Talk:Lockheed Constellation

Pressurization

Hello Nimbus 227, Reference the Lockheed Constellation edit and revert. It is the pressurized cabin that enables any aircraft to fly above most weather, resulting in the passengers and crew enjoying a smoother ride. It is the air below cumulus type cloud that is generally turbulent, once you get above these clouds it's smooth. With a service ceiling of 24000 ft for the Constellation, it's not going to get you above all weather, but most of it. Easy of air travel should not be in this sentence, it does improve comfort because you are not being jostled around. I spent 45 years flying commercial aircraft, so I speak from experience. Avi8tor (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem is probably down to how you wrote the edit. "Its pressurized cabin enabled commercial passenger aircraft to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving safety and comfort." is clearly not correct as the pressurisation of the cabin makes no difference to the aircrafts ability to fly higher. Hence the original text talking about passengers and passenger comfort. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the edit did not make grammatical sense. The current text is Its pressurized cabin enabled commercial passengers to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving the general safety and ease of air travel.

Analysing this: Its (the Constellation's) pressurized cabin enabled commercial (its) passengers to fly well above most bad weather for the first time (the Constellation could operate up there but the passengers would have needed to use oxygen), thus significantly improving the general safety and ease of air travel.

It says 'most' bad weather, not all. I'm aware of turbulence below cumulus clouds as a gliding instructor, power pilot and airline passenger. I'm also aware of aircraft pressurisation and oxygen systems having tested them over 20+ years.

The text as edited: Its pressurized cabin enabled commercial passenger aircraft to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving safety and comfort.

Analysed: Its (the Constellation's) pressurized cabin (cabin = singular) enabled commercial passenger aircraft (aircraft = plural) to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving safety and comfort. Does not make sense as I said in the edit summary.

Its pressurized cabin enabled (this) commercial passenger aircraft (now singular) to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving safety and comfort. That makes sense but is longer than the original where editors should work to shorten or clarify the lead. Hope the explanation is clear. If you read slowly through your edits using 'Show preview' before saving the page problems like this can be caught. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nimbus 227 and MilborneOne, I read this as nit picking, the cited reference states "Pressurization allowed pilots to fly high above most bad weather, making for smoother and safer travel". So it was the pressurization of the aircraft that allowed pilots to fly higher, otherwise the crew and passengers would suffer from a lack of oxygen. One minute you say what I wrote does not make sense and then say it make sense? I think it's better than what was there before, and it was 15 bytes less than before, so clearer? Pressurization didn't "ease air travel" but it did make it more comfortable by being above the weather in smooth instead of bumpy air. Avi8tor (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't explain it any clearer, the reversion had nothing to do with aviation technicalities, it was purely incorrect sentence structure. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How is "The pressurized cabin enabled commercial passenger aircraft to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving safety and comfort" Incorrect sentence structure? I think it's better than "Its pressurized cabin enabled commercial passengers to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving the general safety and ease of air travel." We could get rid of "thus"? Avi8tor (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence now being quoted is different to the published version, it was verbatim: Its pressurized cabin enabled commercial passenger aircraft to fly well above most bad weather for the first time, thus significantly improving safety and comfort. It is readable at this version of the article. I would suggest having the Guild of Copy Editors look at it or request an independent third opinion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Create an "In film" heading/category?

A TWA-liveried Connie appears in the 1957 Audrey Hepburn/Fred Astaire film "Funny Face." The footage shows take off, a brief shot in flight over Paris, and landing. Finally, it is easily visible in background while parked on tarmac with 50's era mobile passenger stairs. Footage begins at film time index 32:40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.153.243 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The Record: Is It? -- L-1649A; for longest-duration, nonstop passenger flight; piston-powered airliner

This Lockheed_Constellation article says that the L-1649A holds the record (at 23 hours, 19 minutes), yet The_Double_Sunrise article says that the Double Sunrise flights are the longest-ever duration (27-33 hours).

Should the assertion of this record be removed from this article, or should this article point to The_Double_Sunrise article, or something else? ---

Info:

---

(PBY Catalina was definitely a piston-powered aircraft; route was a commercial airline's service, which carried passengers and mail.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Sunrise

The Double Sunrise service was formed in 1943 to re-establish the Australia–England air link, crossing the Indian Ocean using the PBY Catalina. The flights were (then) the longest non-stop air route of any airline, 3,580 nautical miles (6,630 km; 4,120 mi).

The Double Sunrise flights remain the longest (in terms of airtime) commercial flights in history, taking between 27 and 33 hours flight duration.

---

A potentially good source: the Qantas Founders Museum blog article on 'Qantas Double Sunrise' -- https://qfom.com.au/2015/08/12/qantas-double-sunrise/

---

Another useful source: 'Flying boats in the Second World War, 1939–45'

https://web.archive.org/web/20140717102445/http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/flying-boats-in-ww2

The Double Sunrise service still holds the record for the longest non-stop commercial air route and the record for the longest ever non-stop commercial flight – 32 hours 9 minutes.

---

This Lockheed_Constellation article says:

The L-1649A holds the record for the longest-duration, nonstop passenger flight aboard a piston-powered airliner. On TWA's first London-to-San Francisco flight on October 1–2, 1957, the aircraft stayed aloft for 23 hours and 19 minutes (about 5,350 miles (8,610 km) at 229 miles per hour (369 km/h)).[12] BobK77 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Constellation's wing design close to that of the P-38 - ??

The article states:

The Constellation's wing design was close to that of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, differing mostly in size.

This claim appears as well in Terry Morgan, "The Lockheed Constellation," Arco Publishing, New York, 1967, p 35.

Even if it does come from Kelly Johnson himself (I haven't verified), it's a puzzling claim. The two aircrafts' wings have noticeably different aspect ratios and taper ratios. (Just look at the 3-views, or look up the specs.) And it's an odd idea that a designer would choose a wing design from an entirely different aircraft with different mission requirements and say well, it worked well here, let's use it on this other one.

Can someone shed light on this?

Asr34 (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)