Competent − but too big?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old days...
In my PanAm days, I flew with number of ex DC-6/DC-7 captains and flight engineers.
Even some B-377 guys as well...
xxx
One time, I asked them how to recognize a DC-6 from a DC-7.
On the ramp, easy, the DC-6 had 3 blades propellers, the DC-7 had 4 blades...
But when they are flying...?
xxx
They told me -
"If one is landing with a feathered engine, has to be a Seven...!"
Apparently, the R-2800 was a great engine, but the R-3350 was another story.
xxx
Happy contrails
Even some B-377 guys as well...
xxx
One time, I asked them how to recognize a DC-6 from a DC-7.
On the ramp, easy, the DC-6 had 3 blades propellers, the DC-7 had 4 blades...
But when they are flying...?
xxx
They told me -
"If one is landing with a feathered engine, has to be a Seven...!"
Apparently, the R-2800 was a great engine, but the R-3350 was another story.
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of interrupting this exchange of nostalgia but getting back on-thread - how about the 757-300 and 767-400ER. Both competent stretches of existing competent aircraft. Both sold in handfuls?
Would also argue that while the A340-600 may be technically competent it's not as technically and, most importantly, financially competent as the 773ER.
Would also argue that while the A340-600 may be technically competent it's not as technically and, most importantly, financially competent as the 773ER.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simple innovatory solution to a long standing aviation problem!
Hot, on sunny days?
Oh yes, in spades.
But welcome on colder days, as the FD heating was practically non-existant.
The Stratocruiser was a 'Flight Engineers dream'...they 'operated' it, the pilots just more or less pointed it in the right direction.
Pilots seat entry was from the outboard side, plenty of room.
And as for nose wheel steering, that big round tiller was designed for a ship, I think..
The Guppy conversion was stretched twenty feet, all behind the wing.
It needed to be landed three-point, least you dragged the aft end on the pavement.
The first turbine powered version, the Guppy 201, powered by Allison 501-D22C engines (similar to the Electra and C-130) pumped out 4300 SHP...the airplane, dispite its size, was a good performer.
Sadly, during certification testing, one crashed at Edwards. I lost two very good friends that day, the Chief Pilot and Chief Flight Engineer.
Pitch lock on one of the Aeroproducts propellors at rotation ain't good.
All in all, the 'ole Startocruiser was a delight to fly.
Thread Starter
Competent − but too big?
Fascinating, 411A (and others). Just for the record, the standard entry to the pilots’ seats on the VC10 is also from the outside. Is that why the fuel flows are higher than on the B707/KC135? 
Looks like 411A has established the B377 Stratocruiser as a strong candidate. But we don’t yet have a definitive reason for it not selling in larger numbers. Was it simply too big? Or was it the technical impracticality and unreliability?
Quote:
Not many were built mainly because there were not that many customer airlines that a) could have afforded to operate the beast, b)needed it for very long range flights, and c)had the expertise to keep this mechanical nightmare in the air.
[Unquote]
Bearing in mind that this was an era of unreliability, particularly in the propulsion compartment, maybe the B377 was competent for its day?
Moving on reluctantly from this delicious piston nostalgia, can I propose another candidate from a different era? Suspect that 411A might prefer the sophisticated Lockheed, but mine is the VC9.
Was it too big a jump in size from the Viscount?
Am currently hampered by the limitations of a dial-up connection, but don’t think the (one?) structural failure and consequent pressurisation restrictions come soon enough to affect sales in the early years.
Don’t recall any initial problems with the excellent RR Tyne, although the waves of de-synchronous vibration that slowly swept the length of the cabin could be unnerving.
Was its payload-range sufficient?
Was it eclipsed from 1965 by the much smaller − and only slightly faster − BAC OneEleven because of the latter’s passenger appeal, because it was too big, or for some other reason?
Any Vanguard drivers/engineers out there?
Looks like 411A has established the B377 Stratocruiser as a strong candidate. But we don’t yet have a definitive reason for it not selling in larger numbers. Was it simply too big? Or was it the technical impracticality and unreliability?
Quote:
Not many were built mainly because there were not that many customer airlines that a) could have afforded to operate the beast, b)needed it for very long range flights, and c)had the expertise to keep this mechanical nightmare in the air.
[Unquote]
Bearing in mind that this was an era of unreliability, particularly in the propulsion compartment, maybe the B377 was competent for its day?
Moving on reluctantly from this delicious piston nostalgia, can I propose another candidate from a different era? Suspect that 411A might prefer the sophisticated Lockheed, but mine is the VC9.
Was it too big a jump in size from the Viscount?
Am currently hampered by the limitations of a dial-up connection, but don’t think the (one?) structural failure and consequent pressurisation restrictions come soon enough to affect sales in the early years.
Don’t recall any initial problems with the excellent RR Tyne, although the waves of de-synchronous vibration that slowly swept the length of the cabin could be unnerving.
Was its payload-range sufficient?
Was it eclipsed from 1965 by the much smaller − and only slightly faster − BAC OneEleven because of the latter’s passenger appeal, because it was too big, or for some other reason?
Any Vanguard drivers/engineers out there?
