Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies?

From:         falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist )
Date:         29 Jul 96 13:24:42 
References:   1
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??
>
> 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,
  I should have made that point, the DC7C was the first airplane to be
able to cross the Atlantic non-stop westbound, and the engines were a
big piece of that.  One can get real nostalgic for cheap fuel,
especially cheap avgas. :-)
  The turbo compunds and the R-4360's burned 115/145 octane (color
coded purple,) not 100 octane, btw.  Nowadays you can't get it and
have to use 100, with substantial derating.

--
Charlie Falke
System Test Team Leader         Pratt & Whitney Aircraft