Largest Piston Airliner?

[StickFlyer]

Hi all, try as I might I couldn't find this on google so...
what was the largest piston engine airliner - by largest I mean the most number of seats for fare paying passengers

what about today, which piston aircraft in regular service carries the most passengers? I can think of one but I want to see what you all have to say

I'm curious because I read maintenance costs are so much lower for pistons I'm suprised a niche isn't there for a simple plane as opposed to the ever more complicated regional jets appearing which must be hard to make a profit on

[Herod]

If we can count the military in there, how about the C124 Globemaster? 220 fully-equipped troops according to Wiki.

[BEagle]

Perhaps the Bristol Brabazon?

Or would have been, had it not been for more efficient prop-jet and pure jet airliners of the early 1950s.

[Fitter2]

maintenance costs are so much lower for pistons

A remarkable statement. Justification?

As far as the original question goes, the Boeing Stratocruiser springs to mind.

[JW411]

The Lockheed Constitution might be a contender?

[Noyade]

by largest I mean the most number of seats for fare paying passengers

I've read that 160 paid money to ride the Armagnac in high-density configuration.

[learjet50]

Stickflyer

I am amazed re your comment about Maintenance costs being cheaper for a Piston Aircraft.

Who told you that THE TOOTH FAIRY).

With due respect Piston Aircraft run on AVGAS (Petrol) as apposed to Jet Engines which run on Jet Fuel (Jet A1)

The costs of Avgas are somthing like 10 times the costs of Jet A1

I would go back to your source of information re Piston Aircraft and ask him to remove his head from his bottom

[henry crun]

The XC-99 would be a winner hands down, if you hadn't included "for fare paying passengers".

[stepwilk]

"I would go back to your source of information re Piston Aircraft and ask him to remove his head from his bottom..."

Well, that's a little strong, eh, even if it is correct? Stickflyer was just askin'.

I should think, having flown in my first piston-engine airliner, a Convair, in 1951, that passenger discomfort would be a HUGE turn-off, to say nothing of a piston engine's comparative lack of reliability.

Don't think anybody ever paid to ride a Constitution or a C-124. Got paid is more like it.

Nor did anybody ever pay to ride a Brabazon. The only one that ever carried [a few] non-paying VIP passengers was the Mk II, which was not piston-engined but powered by Bristol Proteus turboprops.

That Armagnac certainly beats the 1049 and 1649 Constellations and the Stratocruiser, which are the most capacious piston-engine civil transports I can think of...maybe Mr. Antonov designed something bigger?

[StickFlyer]

learjet I'm going on what I've read about ownership costs for private flyers who own their own planes. They talk about the local mechanics knowing and having parts for common piston engines, while with a turbo prop you need specialist parts, or to have parts x-rayed every X hours, even adding a constant speed prop adds a heavy expense as does recractable undercarriage - the list goes on
OK the turboprops and jet regionals have a maintenance base and servicing but I bet it's not as cheap as with a piston engine
If you insist I'm wrong then I'm listening, isn't the twin otter a TP? Would be interested to compare it's MX costs and prove me wrong..
In the meantime I'm sticking to my guns with my PISTON engine thankyou!

Obviously I'm talking about the cheaper end of the market, the under 20 seaters here that might use such antiquated technology

I'm happy to bust a few myths along the way

[Warmtoast]

If we can count the military in there, how about the C124 Globemaster? 220 fully-equipped troops according to Wiki.

C124 Globemaster was enormous.

I travelled in one from McGuire AFB, New Jersey to Europe in 1961. My log book shows McGuire to Harmon AFB, Newfoundland 4 hours 25m, Harmon to Lajes 7 hours 40m, Lajes to Wiesbaden 9 hours 10m.

Apart from size and the spaciousness of the cockpit the only thing that really impressed me was the Flight Engineer's station and the engine analyser that constantly monitored the health of the engines.

I shot some 8mm cine film of this trip and the screen-grab below gives some idea of how far it was from the top of the fuselage to the top of the wing, with a further drop to the gound below.

[HarmoniousDragmaster]

stepwilk, the Centaurus powered Brabazon I was the only one ever to fly, the Brabazon II was never even completed, so it cannot have carried anyone, anywhere. Mores the pity

How many passengers did the Breguet Deux Ponts carry? I know the Armangac was bigger, but the Breguet had two decks decks so I just wondered?

[stepwilk]

Yes, you're absolutely right, my misteak...

[A30yoyo]

Deux-Ponts vs Armagnac

Wiki says the Air France passenger Deux Ponts had seats for 48+59 standard (but up to 135 high-density)

Wiki gives from 84 to 108 seats for the Armagnac but potentially up to 160
Both types carried fare paying passengers (including to London)

The Centaurus powered Brabazon never got a C of A

[philbky]

The Deux Ponts could only carry 135 in high density layout.

[Noyade]

...and at maximum payload operation it was more economical to run than the Stratocruiser. Using pence per seat-mile, 2.72 versus 3.66. It was also the only landplane prop-driven airliner to offer passenger accommodation on two full decks...?

[A30yoyo]

Blackburn Universal (Beverley)

A British runner-up was the Universal (civil Beverley)....max seats projected 132....G-AOEK actually flew civil flights in a Hunting-Clan/Blackburn operation in the the Gulf in 1955 but it appears only the tail boom had seats and the main purpose was hauling heavy freight to desert strips

[Groundloop]

OK the turboprops and jet regionals have a maintenance base and servicing but I bet it's not as cheap as with a piston engine
If you insist I'm wrong then I'm listening, isn't the twin otter a TP? Would be interested to compare it's MX costs and prove me wrong..
In the meantime I'm sticking to my guns with my PISTON engine thankyou!

You seem to be basing your facts on a simple 4-cylinder engine in a Cessna!

Maintenance costs on something like a 24 cylinder Wright Turbo Compound would have been very expensive. These engines used to shake themselves apart every few hundred hours!

[Krakatoa]

Anyone know how many pax a Latecoere L631, six engine flyingboat could carry. They staged through Trincomalee carrying troops to Saigon in the early fifties.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Clearly if pistons were cheaper to run and maintain we'd all be using them now, so that idea is dead in the water. With the reliability problems of the Connies, for instance, (engine shutdowns a weekly event) and rebuilds of those fantastically complex engines a massive industry it is not hard to see why turbines gained the upper hand within a very few years of their introduction. The big pistons lasted a few hundred hours on the wing at most. Turbines now many tens of thousand. Bit of a no-brainer, really.

But the biggest pax piston operating now? Well, are there still any Connies left doing jollies or the odd charter - if not maybe a DC6 somewhere in S America? Precious few (largely due to operating costs...). Certainly no big pistons left on scheduled pax services - Air Kenya was the last I think, retiring their DC3s some 10 years ago.