prop airliners (was Re: Airbus 3XX on the telly

From:         tim@me.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi)
Organization: University of Rochester, School of Engineering
Date:         21 Dec 95 03:33:14 
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Jeffrey Hacker  <jhacker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I wrote :
>>It seems that its much smaller brother, the Bristol Brittania
>>was a bit more succesful... though both Brittania, Constellation,
>>Stratocruiser and DC-7 didnt fare too well in competetion with
>>the 707 and DC-8.
>
>Yeah, but the Bristol Britania had one thing the earliest DC-8's and
>707's didn't - it could fly the transatlantic run nonstop

you sound wistful....

I'm a bit too young to have any experience on larger prop planes,
were they comfortable? the antique "restoration" airliners
I've walked through seem rather luxurious, 4 abreast, big
windows, real aisles.

At the moment, the biggest prop plane I've been on has been
the ATR-72.. not my favorite aircraft due to NVH. I prefer the
much smaller Bae J-31...

It would seem that with the P3 continuing in production that
the Lockheed Electra would be a good choice for 300-600 mile
stage flights. The SFO-LAX shuttle. The BOS-EWR-DCA corridor.
ROC to PIT, ROC to ORD.

They are quiet from the outside.. prolly more of a "real"
plane than an ATR-72 from the inside. About as big as a
Bae 146.

I guess during the early 60's speed was everything, so
the differences between the prop and jet were more dramatic.
However, the 737-400 is no Convair 880 when it comes to
cruise speeds. Is a 410mph prop-jet impractical a world
of 510mph jets?

-tim