|
|
Post by mgr on May 26, 2009 12:09:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by emb110 on May 26, 2009 12:32:51 GMT -5
WOW, this like Christmas all over again
Thanks Marcel
Rob
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo Miranda on May 26, 2009 12:45:05 GMT -5
WOW, this like Christmas all over again Thanks Marcel Rob You can say that again! ;D  Thank you Marcel! someone was asking another day for a KLM repaint, so here you are! I have though a question, this is depicting a model E. What are the differences with the G and H models? I bet this was answered before in the middle on those 20 pages or so of the L-1049 thread!   Soft Landings!  |
|
|
|
Post by mgr on May 26, 2009 12:51:11 GMT -5
I have though a question, this is depicting a model E. What are the differences with the G and H models? The L-1049E was a upgraded version of the L-1049C, the PH-LKW, plane of the repaint was a "E" that's why. All the specific on the differences can be found on the forum... somewhere...  |
|
|
|
Post by volkerboehme on May 26, 2009 13:28:11 GMT -5
Hi, there are a few minor differences, but not very visible. The engines of the 1049C/D/E actually did not have a ram air intake above the engines and smaller spinner afterbodies. That's about all that's visible from the outside. Internally, the G had additional stiffening to allow a weight increase for MTOW from 135,000 to 137,500 lbs (I think) and new engines with more METO power (but identical take-off power of 3,250 HP). Only G and H had optinal wing tip tanks. Quite a few E's were later upgraded to G standard. Here's a link to a list of Constellation variations, a bit outdated though. Was still on the old forum. www.calclassic.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=General;action=display;num=1180366363;start=Best regards, Volker |
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo Miranda on May 26, 2009 13:46:20 GMT -5
Hi! Thanks to both! Volker, Thanks for the link to the old forum! That was some 2 years ago! My memory doesn't stretch that far, nor the search function! Soft Landings! |
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on May 26, 2009 15:50:20 GMT -5
Hi, The search function will go back that far if you set the time for 800 days, instead of 7. |
|
|
|
Post by Ricardo Miranda on May 26, 2009 16:03:39 GMT -5
Oops! Thanks for the tip Tom! Soft Landings! |
|
