The Constellation Model-049 combined key virtues of high speed, reliable performance, passenger appeal, and sound operating economics. It was tested by Lockheed and the USAAF during the war and later became commercially available for postwar intercontinental travel.
I flew on one of these as a young lad from LA to SF. I had a window seat on the right side just aft of the wing. I thought it was cool watching the wing flex as we bounced through the turbulence over the Tehachapi mountains. My grandmother was on my left, white knuckles gripping the arm rests and staring straight ahead. She preferred the train.
ReplyDeleteI always wanted to fly on one. To experience long distance, high performance, high speed, piston powered aviation.
ReplyDeleteWorked on a 1049 for some years. Height of piston engine complexity.
ReplyDeletegreenman
flew on and maintained L-1049H in the USAF until they hit the boneyard and got turned into beer cans. R3350s were not the height of complexity as that honor goes to the R4360 powerplant. thirty six cylinders verses 18. Hmmmm. I would not advise building new L049 aircraft. 145 man hours per flying hour just for maintenance. corrosion and cracks held together with rivits and paint. flying characteristics left a lot to be desired. Boosted controls yes. slow flight was very dangerous. low speed "performance hook" could and did bit hard. comes a point where(to Quote Adm. Crowe) there isn't enough horsepower in all of christendom to accelerate out of the hole you flew into. If I had to fly with four props I would rather have the Hercules. don't bother with the DC-6 or -7 as they were like flying a rainforest. never before had i seen pilots flying a pressurized airplane while wearing rain gear. condensation on the top inside of the fuselage would flow forward and rain down into the cockpit. weird.
Deletesuper connies had a cachet with the sloping design of the fuselage and long slender nose gear. not the easiest machine to work on or fly
But-I can get my skinny butt in between the cylinders on the PW, the Wrights are really tightly packed.
DeleteFlew these as a kid to Morocco and back on these. 18 hours each way. Refueled Gander and Azores.
ReplyDeleteMy Dad worked for Eastern after ww2 (before he was pulled back in 'at the pleasure of the President' for the Korean War). Eddie Rickenbacker, then Eastern CEO) gave my parents a set of silk-screened commemorative glasses from the Connie's inaugural flight with Eastern. I still have them today.
beautiful, sexy airplane...for a BUFF.
My dad worked for Pan am after WW-II and we flew the Connies up and down the East coast a lot during the early 1950's. The other civilized thing was every male, including me at 12 years worse a suit and tie and the women including my younger sister wore dresses and white gloves. No slobs allowed!
DeleteFlew on them as crew out of Glynco in the early 70's and yes, a PITA to work on. 3350s would burn 6 gal of oil, throw 6 out, and have 6 left... Sigh
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, modern jets have only recently become as efficient as the Connie. 70 years to achieve the exact same passenger mile per gallon numbers. Sure, modern jets are faster, but jets also fly in the far lower drag environment of high altitudes, have winglets and other tricks. Nor do modern turboprops exceed the Connie's efficiency and performance.
ReplyDeleteMy first Navy squadron was flying the last 4 C-121C models in the MAC inventory out of Tachikawa, Japan. Primarily flying medevac in and out of South Viet Nam with a few Log flights to Korea. A great airplane that was loved by pilots and aircrew alike.
ReplyDeleteFlee on one as a kid from Travis AFB, California, to Hickam AFB, to Wake Island, to Anderson AFB, Guam. Got stacked up in a holding pattern for 45 minutes as B-52s were returning from strikes in Vietnam. Watched an awful lot of EC-121s (with the big radomes top and bottom) take off and land on Guam. I've always loved the looks of the Connie, but those engines were beasts to maintain.
ReplyDeletewell, the engines weren't as bad as some others would think. on rare occasions did we have to renew a cylinder. changing the cylinder assy was a 8 hr job, engine change 6 hrs. what ever it took to be mission capable. had several engines on my aircraft exceed TBO and were kept in service as long as possible. Spare engines were getting tight in the mid 70s. in general, the USAF flight engineers were very good at their jobs. as i recall the most recurring engine issues were cracked direct injection fuel lines and low tension ignition coils on the cylinders.
DeleteKC97 had r4360 engines and usually had at least one cylinder change per flight. to be remembered though, the KC97 used METO power during air refueling to keep the speed as high as possible. not real conducive to engine longevity. I still recall the engine techs at Malmstrom AFB discussing how certain Pratt and Whitney field reps should go swimming in the river with rocks in their pockets.
the biggest cause of high oil consumption was the airframe de-icer boot air supply system.used a oil lubed air pump to inflate and deflate the deicer boots. the air/oil separator was not the best. separator would dump overboard whatever exceeded it ability to separate and the oil would fill the flap segment aft of the engine nacelle. made a hell of a mess when the flaps were lowered. 42 gal behind the engines and a 67gal reserve tank.
Good grief.
Delete