Terry;
I'll take your word on the reliability of the engines on a DC-6 but my one
experience flying in one (as a passenger back in '57) was otherwise. We took
off from Rhein- Main Airbase (W. Germany) and were flying back to NJ. Six
hours out of Prestwick, Scotland we lost an engine and headed back to
Prestwick. Seeing the wing tanks dumping fuel to lighten the load was not an
inspiring sight! After a layover, we had another DC-6 flown in from Rhein-
Main and continued over to Goose Bay, Labrador and then to NJ without
incident. Whew! That was a few days after I graduated from high school. I'll
never forget the sound of a big reciprocating engine cranking up and then
firing in the still, cool darkness as the sound carried over the tarmac.
Those inertia starters still give me a real chill when I hear them cranking
over a big engine.
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Rose & Terry Hunt [mailto:hunt@Kuentos.guam.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 5:39 PM
To: Land-speed@autox.team.n
Subject: Recips.
Dick J. and list, I have time in DC-6 and 1049h Constellation aircraft. The
6
was nicer to fly and the engine very reliable. The Connie had way more
horsepower partly due to the power recovery turbine. An exhaust turbine thru
a
hydraulic coupler put about 500 HP directly on the crank . A shaft was in
there also. The problem was they blew up often. That's why they had those
large exhaust pipes. So all the parts could evacuate easily.Terry Hunt, Guam
Bomb, #743
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
/// or go to http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
///
|