The artwork in the Flight article seems to be of the BOAC-initiated Tyne-powered conversion proposals, suggested as the Proteus was encountering development difficulty and delaying the Britannia as a result.
In the event, Douglas continued to refine the DC-7D. Here is some Douglas artwork of the definitive DC-7D proposal (circa 1956), which was favoured by both American and BOAC:
Still Tyne powered, but showing some more advanced thinking (along with DC-7C elements). With the economy of manufacture inherent in using the established DC-7 wings and fuselage, (and apparently a DC-8 vertical tail). it might have been possible to build both the DC-7D and DC-8, with the DC-7D serving shorter routes and cargo operations. Turboprops had (and in some ways still have) economy advantages over pure jets, especially useful in cargo operations where outright speed is less important than range and economy.
Post by Matthew Anderson on Dec 13, 2012 17:57:22 GMT -5
Even today people don't like the concept of props. My parents refuse to set foot on a prop plane of any kind because of the lousy comfortless reputation of today's commuter planes. Still, thanks for posting more of this info rally!
Jets were new and sexy, props were old. Jets also tend to make for quieter passenger cabins. Personally, I like piston props and turbo props. Jets can get me from point A to point B faster, but there is character in props.
Post by Matthew Anderson on Dec 28, 2012 21:24:36 GMT -5
I'm sorry to bump an age-old topic, but it would be grand to have a DC-7D and CV-540 in FS. Until then, Garry Russell's CL-44 will fill in that void.
Juan, Isn't it funny that people the world all over have trouble with props? I ask my parents how they would feel in a L-1049 or DC-7 often. Their answer is always "nope". Frankly, if the prop-haters just took the time to appreciate the real comfort and art of the older propliners, they would surely take those feelings produced by commuter aircraft on their mind.
Post by garryrussell on Dec 29, 2012 4:02:04 GMT -5
Did to know you use it but ...How does the CL-44 fill the void
The CL-44 was a much bigger aeroplane that the DC 7D would ever have been...a very different class.
In fact the CL-44J was the largest passenger prop 'plane ever built in the West (180-234) and at the time was the largest airliner of any kind in the west only beaten by the Tu-114, another prop. It remained the largest airliner this side of the Iron Curtain until the DC 8-60.
It would be nice to see a DC 7D in the sim as it's not really fictional, just unbuilt, but a nice addition in a class of props that would have had success if there had been a bigger gap between the pistons and the pure jets.
Had the majors not been heavily subsidised one way or another and had to buy and operate on pure economics then the DC7, Starliner Turbo props would have had their day, possibly killing off the pistons almost as much as the jets did.
Had there not been so much teething problems with the various turbo props throughput the fifties then maybe by the latter half of that decade a lot of the airliners would have been so powered.
In Britian, the very famous and reliable Dart wouldn't even start in it's early days and produce no real usable power. Had they not stuck it out and the Viscount which was unsellable as it was too small made 40 per cent bigger when finally the Dart got the power that was needed, that famous combination would not have been arround to revolutionised the industry.
The Proteus has problems as did the Tyne and this did not instill confidence.
the pistons were limited and the jets were too expensive to run and this was the ideal compromise.
Shame it never did work out, but now, the smaller commuter jets have been replaced by hoards or turbo props on many routes. FlyBe replaced the 146 with the Dash Eight and the economics are so different they can't really be prepared but on some of the routes, the total fuel burn for the Dash Eight is about the same as the 146 needed to climb to cruise.
BOAC used the Britannia on routes that they could have cut the fares way down on and made a profit.
But they were no allowed to charge less in those highly regulated days so a pax had to pay the same to sit for 12 hours in a Britannia then eight hours in a jet.
Sometimes, the prop was faster as it could go direct where the jet had to stop and refuel....the ultimate Hare and Tortoise
The CL-44 was quoted as operating a freight load of a 707 or DC 8 freighter at 40 per cent of the cost, but in a World where it must be done as fast as possible at any cost it was bound to lose out.
But, with Con code out of the pic and Sea Travel getting a hold back in some areas, economics may one day cause a re-look at a large turbo prop, but if it did happen, it will be a large box with propellers, more SRN.4 than DC 7D. ;D