airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:18 am

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.




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Werner

It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:32 am

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Thread starter):
Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

You know....carpet isn't required for safety.  Big grin

Besides a crappy looking interior, I don't see too many safety hazards. What are you seeing?
Crye me a river
 
FighterPilot
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:27 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:46 am

Floor lights? Well labeled exits?

Cal
*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:49 am

Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 2):
Floor lights? Well labeled exits?

I couldn't tell if those were bolts in the floor or small lights, so I don't know. The exits seem pretty well labeled, being bright yellow with lights above them.

Its no modern interior, that's for sure....and the point of this thread. But its still a helluva lot better than most GA aircraft.  

Edit: spelling

[Edited 2006-10-13 01:52:32]
Crye me a river
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:50 am

No emergency exit lights? No emergency aisle lights?
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:52 am

Aaah....

No provision for emergency oxygen (in the event of a depressurization...)  Wink !!!
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:53 am

Maybe you just have to sign a waiver before boarding, then.
Crye me a river
 
FighterPilot
Posts: 1306
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:27 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:16 am

Round two...

What about the hooks on the roof?
Or better yet, people leaving their crap behind?

Cal

[Edited 2006-10-13 02:17:09]
*Insert Sound Of GE90 Spooling Up Here*
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:36 am

Quoting FighterPilot (Reply 7):
What about the hooks on the roof?

Nah....static line hookups. You didn't see the other picture yet, did you?  Big grin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Waser

Crye me a river
 
MissedApproach
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:25 am

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!
Can you hear me now?
 
Jerald01
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:35 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:01 pm

This aircraft is a personal injury lawsuit laywer's dream!

Just look at how many sprained / broken ankles the high-heel-wearing ladies would be able to file... just on one flight!

Or how many cracked skulls would there be from smacking same into those static line connectors on the walls and ceiling?

And what about the sprained backs, dislocated shoulders, and/or cricked necks that would result from passengers trying to sling their 45-lb backpack up into the non-existent overhead bins?

Ahhhh, yes. Those were the days of REAL aviation !
"There may be old pilots, and there may be bold pilots, but there are darn few green cows"
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:22 pm

Looks like First Class if you compare it to a C-130.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:46 pm

Emergency Exit Path lighting
Oxygen PSUs
Life Jackets.
 Smile
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
ha763
Posts: 3168
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:40 pm

Other than the path lighting and O2 generators, how much G's can those seats take?

Here's some pictures showing the interior complete so that you can see that it has full carpeting, plus a better look at the emergency exits:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Waser
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rolf Wallner

 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:44 pm

Ryan Air just called and said " THOSE ROWS NEED TO BE 3-2 NOT 2-2!!!  hissyfit 
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
avioniker
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 5:38 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Those rings in the sidewalls and ceiling were used for litter suspension and hat racks (among other things). Used them a lot in the 60's between Tan Son Nuht and Clark.
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:44 pm

Big version: Width: 1155 Height: 819 File size: 175kb


Here's its brother or sister at Davis Mothball about 1982 when these were still in preservation status and had to be brought out and run up every five years I think.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
cascade07
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:20 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:05 am

It might be a bit "basic" inside but you've all got to admit.....they're a great looking bird!!  Smile


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Phil Vabre



Cascade
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:20 am

Quoting Cascade07 (Reply 17):
It might be a bit "basic" inside but you've all got to admit.....they're a great looking bird!!

Compound curves are a beautiful thing.

Not to put too fine a point on it but, the best looking airliner ever built. I've heard they were a dream to fly as well.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Jerald01
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:35 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:56 am

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
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:56 pm

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.

A superbly delightful airplane to fly.
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:34 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 20):
Passenger supplemental oxygen was not required in these aircraft, as they were not authorized to be operated above 25,000 feet.

Nowadays, it would be.  redflag 

Required over 14,000 for the crew, 15,000 for passengers.
Crye me a river
 
meister808
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2000 11:45 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 20):
A superbly delightful airplane to fly.

Lucky bastard.

-Meister
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:09 am

Actually, Meister, I always preferred the Stratocruiser...bigger flight deck., altho the ones I flew had been just slightly ahhh, enlarged.
The Connie was a bit narrow.
DC-6B, second choice.

Jets?

B707 was very nice.
L1011 even nicer.

Turbopropeller types?

Electra, hands down, the best ever.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:17 am




Quoting 411A (Reply 23):
altho the ones I flew had been just slightly ahhh, enlarged.

So how did the performance of the Guppy compare with that of the Stratocruiser? Any operational differences apart from loading/unloading?  eyebrow 



2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:40 am

On the B377PG, the following cautions needed to be observed

1. The speed limit was 250 knots true due to structural issues.
Normal cruise speed was 220 knots.

2. As the fuselage was extended some 20 feet aft of the wing, the airplane needed to be landed in a three point attitude (or close thereto) to avoid scraping the aft end on landing.

This wasn't all that difficult, just...odd.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:46 am




Quoting 411A (Reply 25):
2. As the fuselage was extended some 20 feet aft of the wing, the airplane needed to be landed in a three point attitude (or close thereto) to avoid scraping the aft end on landing.

This wasn't all that difficult, just...odd.

Ahhhh...I've wondered about those landings for a long time:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Kanagie
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steven Freeman




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Prince




Interesting info. Thanks for sharing, 411A.



2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:50 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 25):
This wasn't all that difficult, just...odd.

Who did you fly the Guppy's for?
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:56 am

AeroSpacelines, only briefly, piston powered models only.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:12 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 28):
AeroSpacelines, only briefly, piston powered models only.

Did you know Van Shepard? I worked on the TIFS for Tex Johnson Aerospace, in the same hanger as Aero Space Lines. Van Shepard was killed in the Turbo Mini Guppy crash at Edwards. He was our Vice President, really nice guy. First met him when I was about 15 and he was an F-100 production test pilot at North American in Palmdale.
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:44 pm

Yes, I met Van a couple of times.
Also sadly killed in the Guppy201 crash was Hal Hanson, the Dir Flt Ops.

TIFS was a very odd looking airplane as I recall.
A converted CV580, I think, with a 'strange' nose.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:05 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 30):
TIFS was a very odd looking airplane as I recall.
A converted CV580, I think, with a 'strange' nose.

"Strange nose" no way, just your standard Boeing 707 nose on a Convair 580.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Groot


Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

AeroSpace Lines just couldn't make normal looking aircraft.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:50 am

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 21):
Quoting 411A (Reply 20):
Passenger supplemental oxygen was not required in these aircraft, as they were not authorized to be operated above 25,000 feet.

Nowadays, it would be.

Required over 14,000 for the crew, 15,000 for passengers.

Isn't it so that you can go to 25,000 feet without supplemental oxygen, but in case of cabin decompression, then any plane - with or without supplemental oxygen - must descend fast to 14,000 ?
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:09 am

The limit on FL250 is for pax supplemental oxygen only.
FD crew must have it available at all altitudes, for reasons such as smoke/fumes etc.
Allegheny Airlines for example, operated their BAC1-11's years ago at a max altitude of FL250...no pax oxy fitted.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C

Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:13 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 33):
Allegheny Airlines for example, operated their BAC1-11's years ago at a max altitude of FL250...no pax oxy fitted.

".... exits are located here, here and here...

Don't get up too fast or you may feel woozy. Under no circumstances attempt to join the mile high club...

In case of a water landing...."
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests