Talk:Lockheed Constellation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Question about NickName 2 Time Travel? 3 models vs article 4 Rumored 5 5 flight crew? 5.1 ========== 6 record? 7 Obsolescence

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rumored

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] ==========

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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