History of BOAC
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF Skymasters were lend-lease and were returned to the US in 1946 eventually going to the US Navy
One here, unidentified base
LIFE: War 1939-1945 World War Ii Air Uk Misc.Transport Etc - Hosted by Google
One here, unidentified base
LIFE: War 1939-1945 World War Ii Air Uk Misc.Transport Etc - Hosted by Google
Last edited by A30yoyo; 27th Aug 2011 at 22:29.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Comet 4 Transatlantic Service Oct 1958
This lovely set by Mark Kauffman/LIFE was taken on the old Heathrow Northside tarmac....curious how the Comet gets its nosewheel off well before V1 (if it existed back then)
jet comet - Google Search
Halfway down 28R with the Fairey Hangar and original Comet 1 hangars visible
LIFE: Jet Comet - Hosted by Google
Presscall Northside....'Flight Crew' has BBC's aviation specialist Reginald Turnill on right in raincoat, I think
LIFE: Jet - Hosted by Google
LIFE: Jet - Hosted by Google
LIFE: Flight crew standing on the stairs of th... - Hosted by Google
LIFE: BOAC executive Sir Gerard D'Erlanger. - Hosted by Google
jet comet - Google Search
Halfway down 28R with the Fairey Hangar and original Comet 1 hangars visible
LIFE: Jet Comet - Hosted by Google
Presscall Northside....'Flight Crew' has BBC's aviation specialist Reginald Turnill on right in raincoat, I think
LIFE: Jet - Hosted by Google
LIFE: Jet - Hosted by Google
LIFE: Flight crew standing on the stairs of th... - Hosted by Google
LIFE: BOAC executive Sir Gerard D'Erlanger. - Hosted by Google
Last edited by A30yoyo; 27th Aug 2011 at 22:34.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 84
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1948/49 BOAC did in fact use four DC-4's (C54A) that were owned by the original Skyways Ltd. based at Dunsfold. They flew services to the Middle East and the Persian oil fields on behalf of BOAC, as well as some War Office charters.
They were G-AJPL, 'PM, 'PN, & 'PO. that were obtained from KLM and the survivors sold to Air France. G-AJPL crashed at Castel Benito in February 1949on a War Office charter.
They seemed to have a fairly poor serviceability record probably due to the UK goverment restricting Dollar purchases and therefore making getting spare parts a nightmare.
Speedbird48.
They were G-AJPL, 'PM, 'PN, & 'PO. that were obtained from KLM and the survivors sold to Air France. G-AJPL crashed at Castel Benito in February 1949on a War Office charter.
They seemed to have a fairly poor serviceability record probably due to the UK goverment restricting Dollar purchases and therefore making getting spare parts a nightmare.
Speedbird48.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-4s marked with BOAC and Speedbird
There was a recent article about the Skyways DC-4 charter to BOAC by Peter Marson in Propliner magazine #121(BOAC and the Speedbird symbol were painted near the pax.door in addition to the Skyways paintsheme)...I think the Skyways DC-4s came from the batch loaned to the Dutch before their 'proper' civil-built fleet arrived Flickr: Search Stephen Greensted's photostream
(Stephen Greensted's parents flew for Skyways, I believe)
Douglas DC-4 - G-AJPN - AirTeamImages.com
(Stephen Greensted's parents flew for Skyways, I believe)
Douglas DC-4 - G-AJPN - AirTeamImages.com
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 84
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A30yoyo,
There were a couple of runway overrun accidents with the Comet due to over rotation and wedge shaped pieces were added to the leading edges outboard of the engine intakes to cause airflow disruption over the tail, making it shake, if the pilot over rotated.
I believe the nose of one of those over rotation accidents,( Rome), was used in the Comet simulator that BOAC and eventually Dan Air had??
Your picture, given its position from the start of 28L, shows a good example of over rotation about to happen if he rotates any further.
V1 speed has all the wheels firmly on the ground, Vr is the rotate speed and then V2 etc. so this guy looks very premature unless he is at a very light weight?? But it could be before we used the V1, V2 etc, performance numbers??
Speedbird 48.
There were a couple of runway overrun accidents with the Comet due to over rotation and wedge shaped pieces were added to the leading edges outboard of the engine intakes to cause airflow disruption over the tail, making it shake, if the pilot over rotated.
I believe the nose of one of those over rotation accidents,( Rome), was used in the Comet simulator that BOAC and eventually Dan Air had??
Your picture, given its position from the start of 28L, shows a good example of over rotation about to happen if he rotates any further.
V1 speed has all the wheels firmly on the ground, Vr is the rotate speed and then V2 etc. so this guy looks very premature unless he is at a very light weight?? But it could be before we used the V1, V2 etc, performance numbers??
Speedbird 48.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 84
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My appologies to Peter Marson and Propliner where I had obtained some of the DC4 information.
I did however work for Skyways but not the Dunsfold version.
Speedbird 48.
I did however work for Skyways but not the Dunsfold version.
Speedbird 48.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comet and rotation
I think the Rome incident(s) involved the Comet I, didn't they?
I just found an obituary for David Davies (ARB/CAA) who insisted on Boeing increasing the fin area of the 707 before British Certification and and on having stick-pushers fitted to several T-tail airliners(Trident BAC One-Eleven, B727...) ...it records that one of his regrets was missing the tendency of the Comet I wing to stall if over-rotated.....what bearing it had on the Comet 4 and these photos of ,presumably, a full
-tank takeoff for the Atlantic,I don't know.
I think I watched this departure from the old Ground Enclosure in the Central Area
I just found an obituary for David Davies (ARB/CAA) who insisted on Boeing increasing the fin area of the 707 before British Certification and and on having stick-pushers fitted to several T-tail airliners(Trident BAC One-Eleven, B727...) ...it records that one of his regrets was missing the tendency of the Comet I wing to stall if over-rotated.....what bearing it had on the Comet 4 and these photos of ,presumably, a full
-tank takeoff for the Atlantic,I don't know.
I think I watched this departure from the old Ground Enclosure in the Central Area
WHBM - You said you were expecting comments for calling BSAA "a shambolic operation from beginning to end". Well, I've only just come across this thread, so I'm sorry for the rather tardy reply, but I hate to disappoint. 
It's become very fashionable to mock BSAA and sadly there are many myths perpetuated about the airline by people who should know better. For instance when I read Jay Rayner's book 'Star Dust Falling' about the loss of G-AGWH in the Andes, I started to note down all the factual inaccuracies, but gave up when my list became so long I needed a new sheet of A4! It's unfortunate that I have since read many statements from people trying to rubbish BSAA which I recognise as direct quotes from that book. It clearly makes for more dramatic reading and sells more books to assert that BSAA pilots flew their airliners the same as they did their Lancasters on bombing missions, that engineering standards were poor, that Don Bennett ran the airline like a bomber squadron, that they lost an aircraft every month etc. Sadly, such mis-information gets widely repeated, and the lines between fact and fiction become all too easily blurred.
Many facts get conveniently overlooked, such as the fact that BSAA made a profit while BOAC and BEA recorded losses, that BOAC didn't want the South American routes until they realised BSAA had established the necessary infrastructure and could operate them profitably, that the very same BSAA engineers and pilots so widely criticised now went on to long careers in BOAC and BA, that BOAC and BEA lost far more aircraft than BSAA in the same period, that BSAA was the most successful civilian operator on the Berlin Airlift, that there is compelling evidence of a BOAC "dirty tricks" campaign against BSAA long before the Virgin Atlantic and BA fiasco ..... I could go on. Incidentally, I'm well aware of the statistics regarding BSAA losses. I know that although BOAC and BEA suffered more aircraft losses during the period of BSAA's existence, they operated far more flights, carrying more passengers. But look a little deeper into the BSAA losses to put things slightly more in perspective. You'll find the cause of the first major accident, to Avro York 'Star Leader', was never conclusively determined. A Lancastrian accident on take-off at Bathurst was due to the PSP 'runway' being laid on unstable sand. No passengers were injured. The two Tudors were lost without any cause being determined, as no trace of wreckage was ever found. In another accident a Lancastrian reached Bermuda to find the airport in the middle of a thunderstorm (contrary to the earlier weather forecast) and had to circle for ninety minutes before being forced to attempt a landing in atrocious conditions. The skill of the pilot resulted in no passengers being injured. The Lancaster loss at Heathrow was a groundloop after landing from a training flight. There were no injuries to the four crew on board. These accidents alone account for over half of the total number of BSAA aircraft lost. But again, it would not be fashionable to admit that as well as making some mistakes BSAA also suffered more than their share of bad luck.
I must admit to having an interest in defending the airline, its employees and the way it was run. My late father worked for BSAA, before a long career in BOAC and BA. In addition, my sister and I spent many years researching the airline and its history, during which time we unearthed thousands of pages of interesting documents and were lucky enough to meet dozens of ex-BSAA staff, the majority of whom shared their fond memories of BSAA with us and their almost universal respect for Don Bennett and his management style.
So yes, BSAA was not without flaws, but it does a dis-service to the pioneering spirit of its surviving employees to repeat the familiar "shambolic operation" quotes without delving into the detail to gain a fuller picture.
There. You wanted a comment, and got a rather longer one than intended. But at least I can get down from my soap box now.
It's become very fashionable to mock BSAA and sadly there are many myths perpetuated about the airline by people who should know better. For instance when I read Jay Rayner's book 'Star Dust Falling' about the loss of G-AGWH in the Andes, I started to note down all the factual inaccuracies, but gave up when my list became so long I needed a new sheet of A4! It's unfortunate that I have since read many statements from people trying to rubbish BSAA which I recognise as direct quotes from that book. It clearly makes for more dramatic reading and sells more books to assert that BSAA pilots flew their airliners the same as they did their Lancasters on bombing missions, that engineering standards were poor, that Don Bennett ran the airline like a bomber squadron, that they lost an aircraft every month etc. Sadly, such mis-information gets widely repeated, and the lines between fact and fiction become all too easily blurred.
Many facts get conveniently overlooked, such as the fact that BSAA made a profit while BOAC and BEA recorded losses, that BOAC didn't want the South American routes until they realised BSAA had established the necessary infrastructure and could operate them profitably, that the very same BSAA engineers and pilots so widely criticised now went on to long careers in BOAC and BA, that BOAC and BEA lost far more aircraft than BSAA in the same period, that BSAA was the most successful civilian operator on the Berlin Airlift, that there is compelling evidence of a BOAC "dirty tricks" campaign against BSAA long before the Virgin Atlantic and BA fiasco ..... I could go on. Incidentally, I'm well aware of the statistics regarding BSAA losses. I know that although BOAC and BEA suffered more aircraft losses during the period of BSAA's existence, they operated far more flights, carrying more passengers. But look a little deeper into the BSAA losses to put things slightly more in perspective. You'll find the cause of the first major accident, to Avro York 'Star Leader', was never conclusively determined. A Lancastrian accident on take-off at Bathurst was due to the PSP 'runway' being laid on unstable sand. No passengers were injured. The two Tudors were lost without any cause being determined, as no trace of wreckage was ever found. In another accident a Lancastrian reached Bermuda to find the airport in the middle of a thunderstorm (contrary to the earlier weather forecast) and had to circle for ninety minutes before being forced to attempt a landing in atrocious conditions. The skill of the pilot resulted in no passengers being injured. The Lancaster loss at Heathrow was a groundloop after landing from a training flight. There were no injuries to the four crew on board. These accidents alone account for over half of the total number of BSAA aircraft lost. But again, it would not be fashionable to admit that as well as making some mistakes BSAA also suffered more than their share of bad luck.
I must admit to having an interest in defending the airline, its employees and the way it was run. My late father worked for BSAA, before a long career in BOAC and BA. In addition, my sister and I spent many years researching the airline and its history, during which time we unearthed thousands of pages of interesting documents and were lucky enough to meet dozens of ex-BSAA staff, the majority of whom shared their fond memories of BSAA with us and their almost universal respect for Don Bennett and his management style.
So yes, BSAA was not without flaws, but it does a dis-service to the pioneering spirit of its surviving employees to repeat the familiar "shambolic operation" quotes without delving into the detail to gain a fuller picture.
There. You wanted a comment, and got a rather longer one than intended. But at least I can get down from my soap box now.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A3yy/#8: "themes"
Why no BOAC C-54s? If US had cared to offer UK the option of retaining the 11 C-54 actually delivered before VE Day, as-new $ sums would have been charged. UK had no $. C-47s were offered as is, where is as scrap, so we very happily took many. UK's 1946 Reconstruction Loan, which extinguished net Lend/Lease liabilities, included a hefty C$ element, from which the airframes of Canadian Vickers' pressurised, Merlin (D)C-4M were funded as Argonaut.
Why Lancastrians, not Yorks? BOAC flew both types, York to 1957 (to 1961 sub-contract freight by Skyways).
Why not enough Connies?. It took from April,1944 to February,1946 for UK and US to agree on Civil Air Transport (the Bermuda Convention, Freedoms of the Air). US tied the assignment of L-049 delivery positions to Nations' co-operation in granting US carriers market access. New Aerlinte hoped to sell tickets London-(Shannon)-NY, and new (to be) SAS hoped to sell Scandinavia-(London-Prestwick)-NY as Fifth Freedom/Open Skies, so the States of those 2 very small home markets offered co-operation to US, and ordered Connies and Stratocruisers. Bermuda proved not to be at all Open, so UK was able to take those orders over for £. Later dribble-purchases of US types were hard-fought, with BOAC needing to self-$-finance from revenue. UK had no $.
Why was BOAC negative on VC7? Why would it not be? No V-Bomber wing found civil application. H.Wynn, Hist.of RAF Transport Command: Forged in War,HMSO,1996,P96: weight “would prevent (it) providing required payload/range.” “cancelled (as) I could not find a customer. BOAC did not want(/RAF) could not afford it” MoS R.Maudling, Memoirs, Sidgwick,1978, P62.
Wot About the Unions? Well, wot? The causes of BOAC's near-constantly dismal financial performance were not caused (wholly/solely) by Unions' restrictive practices.
The only theme constant through BOAC's existence was the conflict between:
a): its status as parastatal Designated Instrument of Foreign Policy, and:
b): its owner's wish that it employ its owners: “(You can) have an airline run as a competitive, keen commercial concern using the best available equipment, or you can have it as a shop window for aircraft you would not normally purchase.” “To expect a Co. to do something (not) wholly commercial {=feed the natives}, then, when it has lost money doing it, to expect to pay interest on that money is bloody crazy.” 9/62 Chairman Sir M.Slattery of £14Mn.loss: his irate Minister suggested he speak to the Specifier. H.Penrose, Wings Across the World, Cassell,1980, Pp.195,223
Why no BOAC C-54s? If US had cared to offer UK the option of retaining the 11 C-54 actually delivered before VE Day, as-new $ sums would have been charged. UK had no $. C-47s were offered as is, where is as scrap, so we very happily took many. UK's 1946 Reconstruction Loan, which extinguished net Lend/Lease liabilities, included a hefty C$ element, from which the airframes of Canadian Vickers' pressurised, Merlin (D)C-4M were funded as Argonaut.
Why Lancastrians, not Yorks? BOAC flew both types, York to 1957 (to 1961 sub-contract freight by Skyways).
Why not enough Connies?. It took from April,1944 to February,1946 for UK and US to agree on Civil Air Transport (the Bermuda Convention, Freedoms of the Air). US tied the assignment of L-049 delivery positions to Nations' co-operation in granting US carriers market access. New Aerlinte hoped to sell tickets London-(Shannon)-NY, and new (to be) SAS hoped to sell Scandinavia-(London-Prestwick)-NY as Fifth Freedom/Open Skies, so the States of those 2 very small home markets offered co-operation to US, and ordered Connies and Stratocruisers. Bermuda proved not to be at all Open, so UK was able to take those orders over for £. Later dribble-purchases of US types were hard-fought, with BOAC needing to self-$-finance from revenue. UK had no $.
Why was BOAC negative on VC7? Why would it not be? No V-Bomber wing found civil application. H.Wynn, Hist.of RAF Transport Command: Forged in War,HMSO,1996,P96: weight “would prevent (it) providing required payload/range.” “cancelled (as) I could not find a customer. BOAC did not want(/RAF) could not afford it” MoS R.Maudling, Memoirs, Sidgwick,1978, P62.
Wot About the Unions? Well, wot? The causes of BOAC's near-constantly dismal financial performance were not caused (wholly/solely) by Unions' restrictive practices.
The only theme constant through BOAC's existence was the conflict between:
a): its status as parastatal Designated Instrument of Foreign Policy, and:
b): its owner's wish that it employ its owners: “(You can) have an airline run as a competitive, keen commercial concern using the best available equipment, or you can have it as a shop window for aircraft you would not normally purchase.” “To expect a Co. to do something (not) wholly commercial {=feed the natives}, then, when it has lost money doing it, to expect to pay interest on that money is bloody crazy.” 9/62 Chairman Sir M.Slattery of £14Mn.loss: his irate Minister suggested he speak to the Specifier. H.Penrose, Wings Across the World, Cassell,1980, Pp.195,223
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC luggage label
Perhaps this label comes from the BSAA period as it doesn't show South America so maybe 1948?
BOAC-label ca1950 by A30yoyo, on Flickr
and it was on this vintage suitcase
Well-travelled Suitcase by A30yoyo, on Flickr
BOAC-label ca1950 by A30yoyo, on Flickr
and it was on this vintage suitcase
Well-travelled Suitcase by A30yoyo, on Flickr
Last edited by A30yoyo; 30th Aug 2011 at 07:16.
BSAA1947 :
I am, in fact, very grateful for your account of this actually quite short-lived forbear to BOAC. I wouldn't judge something I didn't know (for it was long before I even existed) on just one account, but have built up a composite view based on a whole range of accounts, plus some direct analysis of the fleet and operations, actual and aborted. A series of articles in Propliner magazine about 25 years ago by a former manager at the airline was a good eye-opener.
But I still think, even when compared to its contemporaties of the time rather than current standards, that it was just an unsustainable operation all round.
I am, in fact, very grateful for your account of this actually quite short-lived forbear to BOAC. I wouldn't judge something I didn't know (for it was long before I even existed) on just one account, but have built up a composite view based on a whole range of accounts, plus some direct analysis of the fleet and operations, actual and aborted. A series of articles in Propliner magazine about 25 years ago by a former manager at the airline was a good eye-opener.
But I still think, even when compared to its contemporaties of the time rather than current standards, that it was just an unsustainable operation all round.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am reading Peter Masefields autobiography. According to that...
Because the York didn't have the range of the Lancastrian.
Masefield also says he was trying to broker a deal wherby Bristol would produce Centaurus-engined Connies for BOAC. It fell through becuase Stafford Cripps claimed we had no dollars to do the deal. Just before he announced the purchase of Lockheed-built Connies with P&W engines for the airline!
Mind you, reading about the company later in his book, it's unlikely that Bristol would have had the gumption to produce a Connie before the 747 was in service! 10:00am starts, years to solve problems the US was solving in weeks, the 'family' in Filton House not dirtying their hands with stuff like balance sheets, and 'the family' undermining the few knowlegable and able people in the company 'because they were getting too big for their boots'.
Why Lancastrians and not Yorks?
Masefield also says he was trying to broker a deal wherby Bristol would produce Centaurus-engined Connies for BOAC. It fell through becuase Stafford Cripps claimed we had no dollars to do the deal. Just before he announced the purchase of Lockheed-built Connies with P&W engines for the airline!
Mind you, reading about the company later in his book, it's unlikely that Bristol would have had the gumption to produce a Connie before the 747 was in service! 10:00am starts, years to solve problems the US was solving in weeks, the 'family' in Filton House not dirtying their hands with stuff like balance sheets, and 'the family' undermining the few knowlegable and able people in the company 'because they were getting too big for their boots'.
Both the BOAC Stratocruisers and the Connies seem to have been flown to and from Fiton quite a bit over the years (several accounts and photos) Did Bristol get involved in their product support at all after purchase ?
Thread Starter
The Constellations were originally based at Dorval with the Liberators but had to be brought back to the UK due shortage of dollars.
There was no hangar space at Heathrow so Filton was chosen and the Stratocruisers went there also.
There was no hangar space at Heathrow so Filton was chosen and the Stratocruisers went there also.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bristol Connies
BOAC American Aircraft Engineering Centre moved in 1949 from Montreal to Filton, alongside Line 3 HQ, staying there to 1954.
In 1946 Canada was evolving (DC-4, to be) C-4M under licence, France was exploring a DC-6 licence, and UK one for Bristol Connie. That would have been L-649/Centaurus, L-849/Theseus and is my greatest what if in UK Aero. That came to Cabinet (Cripps, MP for Bristol East, there as President of the Board of Trade) for Approval of the $ spend (set-up/royalty/parts), 22/4/47 precisely as we addressed the prospect of collapse of £1:$4. US Reconstruction Loan of July,1946 carried a commitment to render £ convertible within 12 months. Its C$ element included an offer, accepted by Govt. July,1948, for C-4M airframes for BOAC, where engines would be £.
Cabinet judged other things, like food, and timber for housing, took higher call on UK's feeble $ capacity. Each actual import of $-denominated aircraft, like BOAC's L-049s, was close-fought, required to be evidently self-$-financed from ticket sales. £ was made convertible 15/7/47, reneged on after a month as it gurgled. It was devalued £1:$2.8 in 1949 and :$2.4 in 1967, but not made freely convertible until 1979.
In 1946 Canada was evolving (DC-4, to be) C-4M under licence, France was exploring a DC-6 licence, and UK one for Bristol Connie. That would have been L-649/Centaurus, L-849/Theseus and is my greatest what if in UK Aero. That came to Cabinet (Cripps, MP for Bristol East, there as President of the Board of Trade) for Approval of the $ spend (set-up/royalty/parts), 22/4/47 precisely as we addressed the prospect of collapse of £1:$4. US Reconstruction Loan of July,1946 carried a commitment to render £ convertible within 12 months. Its C$ element included an offer, accepted by Govt. July,1948, for C-4M airframes for BOAC, where engines would be £.
Cabinet judged other things, like food, and timber for housing, took higher call on UK's feeble $ capacity. Each actual import of $-denominated aircraft, like BOAC's L-049s, was close-fought, required to be evidently self-$-financed from ticket sales. £ was made convertible 15/7/47, reneged on after a month as it gurgled. It was devalued £1:$2.8 in 1949 and :$2.4 in 1967, but not made freely convertible until 1979.
Lancastrian instead of York
I believe this is a Lancastrian service (the types were not shown) from a June 1946 timetable in my collection.
London : 1145 Tu
Lydda : 0200/0400 We
Karachi : 1530/1730 We
Singapore : 0930/1130 Th
Darwin : 2300/0130 Fr
Sydney : 1030 Fr
Three times a week departing Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. You would need at least four aircraft to maintain the schedule. For the times, these seem some very long nonstop legs, and indeed a very fast trip to Australia. I would guess the York couldn't have made those sectors.
London : 1145 Tu
Lydda : 0200/0400 We
Karachi : 1530/1730 We
Singapore : 0930/1130 Th
Darwin : 2300/0130 Fr
Sydney : 1030 Fr
Three times a week departing Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. You would need at least four aircraft to maintain the schedule. For the times, these seem some very long nonstop legs, and indeed a very fast trip to Australia. I would guess the York couldn't have made those sectors.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy Sheep driver
Just a little correction in that, with the exception of 4 aircraft, all Connies flew with one mark or other of the Wright 3350.
Now back in 1942, due to problems with the 3350 and supplies of that engine going first to the B-29, Lockheed did offer the military the chance to fit the
P & W R-2800 engine to the Connie but this was not taken up
After the war and with the forth coming introduction of the DC-6 Lockheed offered ALL the airlines the choice of 3 different engines so as to keep the Connie competative with this DC-6. These engines were
P&W R-2800 [2,200 HP] Wright 3350 [ 2200 hp] Bristol Centaurus [2300 hp]
However no airline took up any of the options and all stuck with the 3350
The exceptions were 4 aircraft, originally all for the US Navy, which were fitted with four P & W T34-P-6 turbo props which had 6,000 shaft HP each.These aircraft known as R7Vs were to evaluate the long range operation of turbo props and two of them were given to the US airforce where they were called C-121G. The airframe for these four aircraft was a Super Connie design
Just before he announced the purchase of Lockheed-built Connies with P&W engines for the airline!
Now back in 1942, due to problems with the 3350 and supplies of that engine going first to the B-29, Lockheed did offer the military the chance to fit the
P & W R-2800 engine to the Connie but this was not taken up
After the war and with the forth coming introduction of the DC-6 Lockheed offered ALL the airlines the choice of 3 different engines so as to keep the Connie competative with this DC-6. These engines were
P&W R-2800 [2,200 HP] Wright 3350 [ 2200 hp] Bristol Centaurus [2300 hp]
However no airline took up any of the options and all stuck with the 3350
The exceptions were 4 aircraft, originally all for the US Navy, which were fitted with four P & W T34-P-6 turbo props which had 6,000 shaft HP each.These aircraft known as R7Vs were to evaluate the long range operation of turbo props and two of them were given to the US airforce where they were called C-121G. The airframe for these four aircraft was a Super Connie design
Last edited by Brit312; 31st Aug 2011 at 14:46.
Overotation on the Comet was caused by the fashion then of raising the nosewheel early on the take off roll and letting the aircraft fly itself off. This act alone increases the take off distance because of the increased induced drag. As the end of the runway gets closer so the nose is raised even more.
etc etc.
etc etc.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imported fuel
A question.....Britain back in the 40s had no oil...very little anyway....did it have to be paid for in dollars?...If so was the higher fuel cost per ton-mile of converted bombers taken into account in purchasing decisions?