Mike Laney invited me to go on an early morning flight in his wonderful, totally restored, 1956 Cessna 172. What a treat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG3i2BBMiSg
Mike Laney invited me to go on an early morning flight in his wonderful, totally restored, 1956 Cessna 172. What a treat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG3i2BBMiSg
Last edited by FunInAviation; 10-20-2017 at 04:13 AM.
Nice plane. Creepy, sexist, inappropriate logo. I know a lot of women aviators who would find it a turn off. But, to each their own.
Im not a woman aviator but I like it and and I asedk a lady her opinion and she liked it. Even better if it was a real painting done from a real person. The CAF has a room dedicated to preserving originals from the bombers. Ive never heard any lady complain about them.
Id like to see a poll about what other readers think.AndI may not be up to date, I spend more time thinking about mass shootings, North Korea war threat ,hurricanses , atc privitation ,airline passenger rights, gen aviation accidents, little things like that rather than a picture of a lady on a plane. And I knew a famous WASP who looked a lot like that.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 10-11-2017 at 12:02 PM.
Good job on putting the fancy dash gizmos in there in a way that looks professional - but leaves the original aesthetics of the panel intact.
And I think Mark is going to find himself in the very tiny minority as to the fuselage art. It's tasteful but fun. I give it a G rating as far as nose-art pinups go.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Frank,
you said the perfect word..... FUN, not to mention the nostalgia, respect to our history etc etc..... Just out of curiosity would it have been less sexist if it was a pic of Bea Arthur or Roseanne Barr instead? What about that makes it sexist? I guess I just don't understand.
Rick
I looked at the Victory Girl website. Some of this stuff I would consider soft porn. This stuff was probably considered OK during the WWII "12-O'clock High" days during the grim bombing raids of Germany with 25 percent loss of life. In those times, I guess anything that lifted the spirits a bit was OK.
But, times have changed. If you "don't understand" how this might not be politically correct in today's world, I guess I can't help you.
Glad you asked the question. Let me try to enlighten you. It's sexist because it objectifies women-ALL WOMEN.
Nose art practiced during WW2 is a definitive fine art form that belongs ONLY to a very small certain time, place and attitude in history. Most of it was tasteful, fun and artistic together with the underlying phrases. Some of it was not. The grandmothers, mothers, daughters and sisters of the boys who flew those adorned Warbirds were mostly offended by it but if it helped to bring them home alive then it was tolerated.
The subject on the Cessna is quite artistic in the vein of a nostalgic Vargas pinup. However, it's been grossly misappropriated, it's anachronistic appearing on a 1950's GA Cessna and it's quite gratuitous. If the subject plane here had been a warbird then it would be totally appropriate in terms of time and place with no objections.
I have no idea what you mean or suggest by saying, "respect to our history". Respect for what? A painting of a really good looking, young, scantily clad woman with big t**s? On a 1957 Cessna 172?
I have an exercise I'd like you to do: Replace the woman's head with the head of your grandmother, wife, girlfriend, daughter, or sister. Do you now want to put this picture on your own airplane? Do you understand now?
Years ago I had a dream about owning a 1929 Sikorsky S-39 flying boat. I most appropriately painted it's name on the nose, "My Wet Dream". Then I woke up...luckily.
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 10-12-2017 at 07:05 PM. Reason: Correct S-model number
Pretty sure a 10yo kid will neither notice it nor care. It’s a flying machine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Christopher Owens (EAA #808438, VAA #723276)
Germantown, WI
Bearhawk Plans #991, Bearhawk Patrol Plans #P313
BS, Mark, if you have a valid point then make it honestly. The photo on the Cessna is a lady in a modest one piece swim suit, in no way, porn soft otherwise. Your examples are much more riskque and one is even topless. Not a valid comparison. "semi naked" is not a true desciption of the photo on the Cessna.
I doubt it young girls at EAA would think nothing about the photo, and any womens store or dept store or newspaper is going to have adds that are much more up to date.