Features

So to go somewhere, I have to know the true airspeed and the wind speed and how this will effect deviation from a true heading calculated from a map but which has to be converted to a magnetic heading in order to use the compass, into which magnetic variation must be factored in order to arrive at a track and real speed across the ground itself.

It’s said that a good landing is one you walk away from, and a very good landing is one you walk away from leaving a serviceable aeroplane behind. In my view any landing made at the airfield I took off from is a bloody miracle.

And yet, I like all this stuff. I admit it makes me feel a bit clever, in the way that stockbrokers get a kick out of needing to know the time in New York and Tokyo. Wouldn't mundane car journeys be more involving if there was a lot more to worry about?

To find out, I borrowed a 1922 Buick, to see what driving was like in an era when the motorist was still a minister to a rare and baffling machine, rather than the mere operator of an everyday device.

The pedals were the wrong way around, and so were the gears, There was no synchromesh - no roof either, come to think of it - and there were levers on the wooden steering wheel to alter the fuel mixture and the ignition advance for hill climbing and 'fast' cruising. There was some sort of manual fuel pump, no indicators and a cranking handle for starting, which made stalling at the lights annoying for everyone.

And I hated it. It was far too difficult. After half an hour of driving around at 25mph I was exhausted. This is why old people take driving so seriously. They remember when it was a lifetime's work.

So, to return to my original question: would driving be more interesting if it was a bit more difficult? No. Sorry, I've wasted your time.