Largest Piston Airliner?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: N Yorkshire, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southhampton Flying Boats
"I can remember that around 1950(ish) there were some fairly big flying boats at Hythe, near Southampton, new in those days, I think, not sure if they had four or six engines? Can't find anything on Google so maybe it never entered passenger service."
Parabellum - as Kitwe says, the Saunders Roe Princes were laid up around the period you mention, but also at that time Aquila Airways were still in operation (ceased 1958);
Aquila Airways: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
I can remember my Dad taking me to Southampton to see one of the big Cunard liners (QE or possibly QM) and an Aquila Sunderland (/) was taxiing - and he told me we had missed a trip to Kenya in something similar when he first went there in '54 (I believe it was by about 2 yrs)
PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)
Parabellum - as Kitwe says, the Saunders Roe Princes were laid up around the period you mention, but also at that time Aquila Airways were still in operation (ceased 1958);
Aquila Airways: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
I can remember my Dad taking me to Southampton to see one of the big Cunard liners (QE or possibly QM) and an Aquila Sunderland (/) was taxiing - and he told me we had missed a trip to Kenya in something similar when he first went there in '54 (I believe it was by about 2 yrs)
PZU - Out of Africa (Retired)
The big problem with many old piston engines is that the octane rating they were designed for is no longer available.
So the engines on historic a/c like the B-29 are now operated on much less than the original horsepower
The Canadian forces operated the piston Argus for many years after turbines had taken over. They had to get a refinery to make up a $pecial batch to keep it flying. The CAF doesn't have that kind of money.
So the engines on historic a/c like the B-29 are now operated on much less than the original horsepower
The Canadian forces operated the piston Argus for many years after turbines had taken over. They had to get a refinery to make up a $pecial batch to keep it flying. The CAF doesn't have that kind of money.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SOUTH WEST
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM, The breguet du ponts was operated into Bristol in the sixties not so much for the passenger traffic but the transfer of freight heading for BAC Filton, a lot of Concorde parts arrived that way. I remember seeing as a kid when i was living on the road beside the airport, God it was an ugly beast, probably the original BUFF.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I routinely buy race gas for my track car--modified Porsche 911--for $8 US a gallon, and as I remember, it's 104 octane. I know that's not 115/130, but certainly Fifi doesn't have to burn 100LL...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see, nobody has mentioned Howard Hughes' Hk1, or 'Spruce Goose'. It was designed to carry up to 750 men, had 8 engines of 3000 hp each, and contrary to popular belief, it did fly, albeit only for about a mile at rooftop height.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hardly "contrary to popular belief," since I think anybody with a pulse is aware that the Hughes Hercules (I hate the demeaning term "Spruce Goose") got off the water. But the real question is whether it actually flew or simply flew in ground effect.
The latter involves a perfectly legitimate category of vehicle, for the Soviets made a variety of WIG craft designed to cruise fast over large bodies of water, but people continue to argue whether the Hercules was an airplane or a WIG craft.
The latter involves a perfectly legitimate category of vehicle, for the Soviets made a variety of WIG craft designed to cruise fast over large bodies of water, but people continue to argue whether the Hercules was an airplane or a WIG craft.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stepwilk :
I don't think the term 'Spruce Goose' was meant to be demeaning and I certainly didn't mean it that way.
The topic came up in conversation recently around the dinner table at a social gathering of about 10 people, mostly in aviation and all pretty bright, two of them US Americans, and only 2 of us thought it ever flew, the others were convinced it never got off the ground (or water). You may move in more enlightened circles than I do!
I don't think the term 'Spruce Goose' was meant to be demeaning and I certainly didn't mean it that way.
The topic came up in conversation recently around the dinner table at a social gathering of about 10 people, mostly in aviation and all pretty bright, two of them US Americans, and only 2 of us thought it ever flew, the others were convinced it never got off the ground (or water). You may move in more enlightened circles than I do!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My "Spruce Goose" phobia is purely a personal thing, didn't mean it as a put-down. I'm almost alone in feeling the same way about "Connie" for Constellation. Ever since flying the thing, I haven't been able to call it anything by a Constellation.
That's interesting that your friends weren't aware the Hercules got off the water. I think the two photos of it that most people have seen are Hughes in the left seat, turning toward the camera and wearing a fedora. and the three-quarters front view of it "flying."
That's interesting that your friends weren't aware the Hercules got off the water. I think the two photos of it that most people have seen are Hughes in the left seat, turning toward the camera and wearing a fedora. and the three-quarters front view of it "flying."
Lunch-time thought.
From wiki...
I wonder if that should be altered to "...it was capable of carrying 750 very scared fully-equipped troops".
The idea was to ferry those troops, or equipment, by air (to escape the U-Boats) across the Atlantic to reach the combat zone.
I have a wartime Popular Science article which apart from enthusiastically describing the enormous dimensions of the "soon to fly" behemoth mentions an estimated cruising speed of 145 mph. That's not much faster than the Gigant?
So, I have this mental picture of an enormous aircraft lumbering along close to the water heavily loaded with many many poor souls heading off to war without any defensive armament. Sounds bad.
When completed, it was capable of carrying 750 fully-equipped troops
The idea was to ferry those troops, or equipment, by air (to escape the U-Boats) across the Atlantic to reach the combat zone.
I have a wartime Popular Science article which apart from enthusiastically describing the enormous dimensions of the "soon to fly" behemoth mentions an estimated cruising speed of 145 mph. That's not much faster than the Gigant?
So, I have this mental picture of an enormous aircraft lumbering along close to the water heavily loaded with many many poor souls heading off to war without any defensive armament. Sounds bad.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: west of the Tamar
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh, the Canadair Argus. My last sighting of this somewhat strange hybrid aircraft (airframe similar to Britannia 312 with Wright R3350 turbo-compounds) was at St.Ives, Cornwall in September 1972. Walking around the town I was surprised to hear the unmistakeable muffled roar of the big Wright's at climb power, then over the rooftops flew the Argus, on departure from St.Mawgan, no higher than around 1500ft in a very shallow climb.
Re the B29, although these were equipped with supercharged Wrights, they weren't the turbo-compounds as fitted to Super Connies and DC7's. As far as I'm aware, these weren't introduced until the early 1950's, initially on the Lockheed Neptune. Even the early Super Connies had non-compounded Wrights (the basic L1049).
Yes, the Wright turbos were renowed for their unreliability, usually involving failure of the PRT itself (power recovery turbine). So why did Canadair choose this powerplant for the Argus, with its role of extended overwater reconaissance? I remember reading an account by a retired TWA skipper failures were dramatically reduced if the supercharger was not "changed gear" to its second stage at higher altitude. So maybe this procedure was adopted by crews in preference to a higher cruise altitude with the chance of a PRT failure.
Re the B29, although these were equipped with supercharged Wrights, they weren't the turbo-compounds as fitted to Super Connies and DC7's. As far as I'm aware, these weren't introduced until the early 1950's, initially on the Lockheed Neptune. Even the early Super Connies had non-compounded Wrights (the basic L1049).
Yes, the Wright turbos were renowed for their unreliability, usually involving failure of the PRT itself (power recovery turbine). So why did Canadair choose this powerplant for the Argus, with its role of extended overwater reconaissance? I remember reading an account by a retired TWA skipper failures were dramatically reduced if the supercharger was not "changed gear" to its second stage at higher altitude. So maybe this procedure was adopted by crews in preference to a higher cruise altitude with the chance of a PRT failure.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: North Wiltshire, UK
Age: 78
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC the Argus (Arguses, Argii ??) were fitted with piston engines as they had a much better sfc in the low-level low-speed cruise, which, of course, is where they passed most of their time.....
Diesels Anyone?
One poster touched on the diesels used in the Graf Zeppelin. These, surely are the way to go for aircraft which aren't economic with turboprops. Look at the advantages:
- No spark plugs
- Burn Jet A1
- Best specific fuel consumption of any engine turning a propeller (correct me if I'm wrong)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a fairly complete history of R-3350 development and service in wikipedia.
One additional factor working against the early R-3350s was the exhaust system design. The front row of cylinders had exhaust ports facing forward into a manifold upstream of the cylinders. This manifold preheated the cooling air for the cylinder heads - hardly a stroke of genius.
The P&W R-2800, by contrast, had all exhaust ports facing aft to avoid this preheating.
One additional factor working against the early R-3350s was the exhaust system design. The front row of cylinders had exhaust ports facing forward into a manifold upstream of the cylinders. This manifold preheated the cooling air for the cylinder heads - hardly a stroke of genius.
The P&W R-2800, by contrast, had all exhaust ports facing aft to avoid this preheating.
