connie v's super connie
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super-Connie fitted with turbo-compound Wright 3350 engines, more HP for less fuel, more fuel capacity for longer flights. The ultimate was the 1649A Connie, new wing and much more fuel (and very important, oil) for those long 21 (yes thats right)hour flights that were possible. Came along a bit too late and was overtaken by the 707.
The PRT's in the Wright engines tended to overheat in high blower and so were not all that practical. But, it sure went FAST and very smooth.
The PRT's in the Wright engines tended to overheat in high blower and so were not all that practical. But, it sure went FAST and very smooth.
My CPL 'engines & systems' lecturer in '84 used to be a F/E on QF's Connies, before moving onto the 707 & 747
He said they were the best 3 engine aircraft Qantas ever had.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Tinstaafl ]
He said they were the best 3 engine aircraft Qantas ever had.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Tinstaafl ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 049 to 749 models are about 20ft shorter than Super Connies so visually the curvature of the fuselage is more apparent.
Most of the extra length was added forward of the wing so the Connies look more 'stubby' from the side. And the SC's turbochargers slung underneath the engine nacelles are easy to spot.
The Starliner has square wingtips.
Most of the extra length was added forward of the wing so the Connies look more 'stubby' from the side. And the SC's turbochargers slung underneath the engine nacelles are easy to spot.
The Starliner has square wingtips.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PaperTiger---
Interesting about your comment regarding "turbochargers". The Wright R3350-EA1 engines did not have turbochargers, they had three Power Recovery Turbines, driven by exhaust and connected by a fluid drive to the crankshaft for added HP.
Tinstaafl---
Just had a conversation with a retired USAF F/E who operated Connies and he mentioned that in 3300 hours on the beast, he had only one engine failure. Must be some sort of record. They always cruised in low blower and every two hours shifted from low to high and back to low blower to desludge. I found the 1649A a great aircraft. Would run out of oil before it ran out of fuel.
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: 411A ]
Interesting about your comment regarding "turbochargers". The Wright R3350-EA1 engines did not have turbochargers, they had three Power Recovery Turbines, driven by exhaust and connected by a fluid drive to the crankshaft for added HP.
Tinstaafl---
Just had a conversation with a retired USAF F/E who operated Connies and he mentioned that in 3300 hours on the beast, he had only one engine failure. Must be some sort of record. They always cruised in low blower and every two hours shifted from low to high and back to low blower to desludge. I found the 1649A a great aircraft. Would run out of oil before it ran out of fuel.
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: 411A ]
With their power recovery turbines & supercharging I've often thought that this sort of engine is a form of 'missing link' in an evolution from conventional piston to turbine engines.
If the valves were to remain open, the pistons disconnected & we could keep the flame alight it would just about be a turboprop!
If the valves were to remain open, the pistons disconnected & we could keep the flame alight it would just about be a turboprop!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only are these engines "missing links" as Tinstaafl opines, but the Curtis Electric props that they rotated (on some models) were an interesting combination. The F/E was the KEY flight crew member.
