Airfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7769 times:
Ok guys and girls what is wrong with this photo in terms of modern aviation standards. Think in terms of a safety inspector, CEO, or other modern point point of view. I think this aircraft is beautiful and is perfect but it would never make it in today's modern word of cost reduction and safety directives.
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7696 times:
From a marketing point of view, no IFE, no movie screen even, no overhead bins, no seatback trays. On the plus side, the windows are large enough that you can probably see something.
Oh, they've probably got too much legroom too!
Jerald01 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7311 times:
Along with some RC-135 crew-members, I was standing under the wing of our bird at Miami Int'l back in about 1966 when one of those 'Connies taxied by on it's way to the active. It was from some airline south of the equator, as I recall, and we all watched it 'cause it was such a beauty.
The pilot lined her up on the runway and put her four R-4830's to full power. The graceful lady got up to rotation speed quite soon and, just about the time the pilot pulled back on the yoke, one of the engines belched out a big gray cloud of smoke, followed by a loud "Bang!", and the unmistakable sputtering of 28 cylinders shutting down. The prop windmilled to a stop as the pilot turned her at the end of the runway.
He then proceeded to taxi back to the other end of the runway, pirouetted a 180, threw the power to the remaining three engines, and off she went into the southern skies with three turnin' and one, . . . well, let's just say it was only going along for the ride.
"There may be old pilots, and there may be bold pilots, but there are darn few green cows"
411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7258 times:
So much mis-information here, so here are a few facts...
1. Lockheed Constellation aircraft were not equipped with 28 cylinder R-4830 engines...whatever those are/were.
They were equipped with Curtis Wright R-3350 engines, and further, super Constellations as well as the 1649A, were equipped with Curtis Wright R-3350 turbocompound engines.
These CurtisWright engines had 18 cylinders.
2. Passenger supplemental oxygen was not required in these aircraft, as they were not authorized to be operated above 25,000 feet.
Walk around oxygen bottles were however provided, for medical purposes.
Altho I did not fly the USAF variety, I did fly the 1649A Constellation, and this aircraft was quite unique.
Unlike previous models of the Constellation, the 1649A had a new, very long, tapered high speed wing, that held nearly 10,000 gallons of 115/145 avgas, and was capable of non-stop flights in excess of 22 hours, at 315 knots TAS.