Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies?

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         21 Jul 96 13:29:35 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>>The answer to "why bother?" is specific fuel consumption.

>I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really the
>motivation?? After all, the TC's had to burn >>100 octane aviation gasoline,
>while a turboprop could burn bargain-basement kerosene. On top of that, this
>was the '50s and '60s, when fuel costs were less of a factor (although still
>admittedly a large factor) in expense management.

Fuel cost isn't the only issue -- lower SFC with the same fuel
capacity means greater range.  One of the goals of the DC-7 was to
be able to fly from New York to California non-stop, reliably, even
against strong winter headwinds.  Never mind the expense of the fuel
burned, they needed the lower SFC to get the range yet still carry a
decent payload.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills