Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TWA 20 Hour Nonstops  
User currently offlineB741 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 716 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3683 times:

I think this post might raise a few heads. I read in Airliners magazine that TWA flew Constellation Jetstreams from California to Europe nonstop in the late 50s. The westbound return was 20+ hours nonstop. They flew with reduced power to conserve fuel. Kind of puts our modern long haul flights to shame in terms of duration!


Being Bilingual, I Speak English And Aviation
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIMisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6293 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Somehow TWA also was able to fly CAI-IDL nonstop with the Connie also. But then, you must consider the 24 hour Pan American flights with the 314, and those being California-Hawaii.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineRareBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

These non-stop flights of 20 hours or more were possible only with the L-1649 series Starliners. TWA called them the Jetstream. Only three airlines flew them originally. TWA, Lufthansa and Air France

The wings on these aircraft were an entirely new design from the L-1049 series, and had more than twice the fuel capacity. It was primarily the west-bound flights that were the longest, timewise, due to typically strong headwinds.



Illegitimus non carborundum
User currently offlineBA747400 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

This may be a silly question but why is SQ making such a big deal about their 18 hr flight? I was under the impression that it was the longest PAX flight of all time....but now I read others have had even longer. Hmmmm

Can someone help clear this up?

Thanks alot!
Mike


User currently offlineRareBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3429 times:

There's nothing to clear up. These flights by the L-1649 Starliners were fact. It appears that if SQ is indeed saying that their 18-hr flight are the longest of all time, then they obviously haven't done their homework.


Illegitimus non carborundum
User currently offlineBA747400 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

LOL thanks RareBear  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards,
Mike


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3332 times:

If I'm not mistaken, the aircraft of this area were configured with much more luxurious interiors. Beds for all passengers were a part of it. Flying in those days was more oriented for the wealthier group of people.

User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5659 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2994 times:

The longest non stop flights by an airline was the Qantas "Double Sunrise" service from Perth Western Australia to Ceylon 1941 -1944. The flight time was around 32 hours!

It was operated by civilianised (ie stripped down) Considlated PBY-5 Catalina twin engined flying boats. They carried up to 5 passengers and 1 ton of mail.

It was officially an airline flight, not a military flight. It connected to BOAC services to the UK via east africa, west africa and Lisbon (I think).


Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined exactly 15 years ago today! , 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

"You fools" is "inappropriate"? Ugh.

I doubt that the TW 1649s had "beds for all passengers", but I'll check.

I've always wondered whether they could've made the trip faster by flying at a higher power setting and stopping at Frobisher or Sondre Stromfjord. And we'd still like to know what percentage of the trips did make it nonstop (you recall the timetable noted that a fuel stop may be made).


User currently offlineWGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

The TWA L1649s were highly luxurious aircraft...I'm sure the seats were vastly superior to those you find on today's 777 and A330 aircraft working similiar flights...also the L1649 was much better looking!  Big thumbs up


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Werner Horvath



However, what detracted from the added comfort was the extreme noise and vibration. While on the Starliner it wasn't nearly as bad as on earlier propliners I still imagine (although this is speculation because obviously I was born nearly 40 years after the heydey of these flights) that it was substantially less smooth and quiet as a flight on a jetliner. I imagine that stepping off of these L1649s at the end of a flight one would feel extremely fatigued and exhausted.

However...not nearly as exhausted as someone stepping off of the QANTAS "Double Sunrise" flight. 32 hours in an unpressurized demilitarized flying boat!!!  Wow! Somewhat like a form of torture really...probably worse even than flying AOM ORY-LAX nonstop...  Laugh out loud

One other comment:

Your language is highly inappropriate in this forum. This is a rule violation.

I've seen much worse. Please remember to use the suggest deletion button if anything offends you. Though it's out of my league as far as I can tell it wasn't a rule violation anyway as it wasn't directed towards any user in particular...in the chat we would not take action if someone said that unless they did it repeatedly and in a manner that was disruptive and offensive to the other users.

-WGW2707


User currently offlineRareBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

WGW2707:

A reading of the rules, especially 1a and 6, would lead me to respectfully disagree with you. I think the phraseology in question meets the intent of the last sentence in Rule 1a. I see nowhere in the rules that the words are required to be addressed to a partiicular individual.

The fact that you have seen worse in no way detracts from this instance.

By the way, the "Suggest deletion" function was utilized.

[Edited 2004-02-26 20:42:23]


Illegitimus non carborundum
User currently offlineIMisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6293 posts, RR: 33
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Gemuser, you are correct. Now imagine that connection. You just flew into Perth and face another 3 days enroute to London.

Of course, there were stops and hotels enroute. Maybe Singapore means the longest flight in terms of physical discomfort?



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offline5NEOO From Nigeria, joined Nov 2003, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

There seems to be some form of misunderstanding here. The SIN-LAX route operated by SQ is the longest scheduled flight in the form of distance flown. The flights operated by TWA and their Connies might have spent a lot more time up in the air, but they certainly didn't cover that much ground.


Admit it, you could care less about the continent Africa!
User currently offlineRareBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

5NE00:
The original topic of this post dealt with the 20-hour plus flight duration of the L-1649 Constellation. We were not discussing miles flown.


The production of the L-1649 Starliners was only 44 aircraft. Sadly, only 4 remain today. One is in a museum in South Africa, another is in the Fantasy of Flight Museum in Polk City, FL, and the other two are at the airport in Auburn, Maine. Three of the four are owned by one individual, Maurice Roundy, who has the two Starliners in his front yard in Maine. He also owns the one in Florida. Here are photos of two of the four remaining aircraft:



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roy Blewett






View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralph M. Pettersen




Visit http://www.starliner.net to read the story of the Maine Connies.



Illegitimus non carborundum
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

The SQ flight is a huge deal. It covers a huge amount of distance, not time elapsed.

N


User currently offlineRareBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

No argument that the miles flown by SQ on its SIN-LAX flights is astounding, but again, the topic of this thread was Flight Time, not miles.


Illegitimus non carborundum
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

TWA bought the ultimate Constellation for that route, the Lockheed 1649A Starliner, or Jetstreams, as TWA called them. They had a range unsurpassed by the Douglas DC-7C, 6,000 miles! That is longer range than the 764ER, and the early 747 miles. Amazing how long they could fly, given their inferior speed to the jets.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Program Alert: CNN About TWA 800 3 Hour Program posted Sun Jul 16 2006 01:57:33 by Boeinglover24
US Airways To Cut Nonstops To 20 Cities From PIT posted Thu Aug 12 2004 18:56:16 by Sebwhite
LGA-20 Arrivals An Hour? posted Wed Aug 11 2004 22:50:43 by SHUPirate1
TWA Orders 20 A319s/49 Orders For Airbus In June posted Thu Jul 6 2000 05:36:57 by MAC_Veteran
AZ Loads For DEC 20 2006 posted Tue Dec 19 2006 22:38:09 by YYZACGUY
Nervous Flyer Here - 12/20 SAT-DTW-ABE posted Tue Dec 19 2006 02:27:36 by Phxflyer
Flashback: Northwest And TWA 727's At LAS posted Fri Dec 15 2006 18:27:43 by Matt D
AerCap Order 20 Airbus A330-200s posted Fri Dec 15 2006 13:02:01 by PanAm_DC10
What Is The Scrap Metal Value Of A Falcon 20? posted Thu Dec 14 2006 21:52:09 by COAMiG29
787 20% Vs. A350XWB 30% posted Wed Dec 13 2006 07:13:20 by AVinutso