BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2024, 19:29

Username Protected wrote:

Didn't say a thing about the man, but from the video as posted are you saying that he acted as would be expected given that resume? Unknown gear issue, they get the gear down, and are in a rush to land and clear the runway? Why? Was that really the best COA? No low pass to alert them to the fact the nosewheel was cocked to the left so they could land on the right side of runway? No consideration to stopping straight ahead on the runway and pinning the gear? Did you hear them all acknowledge they had never seen this before? Could they guarantee the gear wouldn't have collapsed with any side load?

And,do you believe he put all that experience to practice here? In his extensive career, did the responsibilities of Capt go to the most experienced crewmember in the cockpit regardless of position, or was the Capt the Capt. During his time in the 777, was the industry standard rule by committee?

What's with the ivory tower mentality that a certain resume makes the ADM process unassailable? What's the point of you bringing that up if everything in the video says he acted counter to his cumulative experience? I purposefully didn't mention any specific individuals by name because it's irrelevant. Are you concerned that discussing their actions, that they thenselves posted on line for all to see, equates to a personal attack?

The commentary at the end of the video highlighted their expert handling of the situation. Really? If you were the person in charge of that organization, wouldn't you prefer lessons learned from this event and use it as a learning tool going forward.....or would you prefer your crews not discuss multiple COAs and decide on the best one after actual deliberation?

Brett, WTH? Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I only said he was in the flight engineer seat , a 777 Captain and an expert on TBones. He used to be one of my tenants and I know him to be a good person.
I have no idea who was in command or who the other two pilots were. Do not put words in my mouth saying I was supporting or not supporting this crew. If you disagree with their performance take it up with them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2024, 19:31

Username Protected wrote:

So beautiful
Not one straight line on that airplane

Did Kelly Johnson have a hand in it’s design?

Chief Engineer Hall L. Hibbard and Kelly Johnson were the chief design engineers on the project which was started in 1938. Don Palmer was project engineer.

Earlest version was called "Lockheed Model 44 Excaliber" but went through many revisions before the final model 049 Constellation was defined and the prototype fabrication begun in 1939. Before first flight on January 9, 1943 it was reclassified as C-69 since all aircraft intended for commercial airline use were taken over by the Army Air Corps.

Lots of collaboration with Jack Frye of TWA and Howard Hughes, who was the major stockholder of TWA, on the configuration.

Since Lockheed had no four engine flight experience, they borrowed Boeing's Chief Test Pilot Eddie Allen for the first flight.

I have a book on the Lockheed Constellation which is packed with the full history of the aircraft.

Dan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2024, 19:37

My book on the Lockheed Constellation.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2024, 20:20

Did anyone ever consider putting turboprops or jet engines on a Connie?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2024, 22:56

Username Protected wrote:

Did anyone ever consider putting turboprops or jet engines on a Connie?

The US Navy ordered 4 R7V-2 turbo-prop Constellations outfitted with 6,000 horsepower Pratt & Whitney T34-P-6 engines.

According to the record, this was to evaluate the engines, not to improve the performance of the airframe to which they were installed. I don't see any othere reference to these but it seems peculiar that they were not advanced to operational status. What could be better than 24,000 horsepower?

Dan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jun 2024, 23:02

Username Protected wrote:

Did anyone ever consider putting turboprops or jet engines on a Connie?

The US Navy ordered 4 R7V-2 turbo-prop Constellations outfitted with 6,000 horsepower Pratt & Whitney T34-P-6 engines.

According to the record, this was to evaluate the engines, not to improve the performance of the airframe to which they were installed. I don't see any othere reference to these but it seems peculiar that they were not advanced to operational status. What could be better than 24,000 horsepower?

Dan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 00:11

Username Protected wrote:

The US Navy ordered 4 R7V-2 turbo-prop Constellations outfitted with 6,000 horsepower Pratt & Whitney T34-P-6 engines.

According to the record, this was to evaluate the engines, not to improve the performance of the airframe to which they were installed. I don't see any othere reference to these but it seems peculiar that they were not advanced to operational status. What could be better than 24,000 horsepower?

Dan

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... c1953.jpeg

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 00:46

IIRC, Lockheed also built a Super Connie with Allison 501s, the engine that went on to power the Electra and C-130.

I also believe there was a turboprop Connie model 1249. It too may have been only a test bed, as it never went into production.

George

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 07:26

Username Protected wrote:

Did anyone ever consider putting turboprops or jet engines on a Connie?

The US Navy ordered 4 R7V-2 turbo-prop Constellations outfitted with 6,000 horsepower Pratt & Whitney T34-P-6 engines.

According to the record, this was to evaluate the engines, not to improve the performance of the airframe to which they were installed. I don't see any othere reference to these but it seems peculiar that they were not advanced to operational status. What could be better than 24,000 horsepower?

Dan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 10:28

Username Protected wrote:

IIRC, Lockheed also built a Super Connie with Allison 501s, the engine that went on to power the Electra and C-130.

I also believe there was a turboprop Connie model 1249. It too may have been only a test bed, as it never went into production.

George

From WikipediA:

"In November 1951, an idea came about to build a turbine-powered version of the R7O-1. This new aircraft was designated L-1249A by Lockheed. In 1954, two R7O-1s (then designated R7V-1) were pulled off the assembly line for conversion into prototypes for the new L-1249A. The landing gear was strengthened along with the fuselage and wings of the aircraft. Extra fuel tanks were also added on the wingtips of the two aircraft, increasing the fuel capacity to 7,360 gallons. The wings were also shortened from 123 ft (37 m) to 117 ft 7 in (35.84 m). Finally, four Pratt & Whitney YT34-P-12A turboprop engines, rated at 5,500 bhp (4,100 kW) each, were installed in place of the usual Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial engines. The new aircraft was designated R7V-2, and first flew on 1 September 1954. The R7V-2 reached 412 mph (663 km/h) making it the fastest transport aircraft in the world at the time. The two R7V-2 aircraft were delivered to the Navy on 10 September the same year."

Also:

"Only four aircraft were built, as the T34 was found to be complex and only used on large aircraft such as the 50 examples of the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster.... One R7V-2, before being scrapped, was used for testing the Allison 501D turboprops for the development of the Lockheed L-188 Electra (earning the nickname "Elation" during testing)."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 10:38

In that picture the nacelle on the inboard left engine looks much larger than the outboard engine. Is that an illusion or what?

Username Protected wrote:

IIRC, Lockheed also built a Super Connie with Allison 501s, the engine that went on to power the Electra and C-130.

I also believe there was a turboprop Connie model 1249. It too may have been only a test bed, as it never went into production.

George

From WikipediA:

"In November 1951, an idea came about to build a turbine-powered version of the R7O-1. This new aircraft was designated L-1249A by Lockheed. In 1954, two R7O-1s (then designated R7V-1) were pulled off the assembly line for conversion into prototypes for the new L-1249A. The landing gear was strengthened along with the fuselage and wings of the aircraft. Extra fuel tanks were also added on the wingtips of the two aircraft, increasing the fuel capacity to 7,360 gallons. The wings were also shortened from 123 ft (37 m) to 117 ft 7 in (35.84 m). Finally, four Pratt & Whitney YT34-P-12A turboprop engines, rated at 5,500 bhp (4,100 kW) each, were installed in place of the usual Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial engines. The new aircraft was designated R7V-2, and first flew on 1 September 1954. The R7V-2 reached 412 mph (663 km/h) making it the fastest transport aircraft in the world at the time. The two R7V-2 aircraft were delivered to the Navy on 10 September the same year."

Also:

"Only four aircraft were built, as the T34 was found to be complex and only used on large aircraft such as the 50 examples of the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster.... One R7V-2, before being scrapped, was used for testing the Allison 501D turboprops for the development of the Lockheed L-188 Electra (earning the nickname "Elation" during testing)."

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 10:57

<<In that picture the nacelle on the inboard left engine looks much larger than the outboard engine. Is that an illusion or what?>>

Landing gear and systems?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 10:59

Username Protected wrote:

<<In that picture the nacelle on the inboard left engine looks much larger than the outboard engine. Is that an illusion or what?>>

Landing gear and systems?

That's what it looks like, for the main landing gear:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 11:01

Username Protected wrote:

<<In that picture the nacelle on the inboard left engine looks much larger than the outboard engine. Is that an illusion or what?>>

Landing gear and systems?

Turbine engines are longer than radials, so they couldn’t put the gear systems behind the engines as they did in the piston version and had to bulk up the nacelle?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jun 2024, 11:10

Username Protected wrote:

<<In that picture the nacelle on the inboard left engine looks much larger than the outboard engine. Is that an illusion or what?>>

Landing gear and systems?

Turbine engines are longer than radials, so they couldn’t put the gear systems behind the engines as they did in the piston version and had to bulk up the nacelle?

Connie @ SNF