Talk:Lockheed Constellation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Question about NickName

Would it be in poor taste to include it's nickname of "The Best 3 Engined Prop Plane Ever Built" (Given to it because of it's notorious record for single engine failures)? Kevin 10:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Working in the aviation industry from 1948 to 1978, this airman worked at several major airports in northeast US. At Idlewild International during the early to mid 1950's, Pan American, American Overseas Air, and United Airlines all flew the same model "Largest 3 engine aircraft". It was the Boeing 377 with the P&W R4360 "corn cob" engines. It was common place for them to come over the fence with an engine feathered. Perpetual oil leakers, and smokers also. I personally served as Flight Engineer on Eastern Air Lines, Who also had an extensive fleet of Connies; had many hours in L749, L1049, L1049C, an the "G". In all that time; none of the flights I served upon, resulted in a 3 engine landing. The Connie was maintenance intensive, but when properly maintained; it was a good reliable aircraft. Bob Richards 27 Sept. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.87.126 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Time Travel?

The "History" section of this article has these two entries:

  • May 1943 - Construction begins on model 049
  • January 9, 1943 - First flight

How did the plane fly before it was built? I'm assuming the first date should be in 1942, but I'm not sure about that, so I'll leave the article as-is for now. Willy Logan 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

models vs article

Can anyone think of a legitimate reason for the models listing being roughly 8 times as long as the article itself? ericg ✈ 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't! It might be worth breaking that section off into a separate article such as Models of the Lockheed Constellation. The body of the article also certainly needs expansion. Willy Logan 16:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've split the variants off into List of models of the Lockheed Constellation. Willy Logan 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Willy. I'm working on adding some more content, and I went ahead and got the specs inline (properly, this time around... that old inline attempt was awful). It's really tough to get L049 specs; I'm thinking we'd be better off with Super Constellation figures. ericg ✈ 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a number of different sources online (and in print) for dimensions of variants of the Constellation. They don't all agree. Best of luck finding a reliable one. Willy Logan 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Great Aircraft of the World (Chartwell, 1992) lists the following production numbers for civilian Constellation variants:

model total details
L-049 66 initial commercial model
L-649 14 upgraded later to...
L-749 111
L-1049 24
L-1049C 49 first with turbo-compounds
L-1049D 11 total cargo variant
L-1049E 18 improved passenger version
L-1049G 104 tip tanks, -DA3 engines
L-1049H 53 G model, adapted for cargo
L-1649 44 integrated tanks, long-span wing

It has specs for the most common 1049G model (most common period, if you include the similar H cargo models). Would you agree that these might be our best bet for consistent, accurate figures? ericg ✈ 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The 1049G looks good.
I've created a rough draft of a List of Lockheed aircraft which, when I complete it, should be helpful in avoiding leaving holes in the "designation sequence" part of the "related content" section. Willy Logan 15:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good - if you'd like to update my series cheat sheet when you're done (it's going to get moved to wp:air content eventually), go right ahead. ericg ✈ 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rumored

Front view of a Lockheed C-121 "Constellation". Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).

It is widely rumored that Howard Hughes, who owned TWA at the time, was a major contributor to the design of the Lockheed Constellation. It is also further rumored that the distinctive "triple tail" design of the Constellation was due to the height of TWA's maintenance facilites (at that time located in the Kansas City Downtown Aiport (MKC)) would not accomodate a plane feature one single, tall vertical tail such as the Douglas DC-4 and DC-6 aircraft.

This is ambiguous. When you say something is rumored, the appropriate follow-up is to say whether it is true or not. I don't have the particular reference you are citing so I can't comment on it but YOU should. For example, "in his book so-and-so, who did this and that on the project, states that..." - Emt147 Burninate! 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting my legitimate and sourced {{ref|johnson_bio}} tag. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The Howard Hughes rumor is untrue, as any history of Lockheed or the Constellation will tell you (such as Beyond the Horizons, by Walter J. Boyne). The triple-tail "rumor" is entirely true. Willy Logan 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Dunno why you're responding to me. Anyhow, Johnson made it perfectly clear just what Hughes contributed (I use that word lightly) to the Constellation. He nearly killed himself and Johnson a few times. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, including doing a full power on stall in the connie... An awfully big airplane to have indicating an airspeed of 0 kts! Fawcett5 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not actually what a stall is. Indicated airspeed of zero would be a tail-slide. Most (if not all) flight-test programs go through the entire regime, including power-on and power-off stalls. ericg ✈ 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

5 flight crew?

Why did it take 5 people to fly this airplane? I can see pilot, co-pilot, a flight engineer to baby all the mechanical systems, and a dedicated navigator, but how did they get up to 5? Full time radio operator in addition to a full time naviguesser? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

==========

For a domestic flight, the required (by CAA, CAB and then FAA regulations) cockpit crew was Captain, First Officer and Flight Engineer. When operated on extended over water flights, a navigator was also required. The old flying boats also had a radio operator, but that position became obsolete on planes like the Connie, DC-6 & DC-7, as the pilots were able to handle all radio communications themselves. Additional relief crews (work rules to counter pilot fatigue) could also be required, if the non-stop flights were scheduled to exceed certain time limits.

EditorASC 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

record?

the records section states that this plane has the record for longest nonstop flight at 23 hours+, but the FW 200 page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200) states that it made a flight between Berlin and New York in 24 hours and 47 minutes nonstop. Can someone look into this?


Also, my father is a retired pilot; he still has his logbooks showing one of the early flights in his career (on a B-314) was in the air for 23 hours 59 minutes. Admiral.Ackbar 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Obsolescence

"The last scheduled passenger flight of a piston-engined airliner in the United States was made by a TWA L-749 on May 11, 1967.[4]" This statement is obviously incorrect. Perhaps the source was misquoted.RBTrnr 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)R. Turner

Among scheduled Part 121 carriers in the US, I believe Southern Airways and their Martin 404's hold the distinction of last piston powered flight. Southern flew 404's well into the 1970's. Also I know that United was still flying DC-6's in August of 1967, because I flew on one. Eelb53 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Surviving example

Returned from a holiday this year which involved a trip round the aircraft museum at Hermeskeil -- lo and behold, what do I stumble upon?

Yup that's right - a Super Constellation, complete in Lufthansa livery, and with unique history - this surviving exmaple was, I believe, the plane that brought back 10,000+ German POWs from the Soviet Union in the 1950s.

I'm pretty sure, though I may be wrong, about the plane itself, but I shall add this to the surviving examples section...Abarthaddict 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two Super Constellations surviving in Germany. One is the Hermeskeil Connie, which is an original Lufthansa plane used by Konrad Adenauer for his 1955 state visit to Moscow, where he negotiated the release of the POWs. So the plane did not bring back the POWs, it rather brought the man who got them out to Moscow. The other is now in Munich, used to be in Frankfurt, a Super Connie as well, in Lufthansa livery, but formerly TWA or Air France (forgot). Also, Lufthansa just bought three Starliners at an auction, so chances are a flyable Lufthansa Connie/Starliner might become a reality. --JCRitter (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. See: http://www.lufthansa-technik.com/applications/portal/lhtportal/lhtportal.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=Template15&requestednode=600&webcacheURL=TV_I/Media-Relations/SuperStar/SuperStar_Start_prelim_e.xml Old Aylesburian (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Lockheed model designations

I have removed all the L- and L. prefixes from the article. As far as I am aware, the only official Lockheed designations with an L prefix are the L-1011 and the L-100 (commercial C-130), both for modern marketing purposes. The best respected books don't use the L prefix, despite common usage as shorthand for 'Lockheed'. The onus should be on those using L prefixes to prove from Lockheed technical materials that they are in any way official, thank you.PeterWD (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So we're just supposed to take your word for it? And how did you determine what "The best respected books", beyond the fact that thet don't use the "L". Lets just leave things the way they were, and present sources for both sides, and see where the consensus lies. - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, the designations appear both ways in reference sources, but predominantly with a "L" prefix. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
Seems simple enough-- Lockheed did always refer to them as the Model 749 or the Model 1049G or whatever, same as Boeing would refer to the Model 247 or the Model 307 or Model 377. But there's plenty of precedents for writers of articles and books to refer to them with the L for Lockheed or the B for Boeing
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958-1-%20-%200193.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200698.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1957/1957%20-%200794.html
I leafed thru the OAG to see what the airlines called them-- mostly they just said "Constellation" or "Super G" or whatever, with no mention of the number, but Northwest did call theirs L-1049G. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What are the differences...

between the Constellation and Super Constellation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article under variants is says the Super Constellation had a longer fuselage. MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The way I always determined it, was the Super had tip tanks. Although TWA may have had them removed when the aircraft was relegated to US domestic service. This was a long time ago, and my remembrance as a kid enthusiast. Eelb53 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Starliner Article

Seeing the EC-121 article makes me wonder if it would be appropriate to make a article for the L-1649A Starliner. Would it be a good idea to do this? --707 (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the amount of material we have to work with. The article could be split along several lines, including military/civil, or Connie/Super Connie/Starliner. A lot of it depends on the information available to be used, and if the split articles would be much longer than stubs. - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I have more information in a book about the Starliner. I'll check and see if it has enough information to see if it can be used to create another article. --707 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents section?

shouldn't there be one?

ie.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No reason why not - as wikipedia is a work in progress nobody has actually got round to it yet. Your are welcome to start with any notable and reliable referenced accidents. Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Lockheed Constellation might be a good starting point. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This list is now starting to engulf the article and is being separated into a sub-article. If every accident of a long-lasting transport type were listed, it would be unnecessarily long. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Jamaica Observer, "From Avianca to CanJet: MoBay Airport at Centre of J'can Aviation History", 22 April 2009 (accessed 25 April 2009)

Merging List of models of the Lockheed Constellation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Not merge the list of models with the main article User:HopsonRoad 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know what this idea of merging the two articles is about. Why should the two articles be merged? 707 (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(Forgive me not posting a rationale when I added the merge tags, as I was unable to stay online due to personal issues.) With the creation of articles on the major variants of the Constellation, and some of the minor variants, this is no longer a strict type article, but more of an overview article. I think we can cutback the redundant content, and merge in List of models of the Lockheed Constellation here, thus eliminating one of the daughter articles. We me not have to add every variant here, just the major ones that have their own articles, and the minor ones that aren't covered in detail in one of the other variant articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the feedback. 707 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • OpposeThe point of the separate article is that a merged article would be too large. I oppose the merge for that reason. It is also good to have separate variant articles where there are so many variants. I feel it is a case of Less is more. the main article benefits and readers benefit from the separate variant article.!Petebutt (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given above.
Also: "We me not have to add every variant here, just the major ones that have their own articles, and the minor ones that aren't covered in detail in one of the other variant articles." -- To me, this suggestion does not seem like a good idea. With all due respect, how is it an 'improvement', or helpful to our coverage of the topic, to make it harder for a user to get a complete list of all the many variants of this aircraft?!
  • 'List'-type sub-articles are non-controversial & common on wikipedia. this one serves exactly the purpowe it was intended to serve. STRONG KEEP (separate)!
198.91.212.165 (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merging The list was split out in 2005. It would clearly again become the "tail that wags the dog", if it were merged back in. User:HopsonRoad 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing One Survivor at least

There is at least one survivor not listed here. An EC-121D is located at the Aerospace Museum of California in Sacramento, Califoria.

Have you looked at Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star? MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lockheed Constellation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lockheed Constellation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_Constellation/Archive_1&oldid=1056369199"