OvermodTo my knowledge, wood construction aspects are covered in the training for, and the FAA examination for, aircraft maintenance. I think there is an option in current PSI testing for a certificate just for 'airframe' (AMA) if you don't want what I used to call the A&P certificate (I think now called 'aircraft maintenance - general') Backshop and others will probably be laughing at us over this because they know what is involved in practical maintenance and it goes far beyond what the FAA's program is testing for. The right criterion for specialty wood construction likely goes far beyond what a formal test comprises, and when you get into formed composites of the type that becomes possible even with resin glulam and selective bending I suspect you're outside what a 'professional airframe mechanic' in general aviation would have any need to know. It is then the professional responsibility of an AMA intending to specialize in such construction to learn the field (both in knowledge and practical experience) and for any aircraft owner or pilot intending to fly an aircraft of such construction to learn how the tricks are done, what to look for in preflight examinations, how to assess if a given 'professional' understands The Knowledge or not. In my opinion it's the same as in medicine: there is no formal 'government certification' in how to run a 19-micrometer laser or program a da Vinci robot for in situ spinal kyphosis, but you'll want to satisfy yourself as a patient that a doctor proposing to use such technology is conversant in its proper use as well as the more common-sense and appropriate methods in modern surgical medicine. One of the things FAA does do, though, is regulate the technologies actually used for certified production aircraft. If you're using specialty construction or techniques, expect to be kept in 'experimental' status until the longevity of your methods is established -- or expect ADs if any shortcoming or problem is detected or determined likely. (Just as for railroads these can come in the form of NPRMs, notices of proposed rulemaking, with whatever 'final rule' changes and details are adopted going in the Federal Register and being incorporated in the relevant section(s) of the CFR.)
Backshop and others will probably be laughing at us over this because they know what is involved in practical maintenance and it goes far beyond what the FAA's program is testing for. The right criterion for specialty wood construction likely goes far beyond what a formal test comprises, and when you get into formed composites of the type that becomes possible even with resin glulam and selective bending I suspect you're outside what a 'professional airframe mechanic' in general aviation would have any need to know. It is then the professional responsibility of an AMA intending to specialize in such construction to learn the field (both in knowledge and practical experience) and for any aircraft owner or pilot intending to fly an aircraft of such construction to learn how the tricks are done, what to look for in preflight examinations, how to assess if a given 'professional' understands The Knowledge or not. In my opinion it's the same as in medicine: there is no formal 'government certification' in how to run a 19-micrometer laser or program a da Vinci robot for in situ spinal kyphosis, but you'll want to satisfy yourself as a patient that a doctor proposing to use such technology is conversant in its proper use as well as the more common-sense and appropriate methods in modern surgical medicine.
One of the things FAA does do, though, is regulate the technologies actually used for certified production aircraft. If you're using specialty construction or techniques, expect to be kept in 'experimental' status until the longevity of your methods is established -- or expect ADs if any shortcoming or problem is detected or determined likely. (Just as for railroads these can come in the form of NPRMs, notices of proposed rulemaking, with whatever 'final rule' changes and details are adopted going in the Federal Register and being incorporated in the relevant section(s) of the CFR.)
My son is a master at metal fabrication - however, when it comes to wood, he finds it hard to find a place to tack weld two pieces together. Different construction materials require different skills.
He is not involved in any form of aircraft maintenance or repair.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
To my knowledge, wood construction aspects are covered in the training for, and the FAA examination for, aircraft maintenance. I think there is an option in current PSI testing for a certificate just for 'airframe' (AMA) if you don't want what I used to call the A&P certificate (I think now called 'aircraft maintenance - general')
charlie hebdoBalt referred to the wood laminate construction.
I know.
Erik_MagGetting back to the origins of the Connie: The 300+ mph cruise speed was made possible by the Wright engines developed for the B-29, though one interesting "what-if" was the turbo-compound Allison V-1710 good for almost 3,000hp at take-off. The sfc of the tubocharged V-1710 wasn't much higher than the Wright turbo-compounds, so a non-stop NY to LA flight would have been easy
The 'best' of all the powerplants, though, wasn't a piston engine, or an American turbine; it was the engines used in the Tu-95 (for which there was actually a somewhat Connie-ish "airliner" counterpart (no one I know was particularly deceived) which had a transmission in the final drive to slow prop rpm at altitude for sustained cruise ... which was astounding for a high-subsonic aircraft. This type of engine woud hae worked nicely in the turboprop variant of what became the B-52 ... and the Stratoliner-like wide-cabin multiple-deck airliner variants of such an aircraft. It is not difficult for me to imagine an aircraft with the comfortable sleeper accommodation of a Pullman train, with lounges, galleys, in fact the option of Princess-like accommodations, that could fly a coast-to-coast route comfortably overnight. One might think of the current generation of luxury widebody aircraft with geared turbofans as a fancier version of the same thing...
Flintlock76 BaltACD Airframe mechanics require certification - is there certification for Airframe Carpenters? Yes indeed, I believe there is, or there used to be. It comes under the "Airframe" umbrella if you're doing it professionally.
BaltACD Airframe mechanics require certification - is there certification for Airframe Carpenters?
Yes indeed, I believe there is, or there used to be. It comes under the "Airframe" umbrella if you're doing it professionally.
Balt referred to the wood laminate construction.
blue streak 1 Charlie The DC-6 was not pressurized very much so you had to fly at an low altitude below (?). The Connies were more pressurized. However do not remember their operating altitudes.
Charlie The DC-6 was not pressurized very much so you had to fly at an low altitude below (?). The Connies were more pressurized. However do not remember their operating altitudes.
Wikipedia entry says service ceiling for the DC-6B was 25,000', which may be as much engine limits as pressurization. ISTR that the Coniies had a similar ceiling. Jets had higher ceilings to keep fuel consumption under control.
The DC-6's tended to outlast the Connie's and DC-7's as the Double Wasp used on the DC-6 was a more reliable engine than the Wright Cyclone used on the Connie's and DC-7's. My last flight on a DC-6 was July 1968 on an United flight from Reno to LAX, UAL retired their DC-6's a bit over a year later.
N.B. One tutorial on simulating flying propliners mentioned that a DC-6 had to burn off quite a bit of fuel to reach 25,000'. Part of that was due to ATC rules requiring that climbs be done at 500fpm.
charlie hebdo But the appearance? Not so hot.
Yeah, I suppose if you were a Gestapo goon working in their Copenhagen headquarters on 3/21/1945 a Mosquito was an ugly sight indeed!
BaltACDAirframe mechanics require certification - is there certification for Airframe Carpenters?
Flintlock76There's the old aviators saying, "If it looks good it'll fly good!" and the Connie is a looker all right! Sleek and elegant! Kind of like this one, which would give a Connie a good run in a beauty contest. (It'll be a surprise!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81wEm1q824
Kind of like this one, which would give a Connie a good run in a beauty contest.
(It'll be a surprise!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81wEm1q824
Airframe mechanics require certification - is there certification for Airframe Carpenters?
The Mosquito was a great, versatile plane. But the appearance? Not so hot.
blue streak: Thanks for the info on the DC 6. I always thought DC 6 and Connies were pressurized about the same .
There's the old aviators saying, "If it looks good it'll fly good!" and the Connie is a looker all right! Sleek and elegant!
Error.
blue streak 1 Constellations sort of faded away. They ended up being retired before their airframes actually wore out. TWA bought the H model with its extra fuel that ended up probably being the longest time unrefueled ability of any commercial passenger airplane. The Constellations started with the 049 model that was fairly short. Lockheed kept lengthening each model with more powerful engines which had the effect of making each one more stable in yaw. Often suspected that the G and H models did not need the 3 rudders of the other models ? The air force used Connies for AWACS aircraft for that very long unrefueled endurance that has never been met by jets. However mid air refueling changed the game. The B-36 did have a longer endurance and then also got mid air refueling small jets for takeoff and bombing dashes. Eastern air lines kept the Connies around a long time. They retired the DC-7s then the DC-6s. The Connies became surplus but became the primary aircraft for EAL's air shuttle. They were paid for and became back up aircraft for the shuttle guarantee and some times as many as 5 an hour would make a trip to BOS or WASH. More than once a single passenger got the last extra section. Once Electras (~1966) took over 1st sections Connies remained the extra section aircraft. As Electras slowly took over 2nd and the more extra sections Connies slowly were retired. EAL kept several as company material freighters especially for jet engines as Vietnam made Jet engines in very short supply. Once EAL got the B-727QC passenger - freighters the EAL Connies went quietly to bone yards.
Constellations sort of faded away. They ended up being retired before their airframes actually wore out. TWA bought the H model with its extra fuel that ended up probably being the longest time unrefueled ability of any commercial passenger airplane. The Constellations started with the 049 model that was fairly short. Lockheed kept lengthening each model with more powerful engines which had the effect of making each one more stable in yaw. Often suspected that the G and H models did not need the 3 rudders of the other models ?
The air force used Connies for AWACS aircraft for that very long unrefueled endurance that has never been met by jets. However mid air refueling changed the game. The B-36 did have a longer endurance and then also got mid air refueling small jets for takeoff and bombing dashes.
Eastern air lines kept the Connies around a long time. They retired the DC-7s then the DC-6s. The Connies became surplus but became the primary aircraft for EAL's air shuttle. They were paid for and became back up aircraft for the shuttle guarantee and some times as many as 5 an hour would make a trip to BOS or WASH. More than once a single passenger got the last extra section.
Once Electras (~1966) took over 1st sections Connies remained the extra section aircraft. As Electras slowly took over 2nd and the more extra sections Connies slowly were retired. EAL kept several as company material freighters especially for jet engines as Vietnam made Jet engines in very short supply. Once EAL got the B-727QC passenger - freighters the EAL Connies went quietly to bone yards.
Great post! As a 9 year old kid, I had my first flight of any type on an Eastern (Super)Connie from LaGuardia to Bermuda. Eastern had just taken over Colonial Airlines. Very smooth. And flew on an American DC-6, LaGuardia to Midway to return home. Not as pleasant as the Connie.
Overmod It is only about half a Depression decade later that Howard Hughes apparently indicated to Lockheed that the 'next generation' of mainliners would want to have 20 sleeper berths, full transcontinental range, and over 300mph cruise speed -- something that Lockheed's contemporary large 4-engine project was considerably 'short' of achieving at the time. Within no more than a couple more years Lockheed produced the project 049 'Excalibur A' with what might be considered enlarged P-38 features, and this rapidly became the Connie airframe we know (incidentally with much better engines in part justified by better expected airline performance). So essentially in no more than eight years from introduction of the DST we had this, perhaps the best of the reciprocating-engine airliners and certainly the most elegant.
It is only about half a Depression decade later that Howard Hughes apparently indicated to Lockheed that the 'next generation' of mainliners would want to have 20 sleeper berths, full transcontinental range, and over 300mph cruise speed -- something that Lockheed's contemporary large 4-engine project was considerably 'short' of achieving at the time. Within no more than a couple more years Lockheed produced the project 049 'Excalibur A' with what might be considered enlarged P-38 features, and this rapidly became the Connie airframe we know (incidentally with much better engines in part justified by better expected airline performance). So essentially in no more than eight years from introduction of the DST we had this, perhaps the best of the reciprocating-engine airliners and certainly the most elegant.
I would say the pinnacle of reciprocating engine airliners occured about a decade later with the DC-7C and L-1649. Douglas wanted a bit more payload and range with the DC-7, so decided to extand the wing by adding 5 feet between the root and inboard engines, which dramatically lowered the noise inside the cabin. Lockheed did the same with the Connie's a year later.
Getting back to the origins of the Connie: The 300+ mph cruise speed was made possible by the Wright engines developed for the B-29, though one interesting "what-if" was the turbo-compound Allison V-1710 good for almost 3,000hp at take-off. The sfc of the tubocharged V-1710 wasn't much higher than the Wright turbo-compounds, so a non-stop NY to LA flight would have been easy (this is flying against prevailing winds).
I confess to being a bit sad that this came after the heyday of sleeper transport, where the fundamental principle of a train like the 20th Century Limited was realized in air transport: you emplaned decently after the close of business in New York or LA, and after a civilized night's sleep in the equivalent of a ubiquitous Pullman you arrived before the next business day on the opposite coast.
A 180MPH high speed rail system might be good for a 12-14 hour LA - CHI trip, which would make for a nice overnight trip.
The "Truculent Turtle" was a modified P2V Neptune that set a non-stop distance record of slightly over 10,000 miles in the late 1940's. Since Neptunes did not have refueling capabilities, a nonstop round-the-world flight would have been impossible.
Also, the Boeing 707 killed the ocean liners "Like a good friend being hit by a truck" as Walter Lord said.
When I was stationed in Norfolk in the 1970s, I would occasionally see the Connie AWACS plane. There were also several R4Ds with curtains in the windows. On the base as exhibits were a Pogo plane, an early attempt at VTOL and the Martin "Truculent Turtle" the first plane to fly around the world non-stop. That one was taken away in about 1977 to be restored, I think. Sitting in one spot on the grass at the air base was a four-engined flying boat, apparently it was a Japanese "Emily." type. It was covered in a preservative coating and was eventually given back to Japan. It wasn't very big as I recall.
Leo_Amesperhaps the most beautiful airplane that was ever designed.
There is a railroad context, and in fact there is a thread over on the Classic Trains forum of which the 'Excalibur A' is a logical and fairly immediate continuation.
We may recall that one of the great 'innovations' in 1929 was the introduction of T.A.T., which used sleeper trains by night (on PRR in the east and ATSF in the west) and aircraft by day to give improvements in transcontinental speed. This led to introduction of aircraft that would not require 'intermodal transfer' to have sleeper capacity, notably the Douglas DST of 1935 (the widened fuselage of which was instrumental in the success of the DC-3. It is only about half a Depression decade later that Howard Hughes apparently indicated to Lockheed that the 'next generation' of mainliners would want to have 20 sleeper berths, full transcontinental range, and over 300mph cruise speed -- something that Lockheed's contemporary large 4-engine project was considerably 'short' of achieving at the time. Within no more than a couple more years Lockheed produced the project 049 'Excalibur A' with what might be considered enlarged P-38 features, and this rapidly became the Connie airframe we know (incidentally with much better engines in part justified by better expected airline performance). So essentially in no more than eight years from introduction of the DST we had this, perhaps the best of the reciprocating-engine airliners and certainly the most elegant.
That should have been the wake-up call to the immediate postwar railroads about what was coming; the 'other shoe dropping' was the subsequent introduction of the Comet (which promised to eliminate the overhead of the sleeper service and still give bearable long distance times and equipment utilization that goes with them) -- the engineering issues with that airliner gave railroads a bit of reprieve but the 707/DC-8 put the rest of the nails in the coffin that the enhanced postwar highway/turnpike programs had begun.
Should we have an expanded 'classic aircraft attacking trains' to discuss how airlines took over the function of long-distance trains as a non-automotive travel choice in general?
With it now not necessary to attempt to link posts in this thread to railroading in some manner, here's a short video that I love of perhaps the most beautiful airplane that was ever designed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taU6qu5pXBo
While this one was an airliner, any warbird fan will be able to tell you that the Lockheed Constellation also had a long and successful career with the United States Air Force (As well as the US Navy). Both also operated this particular breed, the Lockheed Super Constellation. In particular, it was noteworthy in military service as one of the first AWACS aircraft.
Here are some clasic war birds from Aviation Week.
https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/defense-aircraft-we-love?utm_rid=CPEN1000000511129&utm_campaign=24888&utm_medium=email&elq2=132f83af1662456aa04c2f066a790496
Thanks Victrola!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmzFx7cfu7Y
A prime target for allied aircraft.
How's about some classic warbirds strafing trains AND a Gestapo headquarters?
Go get 'em RAF!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZAq72EYp6w
I have to correct my post of January 7th concerning the M-24 "Chaffee" tanks used in the movie "Battle of The Bulge." I said that even though correct for the period they didn't show up in Europe until the last weeks of the war.
Not so. The first of them arrived in November of 1944, so it's certainly possible some saw action in the Bulge, more arriving in December and afterward. So I have to say OK to them being in the movie.
Still, my saying they weren't supposed to "...slug it out with a Tiger..." is still correct. They were light tanks after all.
And some are still around!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJXd8VSzslQ
A bit earlier Overmod and myself were waxing nostalgic about northern New Jersey, and if any of you are curious about the Ridgewood and Westwood stations, here they are. Old Erie, now New Jersey Transit.
Ridgewood. https://www.subwaynut.com/njt/ridgewood/index.html
Westwood. https://www.subwaynut.com/njt/westwood/index.php
For a conucopia of ALL NJ Transit stations, many vintage, go here...
https://www.subwaynut.com/njt/index.html
Good stuff here! Have fun!
PS: I think I'm on safe ground when I say this is our personal favorite, although it hasn't seen a passenger train since 1966. Built in 1872.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenafly_station#/media/File:TenaflyStation.jpg
Convicted One 54light15 The original Star Wars was done in Cinerama? I don't think that was the original "3 camera" Cinerama. More likely the 70 mm Panavision varient
54light15 The original Star Wars was done in Cinerama?
I don't think that was the original "3 camera" Cinerama. More likely the 70 mm Panavision varient
I'm pretty sure it was 70 mm Panavision, with a wide curved screen. The opening sequence for Star Wars was very spectacular in that format as well as the opening sequence for "Krakatoa" where the camera was being hoisted.
I do recall getting a booklet on Cinerama when seeing It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World with reference to the original three camera and 70 mm Panavision.
I suspected as much, so did Lady F. Oh well. But thanks for the phone number!
She's resigned herself to waiting until March or April.
Flintlock76Now Lady F isn't sure Van Dyk's is open during the winter, but she sure as hell is going to find out! If you hear an anguished scream coming over the horizon from somewhere you'll know it's not!
Wayne ... of course it's not. They close at the beginning of December and will open again in March (first or second week). Call Corinna (201-444-1429) to get the precise date ... or ask if she'd "open early" or provide special pickup for the Storm.
Oh yeah, hoity-toity Ridgewood! That hasn't changed, now the residents call it "The 'Wood!" More Mercedes and BMW's there than you can shake a stick at!
And for some strange reason when we were in high school the Ridgewood kids invaded and took over "The Fireplace" on Route 17 in Paramus! We couldn't figure that one out, didn't they have their own place in "The 'Wood" to hang out?
Oh well, we had "Pizza Town!" But now that's gone too, dammit!
Ditto on Westwood, again superficial changes only, and their Erie station is a time capsule in it's own right. I was in it last year, the preservation is remarkable.
Now Lady F isn't sure Van Dyk's is open during the winter, but she sure as hell is going to find out! If you hear an anguished scream coming over the horizon from somewhere you'll know it's not!
Discussing ice cream sure isn't about "planes strafing trains," but we can't talk about death and destruction ALL the time!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.