|
|
Post by stumpy on Dec 27, 2008 22:27:18 GMT -5
Hii folks  I found another day on avsim the YC-121, the Turbo Constellation. In fact i belive that it is a turboprob version of the 1049 with the wing of the starliner mounting Pratt and Whitney T-34 engines. Now, the question i'd like to put to members consideration is... With this new powerplant, what are the climb settings... what is the best climb speed? what is N1% for climb? and propeller RPM? does any body now? i made a little surfing on the net trying to find but... nothing about it. Comparing with other turboprops, is that 90% N1 to much for climb and 1600 rpm on props? In cruise what should be the value for N1? 70%? 60% 80%? what are the ideal values for Fuel flow in cruise? I love to fly that connie but he looks like a rocketconnie when we go to the limits. if the plane is the same, thoes it hold, or have several limitations? Thanks in advance.... Cheers... Happy new year ;D Luis |
|
|
|
Post by railrunner130 on Dec 28, 2008 8:46:02 GMT -5
Stumpy,
The Turbo Connie is by Manfried Jahn, who is also doing the L-1649 here. I did a couple repaints and I think there may be a few more available at avsim.
In hindsight, it's sad that the real life airplanes did not gain much interest. I think that by the time it was developed, interest in pure jets had matured enough that the Turbo Connie was destined to be forgotten about. That being said, there's nothing that says it can't be really popular in flightsim!!
|
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Dec 28, 2008 9:23:55 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I think the thread that gave the performance for this aircraft was lost on the old forum.
However, if you downloaded the original package from Manfred, I think there were handling notes included which gave you basic power settings. With a turbine, you rarely fly by fuel flow like you do with a piston. You instead fly by either torque, RPM, or some temperature (TIT, EGT, etc). With the T34, I believe that the preferred method of operation was to set TIT for cruise, same with the T56.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumpy on Dec 28, 2008 10:51:58 GMT -5
Hi Folks ;D Thank you very much for your kind answers. Yes, the turboconnie was forgotten, but the perhaps some airlines could just upgrade their L1049's to turbo L1049 with a lower coast, maintaining the same fleet, having a proven and beautiful airframe instead of buying L-188 electras... just my 2 cents... ;D Thank you capflyer... i believe i found your 2 repaints on avsim, they are great, specially the one with the blue strip. In the base pack the flying notes do not make any reference to climbing or cruising, just for Vr and landing speeds. It does not mention any time prop RPM, TIT, Torque or whatever...  But... after all it is a great connie... i love to fly it... for me, until no one says contrary... it keep it flying 85% N1 for climbing and cruising at 1600 rpm at 70% N1. Cheers.... Safe flights... LUIS |
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Dec 28, 2008 14:56:07 GMT -5
In hindsight, it's sad that the real life airplanes did not gain much interest. I think that by the time it was developed, interest in pure jets had matured enough that the Turbo Connie was destined to be forgotten about. That being said, there's nothing that says it can't be really popular in flightsim!! I've read in a PDF file found on the net that the reason the L-1249 ( as it should have been known, had it had better luck) did not become reality because of a series of misunderstandings with P&W ( the supplier of the turbines) that had this last retire their support and their engines because, I seem to remember that P&W said that Lockheed was asking too much to their ( P&W's) engines and the they were worried that a engine-related problem on the Turbo Connies could have been bad publicity for them. Had P&W not had cold feet, the Starliner would have had different engines and probably lived longer.  PS Could you link the repaints, please? |
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Dec 28, 2008 16:21:50 GMT -5
I would think the main reason for the engines would have been in the take-off and climb performance at same weights and less an increase in outright speed in cruise.
So in the absence of any verified numbers I would simply try to match the Starliners numbers in cruise.
As for the TO and Climb as a pure guess a 10-15% gain would probably be a good starting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris_c on Dec 28, 2008 19:41:26 GMT -5
FS Avaitor wrote an article some time ago on mach shock and why the Turbo Connie would be no faster in service than the radial powered models. It's posted to the FS Avaitor archive if interested.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Dec 28, 2008 23:24:44 GMT -5
That's why I suggested outright speed would not be the reason for the conversion.
These would be the reasons in order of importance in my opinon.
1. Take-Off and Climb
2. Reduction in high altitude fuel consumption
3. Power to Weight Ratio of the Turbine vs Radial
Stefan
|
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Dec 29, 2008 4:56:05 GMT -5
That's why I suggested outright speed would not be the reason for the conversion. These would be the reasons in order of importance in my opinon. 1. Take-Off and Climb 2. Reduction in high altitude fuel consumption 3. Power to Weight Ratio of the Turbine vs Radial That and a de-rated T34 ( working at the same shp of the R3350) would have had perhaps a longer operational life and been cheaper to maintain than a turbo compound 18 cylinders radial engine. Who can say. |
|
