beekeyknee
Well-known member
Pic 7
Lockheed Super Constellation engine.[this post was last edited: 11/11/2012-20:43]
Lockheed Super Constellation engine.[this post was last edited: 11/11/2012-20:43]
fave passenger jets
- Thread starter cfz2882
- Start date
Help Support :
cfz2882
Well-known member
the engine above has "power recovery"turbines-driven by exhaust flow like a turbo turbine,they are coupled to the crankshaft through a fluid coupling.
That's not a DC-3 . . .
It's a Lockheed Super Constellation as explained in the link. The triple tail is an immediate giveaway, as is the sheer size - much larger than the DC-3. The Connie was designed at a time when the DC-3 was arguably the world standard in passenger airliners, and it was intended to completely eclipse the DC in every category which it did. However, the size was problematical in that most airports in the late '30s did not have hangers tall enough to accommodate a single tail large enough to work effectively on a plane so large. Lockheed engineers solved the problem elegantly with the triple tail that had the same surface area divided into three fins which were therefore much smaller and reduced overall plane height.
The Connie's engines were Wright Cyclones. After WWII a "turbo-compound" version of these engines was developed with the power recovery turbines as noted above. These complex and powerful 18 cylinder engines are the reason Connies (and the other late generation piston engined airliners) became virtually extinct before the older DC-3; they are very complex and expensive to maintain, far more so than jet engines. There was a supposedly succesful attempt to fit the Connie with turboprop power, but the cost to certify it for airworthiness was too expensive and it was abandoned.
It's a Lockheed Super Constellation as explained in the link. The triple tail is an immediate giveaway, as is the sheer size - much larger than the DC-3. The Connie was designed at a time when the DC-3 was arguably the world standard in passenger airliners, and it was intended to completely eclipse the DC in every category which it did. However, the size was problematical in that most airports in the late '30s did not have hangers tall enough to accommodate a single tail large enough to work effectively on a plane so large. Lockheed engineers solved the problem elegantly with the triple tail that had the same surface area divided into three fins which were therefore much smaller and reduced overall plane height.
The Connie's engines were Wright Cyclones. After WWII a "turbo-compound" version of these engines was developed with the power recovery turbines as noted above. These complex and powerful 18 cylinder engines are the reason Connies (and the other late generation piston engined airliners) became virtually extinct before the older DC-3; they are very complex and expensive to maintain, far more so than jet engines. There was a supposedly succesful attempt to fit the Connie with turboprop power, but the cost to certify it for airworthiness was too expensive and it was abandoned.
Favorite Aircraft
Civillian, DC10-30, DC10-40, L1011 Tristar, 747-400, 757-200, 707-300, 737-800
Military, C5-A, B-17, B-29, F-117
WK78
Civillian, DC10-30, DC10-40, L1011 Tristar, 747-400, 757-200, 707-300, 737-800
Military, C5-A, B-17, B-29, F-117
WK78
beekeyknee
Well-known member
arbilab
Well-known member
My first flight was in a Connie. Around 1952-3. I was 6-7. Flying by myself from PBGH to KCMO via CHIG. Typical for the Cyclone, one engine wouldn't pass runup in CHIG and the flight was hours late. Connie was called "best 3-engine transport ever" because they often landed with one engine out.
LEAST fave transport jet is MD80. I live by DFW airport and those dam things are LOUD. Sitting in the last 5 rows causes hearing damage.
I have been on every US transport jet but the most cycles on 737. It's docile, which inspires passenger confidence and I like that. If I can't get there on Southwest I may not go.
LEAST fave transport jet is MD80. I live by DFW airport and those dam things are LOUD. Sitting in the last 5 rows causes hearing damage.
I have been on every US transport jet but the most cycles on 737. It's docile, which inspires passenger confidence and I like that. If I can't get there on Southwest I may not go.
Best smallish/mediumish passenger jet ever was the Boeing 727-100. Small cabin and 3 big engines. Plenty of surplus thrust for any conceivable situation. Now, every B-737-400 and subsequent models carry more people and weight with fewer engines and a smaller wing.
There were some early Boeing 707 and 720 variants that were pretty awesome, too.
I never was a fan of the Douglas DC-9. It became the McDonnell-Douglas MD-80, MD-81, MD-82 and MD-83. Name a contemporary plane that has crashed on takeoff in the last 30 years that is not a McDonnell design...
Now, since Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas, it's the Boeing 717.
Had an airline pilot friend that called it the Long Beach Death Tube. That was before the tragic Alaska Air crash where they crashed because the gears stripped in the tail...
There were some early Boeing 707 and 720 variants that were pretty awesome, too.
I never was a fan of the Douglas DC-9. It became the McDonnell-Douglas MD-80, MD-81, MD-82 and MD-83. Name a contemporary plane that has crashed on takeoff in the last 30 years that is not a McDonnell design...
Now, since Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas, it's the Boeing 717.
Had an airline pilot friend that called it the Long Beach Death Tube. That was before the tragic Alaska Air crash where they crashed because the gears stripped in the tail...
whirlcool
Well-known member
Actually the Boeing 717 was known as the MD-95 before it was renamed to the 717.
It's actually quite a different aircraft than the MD-80 series with more complex systems. But it is still considered and extension of the DC-9 series. And since the 717 has been in use since 1998, not one has crashed.
The tail jack stripping out on that Alaska Air flight was due to improper maintenance on the aircraft by Alaska Airlines than a design issue.
But even I have to admit that the DC-9 series does seem to be built a litter more flimsy than the Boeing 707, 727, etc. But look how long they have lasted.
I know a long retired JFK based TWA mechanic that used to work on the TWA Constellation. He said those engines were some of the most complex recips he ever seen. And yes they did have a lot of problems with them. Also they leaked oil too. He said there always was a large puddle of oil under them whenever they were parked at the gate.
It's actually quite a different aircraft than the MD-80 series with more complex systems. But it is still considered and extension of the DC-9 series. And since the 717 has been in use since 1998, not one has crashed.
The tail jack stripping out on that Alaska Air flight was due to improper maintenance on the aircraft by Alaska Airlines than a design issue.
But even I have to admit that the DC-9 series does seem to be built a litter more flimsy than the Boeing 707, 727, etc. But look how long they have lasted.
I know a long retired JFK based TWA mechanic that used to work on the TWA Constellation. He said those engines were some of the most complex recips he ever seen. And yes they did have a lot of problems with them. Also they leaked oil too. He said there always was a large puddle of oil under them whenever they were parked at the gate.
I thought you were an ordinary airliner connoisseur until you mentioned the Lockheed Constellation.
The L-1049 was the greatest piston-engined airliner to ever fly - that's indisputable (the DC-7C was a distant afterthought). Trying to keep one flying today is unfortunately a different story.
Not too many years ago, a group of ex-TWA employees in Kansas City spent a huge amount of time restoring a L-1049 Super Constellation. Ultimately, they were unsuccessful, but:
Until you've seen a Wright R-3350 turbo-compounded radial engine, it's difficult to understand the peak of piston engine aircraft engine design. 18 cylinders, 36 spark plugs, direct fuel-injection, turbochargers, and fluid-coupled power-recovery turbines that feed the turbochargers...
The mechanical awesomeness of the Constellation unfortunately explains how the jet airliners knocked the Connie out. Less maintenance dollars and better reliability. Still, any airplane fan that doesn't love the Connie probably is subject to a human DNA check.
Plus the L-1049 had floating disk brakes, and a whole bunch of other cool tech.
The L-1049 was the greatest piston-engined airliner to ever fly - that's indisputable (the DC-7C was a distant afterthought). Trying to keep one flying today is unfortunately a different story.
Not too many years ago, a group of ex-TWA employees in Kansas City spent a huge amount of time restoring a L-1049 Super Constellation. Ultimately, they were unsuccessful, but:
Until you've seen a Wright R-3350 turbo-compounded radial engine, it's difficult to understand the peak of piston engine aircraft engine design. 18 cylinders, 36 spark plugs, direct fuel-injection, turbochargers, and fluid-coupled power-recovery turbines that feed the turbochargers...
The mechanical awesomeness of the Constellation unfortunately explains how the jet airliners knocked the Connie out. Less maintenance dollars and better reliability. Still, any airplane fan that doesn't love the Connie probably is subject to a human DNA check.
Plus the L-1049 had floating disk brakes, and a whole bunch of other cool tech.
Oooh the BOAC's VC10 and the 707.. They were the first jets I ever flew on from Toronto to London back in 1967.
Those VC10's are LOUD taking off.. The British forces were still using them in the 90's. Maybe they still do. Every week or two one would land and take off in Calgary,, bringing in troops for training or supplies to the Brit Army Training Unit out in Suffield Alberta.
Those VC10's are LOUD taking off.. The British forces were still using them in the 90's. Maybe they still do. Every week or two one would land and take off in Calgary,, bringing in troops for training or supplies to the Brit Army Training Unit out in Suffield Alberta.
Favorite passenger planes that I have ridden on-oh boy-lets see,The lockheed electras-Convair 580-Those prop planes were the most fun to fly on-seemed like you were REALLY flying-like to a railfan-like riding a steam locomotive.Then there was a 707 when I was very little,then to DC9,727,737,777,and lately an airbus 320.See those radial Constellation motors in museams like the one shown.Saw an Allison turboprop engine in a similar display in the inactive section of the Garber Smithsonian facility-now its been moved to Virginia near Dulles airport-used to be in Suitland,Md-when they held an open house-a five min walk from my apartment.And saw and sort of watched the Enola Gay getting restored.Planes are sort of cool to me like trains-both sort of favorite vehicles.
rinso
Well-known member
Whirlcool, thanks for the info. The 40 degree flap thing on 727's must be what Bill Gunston meant in his book, "The Encyclopedia of Commercial Aircraft. Here's what he wrote:
"In the first years of operation, the 727 suffered a series of often fatal accidents, but it was soon clear these were in almost all cases due to laxity in letting the airspeed bleed off too much on the approach, resulting in a lethal sink rate that could not be arrested by full power. Once pilots learned to fly more precisely 'by the book' this kind of landing was eliminated."
I have to admit that I'm not aviation savvy enough to completely understand what this is saying.
"In the first years of operation, the 727 suffered a series of often fatal accidents, but it was soon clear these were in almost all cases due to laxity in letting the airspeed bleed off too much on the approach, resulting in a lethal sink rate that could not be arrested by full power. Once pilots learned to fly more precisely 'by the book' this kind of landing was eliminated."
I have to admit that I'm not aviation savvy enough to completely understand what this is saying.
whirlcool
Well-known member
What he is talking about is letting the airspeed get too low and when you get near the edge of a stall you can have a high sink rate. This is different than the flap setting problem and can happen in any aircraft.
Like I said, the 727 is a pilot's airplane. It will do almost anything you ask of it, but it won't put up with being flown improperly. Vspeeds are very important when flying jet aircraft. That's what is meant by "flying by the numbers". You have definite lift off speeds, approach speeds, turbulence entry speeds, etc. Ignore those and you can quickly have trouble on your hands.
I think the early problem with the 727 was that the plane came out(1964) at a time when airlines were getting rid of the last of their prop planes and training those crews to fly the 727. Jets are "much slicker" than prop planes and that combined with more critical airspeeds makes training a rather steep learning curve.
You ALWAYS have to have your head ahead of the airplane (and an eye on the airspeed indicator) and anticipate what is going to happen next where this wasn't as critical in prop planes. One of the factors in the 1960 crash in New York where a United DC-8 and a Constellation collided midair was that the DC-8 captain let the aircraft get ahead of him and he was traveling too fast for that part of his approach.
By the time I got to the 727(1976) I had already had three years experience in the DC-9 so that helped. But I spent 8 years in the 727 and it took about a year in the right seat before I felt totally comfortable with her. And the swept wing design combined with the T-tail called for some different flying techniques than some transitioning pilots were used to.
Flown "by the book" the 727 was one of the most rugged aircraft I have ever flown.
Like I said, the 727 is a pilot's airplane. It will do almost anything you ask of it, but it won't put up with being flown improperly. Vspeeds are very important when flying jet aircraft. That's what is meant by "flying by the numbers". You have definite lift off speeds, approach speeds, turbulence entry speeds, etc. Ignore those and you can quickly have trouble on your hands.
I think the early problem with the 727 was that the plane came out(1964) at a time when airlines were getting rid of the last of their prop planes and training those crews to fly the 727. Jets are "much slicker" than prop planes and that combined with more critical airspeeds makes training a rather steep learning curve.
You ALWAYS have to have your head ahead of the airplane (and an eye on the airspeed indicator) and anticipate what is going to happen next where this wasn't as critical in prop planes. One of the factors in the 1960 crash in New York where a United DC-8 and a Constellation collided midair was that the DC-8 captain let the aircraft get ahead of him and he was traveling too fast for that part of his approach.
By the time I got to the 727(1976) I had already had three years experience in the DC-9 so that helped. But I spent 8 years in the 727 and it took about a year in the right seat before I felt totally comfortable with her. And the swept wing design combined with the T-tail called for some different flying techniques than some transitioning pilots were used to.
Flown "by the book" the 727 was one of the most rugged aircraft I have ever flown.
whirlcool
Well-known member
And talking about the Convair aircraft. That's what I started out in with North Central airlines. NC developed the Convair 580 and the first conversion from 340 to 580 was in 1966. I started with NC in 1973.
The Convair was a rugged aircraft that performed well in the nasty northern winter weather of the upper midwest. It was very stable on windy approaches. A pretty easy airplane to fly. Airlines loved it. Most airlines in the US at one time or another flew the CV-240, 340, 440. NC bought theirs used from Continental and Delta. One unique thing about the Convair props was that you needed to stock a lot fewer parts at the maintenance bases because all the parts that go on the right side of the aircraft also fit the left side of the aircraft. This resulted in less floor space needed for parts, less money invested in spare parts, etc.
The Convair was also a very rugged aircraft. We suspected it was built to military standards due to Convair's long association with the military. It's too bad that Convair couldn't make a profitable jet aircraft for commercial use.
For those of you who are interested in pilots stories about flying the Convair at North Central here is a link to the NC historical website.
The Convair was a rugged aircraft that performed well in the nasty northern winter weather of the upper midwest. It was very stable on windy approaches. A pretty easy airplane to fly. Airlines loved it. Most airlines in the US at one time or another flew the CV-240, 340, 440. NC bought theirs used from Continental and Delta. One unique thing about the Convair props was that you needed to stock a lot fewer parts at the maintenance bases because all the parts that go on the right side of the aircraft also fit the left side of the aircraft. This resulted in less floor space needed for parts, less money invested in spare parts, etc.
The Convair was also a very rugged aircraft. We suspected it was built to military standards due to Convair's long association with the military. It's too bad that Convair couldn't make a profitable jet aircraft for commercial use.
For those of you who are interested in pilots stories about flying the Convair at North Central here is a link to the NC historical website.
Loading…
www.hermantheduck.org
Wow, what a fun thread! B727 for me all the way, if not the 707 or DC-8. I like the vintage stuff to be sure, and am not a fan of Airbus products. I remember the time well when I was dissappointed to fly on a 727-200 as I'd been on so many. Wow how things change!
Whirlcool -
THANKS so very much for your very interesting comments. Although washers have been a lifetime hobby of mine, commercial aviation has been since the third grade, and I would struggle to estimate which one I've invested more thought time in overall.
From an airliner enthusiast's perspective (I even set up my e-mail years ago as B727nut), I have been fortunate to live near some interesting airliner operations. Growing up in Denver, from 1977 to 1983, we had Frontier Airlines with their 30-plus fleet of Convair 580s which my Dad flew on almost weekly. I was also able to witness the withdrawl of United's DC-8-20s in 1978, or many of them, and the storage of the bird which a few years later became the first Orbis flying eye hospital. I also saw many new arrival 727-200 advanced aircraft for United 1978-1980 and I remmeber well how polished and shiny the thrust reversers were as compared to those of their earlier 1960s built aircraft.
We also had Ports of Call Denver, which flew a fleet of five Convair 990s, which were almost nowhere to be found in the U.S. except Nomads' single aircraft or the NASA plane. These flew over my high-school on climb out numerous times and I'll not forget their sound (or smoke trail). Later they bought a fleet of 707s from American, which was exciting for me as well, vs. them ending up as KC-135E parts donors.
Today in Charlotte we have perhaps one of the most uninteresting aviation environments around, at least as compared to the above, although there was some fun spotting times when Piedmont was accumulating 727s from all over the world and making very productive use of other airline's cast offs. As an exception, today we have the A320 which landed in the Hudson on display at a museum, AND we have Roush Air, LLC, for as long as they continue, with two vintage 727-200s. I go out to the airport from time to time just to look at them, as they park on the side of the old terminal. A short term goal is to get a tour of one or both those aircraft. Their 1979 built 212 series buzzes my office from time to time on departure, which is awesome to see mixed with Airbi and too much homogeneous US Airways stuff. I am beginning to be happy to see a 733 in here and especially a Delta DC-9-51 on occasion. I was able to see one of their DC-9-40s about two years ago on one of its last days of operation (sad day).
I enjoy restoring old machines, especially things destined otherwise for the junk pile. I've done it with washers and cars, but not yet a 727. That may be something that goes unrealized, LOL as I can't put one in my garage or back yard, but there is a Roush 721 almost abandoned here which would love some loving attention (not to mention three engines). Wanna help?
I'll be looking forward to more cool info from you on here, and thanks again!
Gordon
Whirlcool -
THANKS so very much for your very interesting comments. Although washers have been a lifetime hobby of mine, commercial aviation has been since the third grade, and I would struggle to estimate which one I've invested more thought time in overall.
From an airliner enthusiast's perspective (I even set up my e-mail years ago as B727nut), I have been fortunate to live near some interesting airliner operations. Growing up in Denver, from 1977 to 1983, we had Frontier Airlines with their 30-plus fleet of Convair 580s which my Dad flew on almost weekly. I was also able to witness the withdrawl of United's DC-8-20s in 1978, or many of them, and the storage of the bird which a few years later became the first Orbis flying eye hospital. I also saw many new arrival 727-200 advanced aircraft for United 1978-1980 and I remmeber well how polished and shiny the thrust reversers were as compared to those of their earlier 1960s built aircraft.
We also had Ports of Call Denver, which flew a fleet of five Convair 990s, which were almost nowhere to be found in the U.S. except Nomads' single aircraft or the NASA plane. These flew over my high-school on climb out numerous times and I'll not forget their sound (or smoke trail). Later they bought a fleet of 707s from American, which was exciting for me as well, vs. them ending up as KC-135E parts donors.
Today in Charlotte we have perhaps one of the most uninteresting aviation environments around, at least as compared to the above, although there was some fun spotting times when Piedmont was accumulating 727s from all over the world and making very productive use of other airline's cast offs. As an exception, today we have the A320 which landed in the Hudson on display at a museum, AND we have Roush Air, LLC, for as long as they continue, with two vintage 727-200s. I go out to the airport from time to time just to look at them, as they park on the side of the old terminal. A short term goal is to get a tour of one or both those aircraft. Their 1979 built 212 series buzzes my office from time to time on departure, which is awesome to see mixed with Airbi and too much homogeneous US Airways stuff. I am beginning to be happy to see a 733 in here and especially a Delta DC-9-51 on occasion. I was able to see one of their DC-9-40s about two years ago on one of its last days of operation (sad day).
I enjoy restoring old machines, especially things destined otherwise for the junk pile. I've done it with washers and cars, but not yet a 727. That may be something that goes unrealized, LOL as I can't put one in my garage or back yard, but there is a Roush 721 almost abandoned here which would love some loving attention (not to mention three engines). Wanna help?
I'll be looking forward to more cool info from you on here, and thanks again!
Gordon
whirlcool
Well-known member
You are welcome.
Do you remember the Caravelle that UA had painted white and parked it at Stapleton near the Frontier hangar? It sat there for years. I got a tour of it by a UA pilot(this was around 1974 or so). Talk about a strange plane. I wonder whatever happened to it.
The windows were triangular
The door rolled up into the ceiling like a garage door, all manual, no power assist.
The radios were all tube type and were in a huge radio rack behind the pilots but before the cockpit door. I'm willing to bet they threw off some serious heat.
Never got to fly on a Caravelle but I remember seeing UA's back in the mid 60's and they too were very, very loud on takeoff.
Do you remember the Caravelle that UA had painted white and parked it at Stapleton near the Frontier hangar? It sat there for years. I got a tour of it by a UA pilot(this was around 1974 or so). Talk about a strange plane. I wonder whatever happened to it.
The windows were triangular
The door rolled up into the ceiling like a garage door, all manual, no power assist.
The radios were all tube type and were in a huge radio rack behind the pilots but before the cockpit door. I'm willing to bet they threw off some serious heat.
Never got to fly on a Caravelle but I remember seeing UA's back in the mid 60's and they too were very, very loud on takeoff.
Allen -
No, I don't remember a Caravelle there. We got to Denver in 1977 and it took me maybe a year or more to start becoming really familiar with the airport. In 1980 when I started driving and we wanted an extra car around during the week, that's when I started visiting the airport almost weekly as my Mom would take my Dad to the airport on Monday or Tuesday morning, and I'd go get him Thursday or Friday afternoon, and we kept his company car during the week. I usually left really early to hang around and plane spot.
By then I don't think the Caravelle was still there, or if it was I missed it. BUT, I did get to see the Midwest Express Caravelles a few times when they arrived around 7-8pm, but only when one of Dad's flights was really late. They were even loud during taxi, and sounded quite different than the JT8D powered airplanes which were everywhere in Frontier's and Continental's concourses. Midwest Express was the carrier that eventually became or turned into Airborne Express. Imagine carrying packages in a Caravelle! The fleet of five were ex-United but had come from a European carrier which bought them from United a decade earlier.
I sure miss Stapleton - seems like a big waste of a good airport to have closed it. I would have loved to see that plane you saw. I did not know anything about tube radios in them, though that surely makes sense. Can't imagine trying to keep one flying today without major radio mods!
No, I don't remember a Caravelle there. We got to Denver in 1977 and it took me maybe a year or more to start becoming really familiar with the airport. In 1980 when I started driving and we wanted an extra car around during the week, that's when I started visiting the airport almost weekly as my Mom would take my Dad to the airport on Monday or Tuesday morning, and I'd go get him Thursday or Friday afternoon, and we kept his company car during the week. I usually left really early to hang around and plane spot.
By then I don't think the Caravelle was still there, or if it was I missed it. BUT, I did get to see the Midwest Express Caravelles a few times when they arrived around 7-8pm, but only when one of Dad's flights was really late. They were even loud during taxi, and sounded quite different than the JT8D powered airplanes which were everywhere in Frontier's and Continental's concourses. Midwest Express was the carrier that eventually became or turned into Airborne Express. Imagine carrying packages in a Caravelle! The fleet of five were ex-United but had come from a European carrier which bought them from United a decade earlier.
I sure miss Stapleton - seems like a big waste of a good airport to have closed it. I would have loved to see that plane you saw. I did not know anything about tube radios in them, though that surely makes sense. Can't imagine trying to keep one flying today without major radio mods!
redcarpetdrew
Well-known member
Thanks, Allen, for the memories!
My favorite was the Lockheed Electra. Flown by Air California back in the day. I really miss Air California (later Air Cal before they were swallowed whole by another company) as it was a friendly airline which always treated me well! Here is an Electra in Air California colors.
RCD
My favorite was the Lockheed Electra. Flown by Air California back in the day. I really miss Air California (later Air Cal before they were swallowed whole by another company) as it was a friendly airline which always treated me well! Here is an Electra in Air California colors.
RCD
rinso
Well-known member
Whirlcool, thanks so much for the clarificaiton and personal experience information. You rock!
The 727 is still my favorite-looking aircraft. They have a beautiful profile in the sky and on the ground, and from what I understand were the most successful passenger aircraft for years.
The 727 is still my favorite-looking aircraft. They have a beautiful profile in the sky and on the ground, and from what I understand were the most successful passenger aircraft for years.
nurdlinger
Well-known member
I flew on a Caravelle once
It was in 1988, on Halloween, from Paris to Nantes in France. It also was the end of a long trip so the details are gone, but I do remember the triangular windows. Also that the seat back would fold down flat onto the seat bottom. Never did appreciate the value of that. Because All Saints' Day is a big holiday in France, the plane was full of unaccompanied minor children flying home for the holiday.
I'm not really an accomplished traveller as so many are seen to be in this thread. The first flight I ever took happened in 1968 from Detroit Metro airport to Bradley Field in New Haven, CT. The airline was Mohawk. The equipment was a British plane, a small jet with two engines in the rear, called a "BAC 111". The seats were not arranged in the face-forward grid pattern of every other plane I have ever seen, but were gathered in small clumps, like three facing forward back-to-back with three facing rearward, and a zigzag path to get around between them.
I think the most comfortable flights I ever took were in business class 747s on Asian national airlines like Singapore and Royal Thai. Once was on Korean Air, on the same number flight as the one which had been shot down by the Russians. I never got to fly on any newer Boeing aircraft than the 747.
Regarding the Super Constellation, I have no memory of it when it was in regular service. However some time in the last five years or so, I was parked in a spot I know adjacent to the Tucson airport watching planes while eating my lunch. A silver SuperConnie taxied out from someplace, ran the engines a while until they stopped smoking, and took off. I later found out that the plane I saw was Eisenhower's "Columbine" which had been moldering out here in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB but had been rescued and restored enough to fly to someplace else for a real restoration.
It was in 1988, on Halloween, from Paris to Nantes in France. It also was the end of a long trip so the details are gone, but I do remember the triangular windows. Also that the seat back would fold down flat onto the seat bottom. Never did appreciate the value of that. Because All Saints' Day is a big holiday in France, the plane was full of unaccompanied minor children flying home for the holiday.
I'm not really an accomplished traveller as so many are seen to be in this thread. The first flight I ever took happened in 1968 from Detroit Metro airport to Bradley Field in New Haven, CT. The airline was Mohawk. The equipment was a British plane, a small jet with two engines in the rear, called a "BAC 111". The seats were not arranged in the face-forward grid pattern of every other plane I have ever seen, but were gathered in small clumps, like three facing forward back-to-back with three facing rearward, and a zigzag path to get around between them.
I think the most comfortable flights I ever took were in business class 747s on Asian national airlines like Singapore and Royal Thai. Once was on Korean Air, on the same number flight as the one which had been shot down by the Russians. I never got to fly on any newer Boeing aircraft than the 747.
Regarding the Super Constellation, I have no memory of it when it was in regular service. However some time in the last five years or so, I was parked in a spot I know adjacent to the Tucson airport watching planes while eating my lunch. A silver SuperConnie taxied out from someplace, ran the engines a while until they stopped smoking, and took off. I later found out that the plane I saw was Eisenhower's "Columbine" which had been moldering out here in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB but had been rescued and restored enough to fly to someplace else for a real restoration.
