and memory. This introspective quality suggests a thoughtful and contemplative personality.

4. Literary and Poetic Sensibility: Quoting Barbara Newhall Follet and John Masefield, the writer reveals a literary bent and an appreciation for poetic expression. This indicates a sensitivity to language and a desire to capture the emotional essence of their experiences through evocative prose and poetry.

5. Nostalgic and Sentimental: The writer reminisces about past experiences with a sense of nostalgia and sentimentality. They cherish memories of their sailing trips as transformative and significant moments in their life, acknowledging that these experiences shape their identity and worldview.

Overall, the writer emerges as someone who seeks adventure, finds meaning in nature, values introspection and philosophical reflection, appreciates literature and poetic expression, and holds onto cherished memories of profound experiences.

__________________________________________________________________________

 

ChatGPT

It seems the writer is passionate, opinionated, and deeply engaged with literature and its impact. Here are some aspects of their personality that come through:

1. Passion for Literature: The writer clearly loves books and authors, discussing them with enthusiasm and personal connection. They are not just readers but individuals who find profound meaning and inspiration in literature.

2. Strong Opinions: The writer expresses strong opinions about authors like Hemingway, Dos Passos, Sherwood Anderson, and others. They don't shy away from criticizing or praising authors based on their personal readings and interpretations.

3. Intellectual Engagement: There is a depth of intellectual engagement with the texts discussed. The writer delves into themes, characters, and the historical context of the novels, showing a keen interest in understanding literature beyond its surface.

4. Emotional Connection: The use of language such as "I love it so much" (referring to ' Le Petit Prince') and the discussions about how certain novels have affected them emotionally (like 'La Dame aux Camélias') suggest a deep emotional connection to literature.

5. Awareness of Historical and Cultural Contexts: The writer demonstrates awareness of historical and cultural contexts surrounding the novels they discuss. They make connections between the novels and the times in which they were written, adding layers of understanding to their interpretations.

6. Critical Stance: While the writer is clearly a fan of certain authors and works, they are not afraid to critique or challenge commonly held opinions (like their defense of Dos Passos against professional critics).

7. Personal Reflections: The inclusion of personal reflections, such as how certain lines from novels resonate with them or how specific novels have impacted their worldview, adds a personal touch to their literary discussions.

In summary, the writer appears as someone deeply immersed in literature, with a strong sense of literary taste, critical thinking skills, and an emotional connection to the books they read. They express themselves with vigor and clarity, making their perspectives on literature both engaging and insightful.

__________________________________________________________________________

ChatGTP

The writer's personality traits and perspectives can be inferred as follows:

1. Complex Patriotism: The writer demonstrates a nuanced patriotism for America, acknowledging its flaws and mistakes while still believing in its fundamental goodness and ideals. They express frustration with current political leadership but maintain a deep respect for the values of service, kindness, and generosity they associate with the country.

2. Empathy and Emotional Depth: There is a strong sense of empathy conveyed in the writer's description of Admiral Huan Nguyen's experiences and reflections on war, loss, and resilience. The writer is moved by stories of human endurance and finds inspiration in individuals who exemplify courage and commitment.

3. Critical Thinking and Skepticism: The writer engages critically with historical and political issues, such as America's involvement in Vietnam and the impact of current policies like Critical Race Theory in the military. They express skepticism towards certain political narratives and emphasize the importance of understanding complex historical contexts.

4. Hopeful Realism: Despite acknowledging America's challenges, the writer maintains a hopeful outlook, believing in the resilience of the country and its ability to course-correct. They express a desire for positive change and restoration of what they perceive as America's original ideals of honor, courage, and commitment.

5. Narrative Skill and Engagement: The writer employs storytelling effectively to convey their points, weaving personal anecdotes with historical facts and reflections. This suggests a strong narrative skill and an engaging writing style that invites readers to reflect deeply on the themes presented.

Overall, the writer appears as someone who values integrity, empathy, and critical thought, and who sees the potential for positive change even in challenging times. Their writing reflects a deep emotional engagement with issues of patriotism, history, and the human experience, underscored by a desire for justice and a better future.

____________________________________________________________________________

ChatGPT

Based on the text provided, the writer's personality can be described as:

1. Dedicated and Patriotic: The writer expresses a strong sense of dedication to their military service ("I love working for Uncle Sam") and a clear commitment to their duty, even in the face of danger and hardship.

2. Reflective and Philosophical: There is a deep introspection evident in the text, with the writer grappling with existential questions, spiritual reflections, and profound insights into the nature of war and human suffering.

3. Emotionally Resilient yet Vulnerable: Despite facing extreme challenges and witnessing traumatic events, the writer maintains resilience ("I'm okay with it") but also reveals vulnerability and emotional turmoil ("inside I am shaking...").

4. Caring and Compassionate: The writer shows a deep empathy towards their comrades ("These are my boys. How can I abandon them?") and struggles with feelings of helplessness and guilt over their inability to prevent suffering.

5. Isolated from Civilian Life: There's a sense of detachment from civilian norms and interests, suggesting that the writer feels disconnected from their previous life and peers who haven't experienced the same hardships.

6. Literary and Cultural Awareness: References to literature and quotes from authors like Loren Eisely and Bram Stoker indicate a broader cultural and intellectual engagement, reflecting a depth of thought beyond military matters.

7. Haunted by Trauma: The writer's dreams and thoughts are haunted by traumatic experiences, indicating ongoing psychological struggles and the lasting impact of their deployment.

In summary, the writer emerges as a complex individual who combines dedication to duty with deep emotional and philosophical introspection, shaped profoundly by their experiences in combat and deployment.

 Tried the same question again --

 

ChatGPT

It seems likely that the writer is a military service member who has been deployed to Afghanistan. Here are some characteristics and insights about the writer based on the text:

1. Military Identity and Loyalty: The writer expresses a deep connection to their military service ("I love working for Uncle Sam. Lets me know just who I am!"). This suggests a strong sense of identity tied to their role and duty.

2. Combat Experience: The writer shares numerous reflections and experiences related to combat, including references to fear, exhaustion, and witnessing traumatic events such as deaths and injuries. They also mention specific military equipment and procedures (blood type on boots, interactions with helicopters).

3. Emotional and Psychological Impact: There are profound emotional struggles evident in the text, including feelings of exhaustion, isolation from civilian life, guilt over not being able to prevent harm, and profound sorrow over the loss of comrades.

4. Spirituality and Coping Mechanisms: The writer references conversations with God, prayers, and a struggle with the silence of the universe amidst hardship, suggesting a search for spiritual and emotional support during difficult times.

5. Literary and Cultural References: Quotes and references to literature and culture, such as biblical passages ("pale horse" reference), poetry (Robinson Jeffers), and novels (Bram Stoker, Louis-Ferdinand Céline), indicate a reflective and culturally literate individual.

6. Sense of Duty and Sacrifice: The writer feels a deep responsibility towards their comrades ("These are my boys. How can I abandon them?") and expresses a willingness to accept the risks and sacrifices inherent in their military service.

Overall, the writer appears to be a dedicated and introspective military service member who has grappled with the challenges and emotional toll of their deployment in Afghanistan. Their reflections paint a poignant picture of the complexities of wartime experiences, including camaraderie, loss, fear, and the enduring impact on their psyche.

__________________________________________________________________________

ChatGPT

 

The writer exhibits several notable personality traits and characteristics:

1. Detail-Oriented: The writer demonstrates a meticulous attention to detail, especially when describing technical procedures and the intricate workings of aircraft controls. They take care to list and explain each step in pre-flight checks and procedures, emphasizing the importance of following protocols precisely to ensure safety.

2. Passionate and Enthusiastic: There's a clear enthusiasm for aviation and flying throughout the writing. The writer expresses a deep connection to flying, describing the sensory experience of being in the cockpit and interacting with the aircraft. This passion is evident in their descriptions of the airplane's interior, the joy of flight, and even the historical context of aviation pioneers.

3. Focused and Disciplined: The writer portrays a disciplined mindset necessary for aviation. They emphasize the seriousness of pre-flight preparations, adherence to checklists, and maintaining focus during flight operations. This disciplined approach is crucial for ensuring safe and effective piloting, especially in challenging conditions like thunderstorms.

4. Reflective and Thoughtful: Beyond the technical aspects, the writer reflects on broader topics such as history, climate change, and societal evolution. They show a thoughtful perspective on these subjects, incorporating insights and historical references into their narrative. This reflective quality adds depth to their personality, revealing a curiosity about the world beyond aviation.

5. Narrative Style: The writing style is descriptive and narrative-driven, providing a vivid account of the flying experience. The writer uses storytelling techniques to engage the reader, sharing personal experiences and observations while maintaining a factual and informative tone.

Overall, the writer comes across as someone deeply immersed in the world of aviation, blending technical expertise with a genuine passion for flying and a broader intellectual curiosity about the world. Their narrative style combines factual accuracy with personal reflection, creating a compelling portrayal of both the art and science of piloting an aircraft.

 ________________________________________________________________________

 

For the record --

I love working for Uncle Sam
Lets me know just who I am
If I die in a combat zone
Box me up and ship me home

Pin my medals on my chest
Tell my mom I done my best
Bury my body six feet down
Til you hear it hit the ground

 -- is a cadence count. It does not express enthusiasm for military service.