MolaKule
Staff member
Exhaust Flames from a Connie with sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV7-73LmOm0&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV7-73LmOm0&feature=youtu.be
Lockheed Connie was an efficient airliner
- Thread starter Cujet
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Exhaust Flames from a Connie with sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV7-73LmOm0&feature=youtu.be
That was blankety-blank'n awesome!!
Exhaust Flames from a Connie with sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV7-73LmOm0&feature=youtu.be
That was blankety-blank'n awesome!!
I think there is still a flying one attached to the Commemorative Air Force at the Camarillo airport.
Once a year McClellan Aerospace Museum Sacramento has open canopy day
where you're invited to strap on the birds and jaw with the pilots who
actually ventured in the wild blue yonder... One of the Veteran pilots
on the Connie EC121 told me this amazing story...
Howard Hughes became the major stockholder of TWA in 1939... he
petition Lockheed for a 40 passenger transcontinental airliner with a
range of 3,500 mi well beyond the capabilities of any of their
existing designs. Howard Hughes requirements led to the L-049
Constellation, designed by Lockheed engineers including Kelly Johnson
who brain stormed the idea of employing some of their 1937 P38 design
as a way to head start their new 4 engine Connie design... The triple
tail got the nod because it's height was low enough to cleared current
hanger door thresholds...
McClellan Aerospace Museum Sacramento has open canopy day F106...
F104
where you're invited to strap on the birds and jaw with the pilots who
actually ventured in the wild blue yonder... One of the Veteran pilots
on the Connie EC121 told me this amazing story...
Howard Hughes became the major stockholder of TWA in 1939... he
petition Lockheed for a 40 passenger transcontinental airliner with a
range of 3,500 mi well beyond the capabilities of any of their
existing designs. Howard Hughes requirements led to the L-049
Constellation, designed by Lockheed engineers including Kelly Johnson
who brain stormed the idea of employing some of their 1937 P38 design
as a way to head start their new 4 engine Connie design... The triple
tail got the nod because it's height was low enough to cleared current
hanger door thresholds...
McClellan Aerospace Museum Sacramento has open canopy day F106...
F104
Aren't you really writing about the fuel efficiency of the Wright engines?
I know that you're well aware of the operating advantages of turbines as compared to these finicky and maintenance intensive radials.
It wasn't fuel burn that caused such rapid retirements of the piston fleet after the turbines became available.
It was more the overall efficiency of operating engines that were easy to start in all weathers and that required very little line maintenance in service, allowing more hours of revenue flight each day while also carrying more payload at a higher speed.
I remember reading somewhere that the last L-1649 aircraft were delivered for about $3 million while the first 707s and DC-8s were around twice that. Considering that one of these could replace more than two Connies in service and would have much lower engine maintenance requirements, it's easy to understand the reason that so many even fairly new piston airliners were parked as the jets were delivered.
Even the much less powerful Pratts on the Convair twins were troublesome enough that an active and costly conversion program gave these aircraft new life with turboprop engines. IIRC, there were actually three such programs, one using the Napier Eland engine, another the RR Dart and the really successful one in which the Allison 501 was installed. This aircraft was designated CV 580 and they were commonly seen in North Central and Allegheny livery.
I know that you're well aware of the operating advantages of turbines as compared to these finicky and maintenance intensive radials.
It wasn't fuel burn that caused such rapid retirements of the piston fleet after the turbines became available.
It was more the overall efficiency of operating engines that were easy to start in all weathers and that required very little line maintenance in service, allowing more hours of revenue flight each day while also carrying more payload at a higher speed.
I remember reading somewhere that the last L-1649 aircraft were delivered for about $3 million while the first 707s and DC-8s were around twice that. Considering that one of these could replace more than two Connies in service and would have much lower engine maintenance requirements, it's easy to understand the reason that so many even fairly new piston airliners were parked as the jets were delivered.
Even the much less powerful Pratts on the Convair twins were troublesome enough that an active and costly conversion program gave these aircraft new life with turboprop engines. IIRC, there were actually three such programs, one using the Napier Eland engine, another the RR Dart and the really successful one in which the Allison 501 was installed. This aircraft was designated CV 580 and they were commonly seen in North Central and Allegheny livery.
"Where did you say the key was ?? ... Under the mat ??"
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: earlyre
Originally Posted By: gman2304
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/original-air-force-found-decaying-arizona-article-1.1400350
The original Air Force one. The most beautiful airliner ever built...IMO!
it's replacement, the Columbine III, is at the Museum of the United States Air Force In Dayton,OH, attached to Wright Patterson air base.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/M...-columbine-iii/
they have a whole gallery of presidential craft, at least one of each gen of Presidential craft, excluding the Current 747's..
Was just there and walked through every one of them yesterday afternoon. Its about the only perk to living in Ohio, living close to Wright-Patterson AFB....
One thing I have taken away after going through the various AF1's multiple times over the years, is that they are a lot more impressive to look at from the outside than you would think they would be on the inside. The insides all seem rather spartan... I know these are well used, decades old planes but I expected a bit more luxury, or grandeur, or something. Functional for what it needs to be, and that's about it, from what I got out of it. Still, very fun and neat to walk through.
Originally Posted By: gman2304
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/original-air-force-found-decaying-arizona-article-1.1400350
The original Air Force one. The most beautiful airliner ever built...IMO!
it's replacement, the Columbine III, is at the Museum of the United States Air Force In Dayton,OH, attached to Wright Patterson air base.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/M...-columbine-iii/
they have a whole gallery of presidential craft, at least one of each gen of Presidential craft, excluding the Current 747's..
Was just there and walked through every one of them yesterday afternoon. Its about the only perk to living in Ohio, living close to Wright-Patterson AFB....
One thing I have taken away after going through the various AF1's multiple times over the years, is that they are a lot more impressive to look at from the outside than you would think they would be on the inside. The insides all seem rather spartan... I know these are well used, decades old planes but I expected a bit more luxury, or grandeur, or something. Functional for what it needs to be, and that's about it, from what I got out of it. Still, very fun and neat to walk through.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Aren't you really writing about the fuel efficiency of the Wright engines?
I know that you're well aware of the operating advantages of turbines as compared to these finicky and maintenance intensive radials.
It wasn't fuel burn that caused such rapid retirements of the piston fleet after the turbines became available.
It was more the overall efficiency of operating engines that were easy to start in all weathers and that required very little line maintenance in service, allowing more hours of revenue flight each day while also carrying more payload at a higher speed.
I remember reading somewhere that the last L-1649 aircraft were delivered for about $3 million while the first 707s and DC-8s were around twice that. Considering that one of these could replace more than two Connies in service and would have much lower engine maintenance requirements, it's easy to understand the reason that so many even fairly new piston airliners were parked as the jets were delivered.
Even the much less powerful Pratts on the Convair twins were troublesome enough that an active and costly conversion program gave these aircraft new life with turboprop engines. IIRC, there were actually three such programs, one using the Napier Eland engine, another the RR Dart and the really successful one in which the Allison 501 was installed. This aircraft was designated CV 580 and they were commonly seen in North Central and Allegheny livery.
I was going to point this out as well: the Big Wright 3350s might have been fuel efficient, but they were really complex, and they burned expensive fuel.
A single turbine (jet) burning kerosene vs. an 18 cylinder engine with cowl flaps to manage heat, 36 sparkplugs, valves, superchargers, and in some cases, turbochargers along with the superchargers. Yes, the 3350 extracts more useful work out of the fuel, but at a really high cost in maintenance, and the 100/130 octane aviation gasoline sure wasn't cheap...
I love the Constellation, by the way, one of my very earliest memories is walking out on the ramp at Winnipeg airport to board a Connie. No jetbridges back then (would have been about 1967) and as a 4 year old, looking up from the ramp, the connie was the most beautiful impressive thing I had ever seen...
Aren't you really writing about the fuel efficiency of the Wright engines?
I know that you're well aware of the operating advantages of turbines as compared to these finicky and maintenance intensive radials.
It wasn't fuel burn that caused such rapid retirements of the piston fleet after the turbines became available.
It was more the overall efficiency of operating engines that were easy to start in all weathers and that required very little line maintenance in service, allowing more hours of revenue flight each day while also carrying more payload at a higher speed.
I remember reading somewhere that the last L-1649 aircraft were delivered for about $3 million while the first 707s and DC-8s were around twice that. Considering that one of these could replace more than two Connies in service and would have much lower engine maintenance requirements, it's easy to understand the reason that so many even fairly new piston airliners were parked as the jets were delivered.
Even the much less powerful Pratts on the Convair twins were troublesome enough that an active and costly conversion program gave these aircraft new life with turboprop engines. IIRC, there were actually three such programs, one using the Napier Eland engine, another the RR Dart and the really successful one in which the Allison 501 was installed. This aircraft was designated CV 580 and they were commonly seen in North Central and Allegheny livery.
I was going to point this out as well: the Big Wright 3350s might have been fuel efficient, but they were really complex, and they burned expensive fuel.
A single turbine (jet) burning kerosene vs. an 18 cylinder engine with cowl flaps to manage heat, 36 sparkplugs, valves, superchargers, and in some cases, turbochargers along with the superchargers. Yes, the 3350 extracts more useful work out of the fuel, but at a really high cost in maintenance, and the 100/130 octane aviation gasoline sure wasn't cheap...
I love the Constellation, by the way, one of my very earliest memories is walking out on the ramp at Winnipeg airport to board a Connie. No jetbridges back then (would have been about 1967) and as a 4 year old, looking up from the ramp, the connie was the most beautiful impressive thing I had ever seen...
Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
"Where did you say the key was ?? ... Under the mat ??"
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
It's a J79 - about like starting an old Briggs & Stratton...no key required...
"Where did you say the key was ?? ... Under the mat ??"
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
It's a J79 - about like starting an old Briggs & Stratton...no key required...
Originally Posted By: quint
Originally Posted By: earlyre
Originally Posted By: gman2304
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/original-air-force-found-decaying-arizona-article-1.1400350
The original Air Force one. The most beautiful airliner ever built...IMO!
it's replacement, the Columbine III, is at the Museum of the United States Air Force In Dayton,OH, attached to Wright Patterson air base.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/M...-columbine-iii/
they have a whole gallery of presidential craft, at least one of each gen of Presidential craft, excluding the Current 747's..
Was just there and walked through every one of them yesterday afternoon. Its about the only perk to living in Ohio, living close to Wright-Patterson AFB.... .
One thing I have taken away after going through the various AF1's multiple times over the years, is that they are a lot more impressive to look at from the outside than you would think they would be on the inside. The insides all seem rather spartan... I know these are well used, decades old planes but I expected a bit more luxury, or grandeur, or something. Functional for what it needs to be, and that's about it, from what I got out of it. Still, very fun and neat to walk through.
Do I recall correctly that the air inlet on the front of the engine pylon supplied air for the bleed air driven turbo compressor? I remember the FAA examiner for my A certification asked something about the air cycle machines on the 707. I remember that engines two, three and four had the turbo compressors.That was a long time ago and I never put a wrench on an airplane.
Originally Posted By: earlyre
Originally Posted By: gman2304
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/original-air-force-found-decaying-arizona-article-1.1400350
The original Air Force one. The most beautiful airliner ever built...IMO!
it's replacement, the Columbine III, is at the Museum of the United States Air Force In Dayton,OH, attached to Wright Patterson air base.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/M...-columbine-iii/
they have a whole gallery of presidential craft, at least one of each gen of Presidential craft, excluding the Current 747's..
Was just there and walked through every one of them yesterday afternoon. Its about the only perk to living in Ohio, living close to Wright-Patterson AFB.... .
One thing I have taken away after going through the various AF1's multiple times over the years, is that they are a lot more impressive to look at from the outside than you would think they would be on the inside. The insides all seem rather spartan... I know these are well used, decades old planes but I expected a bit more luxury, or grandeur, or something. Functional for what it needs to be, and that's about it, from what I got out of it. Still, very fun and neat to walk through.
Do I recall correctly that the air inlet on the front of the engine pylon supplied air for the bleed air driven turbo compressor? I remember the FAA examiner for my A certification asked something about the air cycle machines on the 707. I remember that engines two, three and four had the turbo compressors.That was a long time ago and I never put a wrench on an airplane.
The R-3350 also had a remarkable post-war offspring called the Power
Recovery Turbo (PRT), in which the exhaust gases drove 4 big turbines
that was geared to the crankshaft to deliver extra 450 HP... The fuel
burn for the PRT equipped 3350 was nearly the same as the Pratt
and Whitney R-2800, while producing more useful horsepower... In 1957
a PRT equipped 3350 engine cost $88,200.
Recovery Turbo (PRT), in which the exhaust gases drove 4 big turbines
that was geared to the crankshaft to deliver extra 450 HP... The fuel
burn for the PRT equipped 3350 was nearly the same as the Pratt
and Whitney R-2800, while producing more useful horsepower... In 1957
a PRT equipped 3350 engine cost $88,200.
The R-3350 had a long gestation period to become reliable. They didn't like the south pacific environment on B-29's and had a tendency to overheat, and or drop valves at the least opportune time, while taking off. Changes allowed them to get better.
Cruise oil consumption was 5.6 gallons/ Hr.
Here is a good article on the engine;
http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Wright/WrightR-3350.pdf
Cruise oil consumption was 5.6 gallons/ Hr.
Here is a good article on the engine;
http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Wright/WrightR-3350.pdf
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
Do I recall correctly that the air inlet on the front of the engine pylon supplied air for the bleed air driven turbo compressor? I remember the FAA examiner for my A certification asked something about the air cycle machines on the 707. I remember that engines two, three and four had the turbo compressors.That was a long time ago and I never put a wrench on an airplane.
Pretty much. Some of them only had them on #2 and #3. Direct bleed air wasn't used for pressurization, they used engine bleed to drive the turbo compressors, and that air was used for the cabin. If I remember right bleed air direct from the engine was not permitted at the time, but I could be remembering wrong. 707's were before my time, and the DC-8s, which had a similar system, were being retired so quickly I didn't really get to do much on the few we had left.
Do I recall correctly that the air inlet on the front of the engine pylon supplied air for the bleed air driven turbo compressor? I remember the FAA examiner for my A certification asked something about the air cycle machines on the 707. I remember that engines two, three and four had the turbo compressors.That was a long time ago and I never put a wrench on an airplane.
Pretty much. Some of them only had them on #2 and #3. Direct bleed air wasn't used for pressurization, they used engine bleed to drive the turbo compressors, and that air was used for the cabin. If I remember right bleed air direct from the engine was not permitted at the time, but I could be remembering wrong. 707's were before my time, and the DC-8s, which had a similar system, were being retired so quickly I didn't really get to do much on the few we had left.
Originally Posted By: JetStar
The R-3350 had a long gestation period to become reliable. They didn't like the south pacific environment on B-29's and had a tendency to overheat, and or drop valves at the least opportune time, while taking off. Changes allowed them to get better.
Cruise oil consumption was 5.6 gallons/ Hr.
Here is a good article on the engine;
http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Wright/WrightR-3350.pdf I remeber a B-29 crash on the north end of the north/south runway at Kirtland during WWII. The priest saying Mass at St Charles on Sunday morning ask the congregation for prayers for those lost. I think part of the problem with engine fires on the B-29 was the use of magnesium for the engine case. Some of my Nebraska neighbors had relatives who built B-29s at the Martin bomber plant in Bellevue.Both 29s that dropped the A bomb on Japan were built in the Bellevue plant which became Offutt AFB.
The R-3350 had a long gestation period to become reliable. They didn't like the south pacific environment on B-29's and had a tendency to overheat, and or drop valves at the least opportune time, while taking off. Changes allowed them to get better.
Cruise oil consumption was 5.6 gallons/ Hr.
Here is a good article on the engine;
http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Wright/WrightR-3350.pdf I remeber a B-29 crash on the north end of the north/south runway at Kirtland during WWII. The priest saying Mass at St Charles on Sunday morning ask the congregation for prayers for those lost. I think part of the problem with engine fires on the B-29 was the use of magnesium for the engine case. Some of my Nebraska neighbors had relatives who built B-29s at the Martin bomber plant in Bellevue.Both 29s that dropped the A bomb on Japan were built in the Bellevue plant which became Offutt AFB.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Aren't you really writing about the fuel efficiency of the Wright engines?
I know that you're well aware of the operating advantages of turbines as compared to these finicky and maintenance intensive radials.
In a round about way, you are correct. Even so, many of the large piston powered aircraft were rather efficient, regardless of engine choice. No question they were maintenance hogs, had reliability issues, burned expensive and exceedingly risky fuel and so on. I just wanted to point out the fact that they achieved excellent (almost equivalent to today) passenger MPG in the 1940's. They were slow and flew low too. I did mention that I'm not about ancestor worship. By that I mean, I don't think the "old ways" are better in any way. And I certainly don't see a return to those ways.
I've been unable to find fuel specifics on the turboprop conversion of the Connie. Might be interesting.
Aren't you really writing about the fuel efficiency of the Wright engines?
I know that you're well aware of the operating advantages of turbines as compared to these finicky and maintenance intensive radials.
In a round about way, you are correct. Even so, many of the large piston powered aircraft were rather efficient, regardless of engine choice. No question they were maintenance hogs, had reliability issues, burned expensive and exceedingly risky fuel and so on. I just wanted to point out the fact that they achieved excellent (almost equivalent to today) passenger MPG in the 1940's. They were slow and flew low too. I did mention that I'm not about ancestor worship. By that I mean, I don't think the "old ways" are better in any way. And I certainly don't see a return to those ways.
I've been unable to find fuel specifics on the turboprop conversion of the Connie. Might be interesting.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: quint
Was just there and walked through every one of them yesterday afternoon. Its about the only perk to living in Ohio, living close to Wright-Patterson AFB....
One thing I have taken away after going through the various AF1's multiple times over the years, is that they are a lot more impressive to look at from the outside than you would think they would be on the inside. The insides all seem rather spartan... I know these are well used, decades old planes but I expected a bit more luxury, or grandeur, or something. Functional for what it needs to be, and that's about it, from what I got out of it. Still, very fun and neat to walk through.
If you only knew about the plethora of avionics and classified electronics in that plane you would be even more impressed.
Was just there and walked through every one of them yesterday afternoon. Its about the only perk to living in Ohio, living close to Wright-Patterson AFB....
One thing I have taken away after going through the various AF1's multiple times over the years, is that they are a lot more impressive to look at from the outside than you would think they would be on the inside. The insides all seem rather spartan... I know these are well used, decades old planes but I expected a bit more luxury, or grandeur, or something. Functional for what it needs to be, and that's about it, from what I got out of it. Still, very fun and neat to walk through.
If you only knew about the plethora of avionics and classified electronics in that plane you would be even more impressed.
The 707 is/was an impressive plane considering it was designed in the 1950s. It changedthe world.I guess so is the B 52 !! I remember when my dad and I went to the San Francisco Airport to see the 707 when it first came out. They were fast and were a nice ride . I am becomming ancient.
The radial engine fire tankers seems to bounce off the top of my roof with the radial engines and after they were converted to turbo prop they gained alltitude so fast it was hard to believe. I was also told that the radial engines were derated due to the new Av gas being lower octane
Originally Posted By: CT8
The radial engine fire tankers seems to bounce off the top of my roof with the radial engines and after they were converted to turbo prop they gained alltitude so fast it was hard to believe. I was also told that the radial engines were derated due to the new Av gas being lower octane
I think you're right...during the war, those engines were pushed to the manifold pressure limits on 115/145 avgas...the civilian avgas was 100/130 (IIRC) and now, all you can buy is 100LL...and I am reasonably sure that there was a ton of tetra-ethyl lead in the 115/145...
Turbines are simpler. Simpler to build, simpler to run, simpler to maintain, and simpler to fuel...and a good turboprop engine makes incredible horsepower...the Allison T56 made over 4,000 HP, in a very compact package when compared with those radials...
Don't get me wrong...I love the old piston engines...LOVE them... but the jet age came about for a reason...
The radial engine fire tankers seems to bounce off the top of my roof with the radial engines and after they were converted to turbo prop they gained alltitude so fast it was hard to believe. I was also told that the radial engines were derated due to the new Av gas being lower octane
I think you're right...during the war, those engines were pushed to the manifold pressure limits on 115/145 avgas...the civilian avgas was 100/130 (IIRC) and now, all you can buy is 100LL...and I am reasonably sure that there was a ton of tetra-ethyl lead in the 115/145...
Turbines are simpler. Simpler to build, simpler to run, simpler to maintain, and simpler to fuel...and a good turboprop engine makes incredible horsepower...the Allison T56 made over 4,000 HP, in a very compact package when compared with those radials...
Don't get me wrong...I love the old piston engines...LOVE them... but the jet age came about for a reason...
- Status
