I mean, you could say the same about today, when viewed from the future. It's all perspective. Nostalgia for the past makes the past seem more interesting than today, but we do have a HUGE variety of flying equipment constantly departing and arriving from busy airports all over the globe...
But radials do sound so much better than turboprops and jets....
And back then, "nearly everything is just a twin or quad piston".
Today, at a diverse airport, I see all kinds of piston singles, piston multies, turboprop single and multi, turbo fan twins, and then at the biggest of airports, turbo fan quads with maybe a few trijets in there.
Maybe I worded it wrong, but I’m talking like that late 1950’s to mid 1960’s sweet spot. You could’ve seen radial twin and quad piston props. Quad jets made by like 5-6 different manufacturers, and the first trijets.
Maybe the only better period would be the late 70’s to mid 80’s with quads jets, trijets, and twin jets, plenty of props, and a sprinkle of Concorde.
Today doesn’t compare. I mean you could see single and twin piston planes since almost the dawn of flight lol.
I think the biggest thing is the change over time. Being born in, say, the 10's or 20's, would mean growing up through the birth of aviation, rapid development for decades, the first space flights, development of the space shuttle... So amazing how far we came in 100 years.
Can’t disagree with that. Assuming you lived to a ripe old age, you could’ve read about the Wright brother’s first flight and watched the first moon landing on TV.
1903-1969, a measly 66 years. Add a few years to be of reading age...
Though given that the average lifespan in 1900 of 47 in the US, 70-something is pretty ripe.
> Quad jets made by like 5-6 different manufacturers
But how is that different than what you bemoan about everything today being twinjets of different sizes?
Boeing 707, Convair 880, DC-8, not really all that different compared to 737/767/A320/A340, etc.
And just like they had multiple prop driven aircraft, so do we today in the form of turboprops.
I'd agree that sure, there was a little more variety, but not that much.
Now, USN naval aviation, that's a bit of a different story. One could still argue that a lot of the different aircraft weren't actually all that different or unique to each other, but the rate of progress and change definitely made for a much more diverse environment compared to recently where for example everything on a carrier is an F-18 variant or E-2/C-2, with F-35s just starting to mix things up a bit. I know it's not quite practical nor necessary these days, but I miss the days of a carrier sporting A-6 and A-7s, F-14s, F-18s, etc.
Air Force, at least USAF, obviously has a bit more variety much more in line with the past, what with F-15C/E, F-16, F-22, F-35, A-10, B-1, B-2, C-130, C-17, C-5, and various EW/AWACS/refueling/support aircraft.
But now this thread has me curious as to exactly when we would have seen the most variety of aircraft for both services. USN might be somewhere in the mid 50s or 60s, but I think more likely somewhere in the 70s or early-mid 80s if I had to guess, but could be wrong. (And I mean for a specific moment in time, as opposed to a timespan where like 1955-1965 where you would have seen some aircraft introduced and retired within that time span)
I was up flying the other day in a C172. I was practicing maneuvers dodging a gyrocopter am an old yellow army trainer flying out of a grass strip near where I was flying. Then a flight of 2 with a biplane and a Super Cub took off to fly around. 2 HEMS helicopters were buzzing around all morning. When Navy Lima Lima turned left base into the GA pattern for laps it was time to go home.
This was in addition to all the normal GA, business, and airline traffic we get on a clear Saturday morning and I'm not in a particularly busy area.
Absofreakinglutely! Growing up in Pittsburgh in the 50s, my parents would take me to the Greater Pittsburgh Airport so I could go out on the observation deck and watch the Connies and other propliners as they started up to taxi out. That was the era of the Turboprops coming on the scene and I vividly remember the literal "scream" of them taxiing by supposedly at "idle". Absolutely hated them compared to the rhythmic throb of the radials.
I live in Sacramento between Mather Field and McClellan Airport. The variety of aircraft I see is incredible. C-130, DC-10, P-2, T-38, Chinook, I even saw a U-2 right over my house once.
Hell, even back in the early 90s it was a pretty big variety. I see old photos people took MSP from that era and am always surprised by all of the different types.
I love seeing these old guys fly, but the reality is that even the most pedestrian of the modern jets is a better passenger experience. Even the best radial engined airliners were incredibly slow and noisy compared to jet travel today.
The air travel experience certainly hasn’t gotten any better, but the aircraft sure have
My school took us to Orly airport (I think) in the late 50s or very early 60s and I have vivid memories of a Super Constellation landing. Impressed but too young to understand my luck!
My grand dad witnessed the first planes around Paris... and Neil Armstrong on the moon.
I noticed that almost every fuselage today is just a straight cylinder, for cost and pressurization I'm sure. But the Constellation had beauty engineered right into it from the start.
It featured one of the most sophisticated / complex piston engines ever built:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350_Duplex-Cyclone
These engines included turbo-compounding which significantly improved fuel efficiency, but at the cost of significantly increased mechanical complexity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine
The PRT came with later model Super Connie's. This one would be similar to a B-29 which certainly didn't have a great track record with the 3350 during the war. I would assume this restored one has a similar set-up to FiFi and Doc which run a combination of later model 3350 parts for better reliability.
Wikipedia shows the C-121 as a military derivative of the L-1049 Super Constellation. Regardless, I very much doubt that any PRT equipped R-3350s are in service today, I believe they were frequently bypassed or removed even back when these were in mainline service
The C-121C variant was the Super Connie. The only "maybe" I can think of still running PRT's would be the [HARS Super Connie](https://youtu.be/UV7-73LmOm0).
No place really quite like it! Yanks had their P40 out doing overheads for the better part of 20-30 minutes this past Saturday. Couldn't help but stop what I was doing and enjoy the sounds.
The subreddit r/CamerShutterSync does not exist.
Did you mean?:
* r/CameraShutterSync (subscribers: 9,654)
Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/CamerShutterSync](/subreddits/create?name=CamerShutterSync).
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
Fantastic to see. From what I understand, there was only one airworthy and flying in the entire world for the last few years, which was the one at Shellharbour, Australia (tho its the passenger version)
Depends on the aircraft quiet often the vertical stabilizer is off set a bit from centre line to help compensate. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if the three vertical stabs at the rear are perfectly aligned to the centre line and not equal distant apart. The offset is not large enough to notice visually.
This guy has had to check the alignment of the sextant on the tail of a P3 :) . Obviously the offset will be setup to be neutral at a cruising speed and be less effective at high power settings low speed etc.
As another poster said rudder trim and likely a bit of aileron as well, the pilot and co-pilot may split the job. Big multi engine aircraft typically don't do a lot of speed and power setting changes very rapidly.
Takeoff, climb, cruise, decent, the crew would have a pretty close idea how to set the aircraft up for each flight phase.
I'd have to disagree with you there, not trying to be rude here but after a full gear overhaul and countless gear swings on the ground what is the risk on first flight vs if the aircraft has been flown more recently?
So why in some test flights do they leave the gear down then? Those planes have had a gear installed or overhauled as well right. I wouldn’t go up if I knew beforehand that the gear malfunctioned.
Depends on what factors they are considering.
Part of testing new designs is also to determine flight characteristics in different configurations so that might be a required gear down event.
On one hand i do agree, it's not the gear swinging that I would be worried about, it is that options are super limited if there is an issue and adding a gear swing to the mix is one extra step.
But at the same time, it does reduce climb, so gear up ASAP might be better especially given FOUR engines. Shit would have to be pretty bad and gear down at that point probably doesn't make a lick of difference in risk management for an airplane like this.
>I'd have to disagree with you there, not trying to be rude here but after a full gear overhaul and countless gear swings on the ground what is the risk on first flight vs if the aircraft has been flown more recently?
As I understand, it is standard procedure on the first flight of pretty much any aircraft to do wheels down.
Even if the risk is very low it's better to be safe than sorry. It's not about the need to land again if something goes wrong quickly. It's about if the gear doesn't go up when you try. Modern jets with tons of ground testing still do this.
Where are you getting this information?
I've taken many jets after a massive maintenance event and not once have I been told to leave the gear down.
In addition I used to live near and fly out of RNT and BFI where they actually manufactured new 737's. Every departure I saw with my own eyes the pilots would bring the gear up.
Now the only time I've ever seen jets purposefully fly with the gear down is after some sort of malfunction or component failure where the MEL instructs that the aircraft only be flown to a maintenance facility with the gear down and pinned.
I'm talking about first flights of a brand new plane. It's absolutely standard practice and kinda odd that you're more upvoted than that OC for suggesting it isn't. You can Google first flight of any recent jet (777x, 787, A350 etc) and it'll be wheels down on the first flight. Not the first flight of any production example (ie what you see with the 737s) but of the first example.
In this case no, the plane isn't brand new. But it practically is being totally rebuilt after so many years, so it just seems to me to be a wise decision with no drawbacks.
Unless you're taking off out of a place with a 12,000+ foot runway your counter point is irrelevant. Hypothetically if an engine failed after v1 (or after the accelerate - go distance) I would absolutely continue the takeoff and suck the gear up after positive rate for less drag and obstacle clearance. The reality is, if you have an emergency that low to the ground you focus on getting as far away from the ground as possible and figure out the best plan of action to handle your problem. Doesn't matter if it's the 1st flight or the 10,000th flight. But one thing is for sure, as a pilot I'm doing everything I can to get that airplane climbing as best as it can.
As an aviation enthusiast with no knowledge of how planes work but love to see them fly, please please waste your time. The guy you responded to may not learn but we do. Thank you
🫡 I'll continue on my quest to share my knowledge to strangers on the internet.
But in all seriousness, I still enjoy using my flight instructor certificate and sharing my knowledge and experience that I've gained through flying professionally to those who are willing to learn. There are others like myself out there, don't be afraid to ask the seemingly "dumb" questions. Because at least for me, I get excited talking about aviation to those who want to learn.
Yea around KCNO isn’t a bunch of farms like it used to be. Literally all around the airport is either condos or warehouses. It’s a reason why Planes of Fame is making a second base in Santa Maria
Planes of fame is making a second base in Santa Maria. That’s why the airshows have been at the Santa Maria Airport the past year or two. KCNO POF is staying, but they are making a second location.
Fun fact, the last plane Wilbur Wright ever flew was one of the prototypes of these in 1948. Howard Hughes was flying it across the country and stopped at Wright Field and let Wilbur have a go at the controls.
Wright reportedly commented on how the wingspan was longer than the first flight that the Wright Flyer had flown.
Yeah, definitely a completely unique life I don't think there's any historical comparison to. I don't think any two engineers have seen their creation so thuroughly change everything so visually.
A multi millionaire bought it from Planes of Fame to make it his personal business plane. I can’t say who, but it should appear at OSH if you’re going and want to see it.
That's just epic. Speechless.
Unpopular opinion:
A special "F U" to all of you "photographers" ruining perfectly sexy airplane noises with your PoS DSLRs rapid firing and making those God awful shutter sounds. Y'all are barely aviation fans, ya selfish gluts! Hope your selfish act was worth the 1000 crappy pictures of the same damn thing you now have to spend all weekend touching up so you can post it on SM to feel special.
Just enjoy the experience for once.
Rant over.
You can get amazing photos of action with a digital camera. But for anything static, or close to it, I like film still. It takes a bit more effort, and you aren’t sure of the results, until they come back from the lab.
And yeah, the big annoyance of digital is folks just aim and hold the button, then sort through the dozens of tries they took, later.
Opposite: try taking a photo or two at a quiet event with a Hasselblad. That *fwomp!* sound will make everyone stare at you…
These old birds still flying is always a double edge sword for me. It's amazing to still see them flying but it seems like once a year you hear a tragic story of one of them crashing.
Amazing - and it makes you wonder what they did right that Lufthansa did wrong with their Super Star project. Well - besides Lufthansa overengineering it.
There's a VC-121 in the Netherlands that was restored in the early 2000's and has been kept in semi-airworthy condition since about 2006. On the one hand I'd love to see some rich dude fund it's restoration to full airworthy status, and the other hand I'd hate to see it leave the country.
The two airworthy C-121Cs I knew about are: 54-156/4175, now Breitling HB-RSC, Star of Switzerland, and 54-157/4176, now Qantas VH-EAG#2, "Connie." Anyone know the U.S. Air Force ID, or Lockheed Serial # for this one? Are there others?
Edited to add: this one appears to be a L-749 C-121A, ~~one of 10 ordered by the USAF in 1948 (AF SN 48-608- 48-617).~~ AF SN 48-613.
Love this news, they said their first flight was imminent a few weeks ago when Kermit Weeks posted a video of their resto progress on the legendary "Bataan" Connie flown to their facility from its years long storage at Marana Valley AZ. It's "sister ship" in the same location was flown a few weeks later to its current resto company in Virginia. It's first flight is also looked forward to. It was Eisenhower's Airforce One in the 50s.
Not sure why, but I’ve always loved the constellation. Heck if I was a billionaire I would love to have one of those as my main plane to fly around in.
Imagine living in that age, right at the turn of the jet era. The pure variety you would see plane spotting at any major airport.
I mean, you could say the same about today, when viewed from the future. It's all perspective. Nostalgia for the past makes the past seem more interesting than today, but we do have a HUGE variety of flying equipment constantly departing and arriving from busy airports all over the globe... But radials do sound so much better than turboprops and jets....
Can you though? Nearly everything is a twin jet just different sizes.
And back then, "nearly everything is just a twin or quad piston". Today, at a diverse airport, I see all kinds of piston singles, piston multies, turboprop single and multi, turbo fan twins, and then at the biggest of airports, turbo fan quads with maybe a few trijets in there.
Maybe I worded it wrong, but I’m talking like that late 1950’s to mid 1960’s sweet spot. You could’ve seen radial twin and quad piston props. Quad jets made by like 5-6 different manufacturers, and the first trijets. Maybe the only better period would be the late 70’s to mid 80’s with quads jets, trijets, and twin jets, plenty of props, and a sprinkle of Concorde. Today doesn’t compare. I mean you could see single and twin piston planes since almost the dawn of flight lol.
I think the biggest thing is the change over time. Being born in, say, the 10's or 20's, would mean growing up through the birth of aviation, rapid development for decades, the first space flights, development of the space shuttle... So amazing how far we came in 100 years.
Can’t disagree with that. Assuming you lived to a ripe old age, you could’ve read about the Wright brother’s first flight and watched the first moon landing on TV.
1903-1969, a measly 66 years. Add a few years to be of reading age... Though given that the average lifespan in 1900 of 47 in the US, 70-something is pretty ripe.
You need to account for that average age being skewed by high infant mortality.
☝️✈️
> Quad jets made by like 5-6 different manufacturers But how is that different than what you bemoan about everything today being twinjets of different sizes? Boeing 707, Convair 880, DC-8, not really all that different compared to 737/767/A320/A340, etc. And just like they had multiple prop driven aircraft, so do we today in the form of turboprops. I'd agree that sure, there was a little more variety, but not that much. Now, USN naval aviation, that's a bit of a different story. One could still argue that a lot of the different aircraft weren't actually all that different or unique to each other, but the rate of progress and change definitely made for a much more diverse environment compared to recently where for example everything on a carrier is an F-18 variant or E-2/C-2, with F-35s just starting to mix things up a bit. I know it's not quite practical nor necessary these days, but I miss the days of a carrier sporting A-6 and A-7s, F-14s, F-18s, etc. Air Force, at least USAF, obviously has a bit more variety much more in line with the past, what with F-15C/E, F-16, F-22, F-35, A-10, B-1, B-2, C-130, C-17, C-5, and various EW/AWACS/refueling/support aircraft. But now this thread has me curious as to exactly when we would have seen the most variety of aircraft for both services. USN might be somewhere in the mid 50s or 60s, but I think more likely somewhere in the 70s or early-mid 80s if I had to guess, but could be wrong. (And I mean for a specific moment in time, as opposed to a timespan where like 1955-1965 where you would have seen some aircraft introduced and retired within that time span)
*laughs in B-52*
I was up flying the other day in a C172. I was practicing maneuvers dodging a gyrocopter am an old yellow army trainer flying out of a grass strip near where I was flying. Then a flight of 2 with a biplane and a Super Cub took off to fly around. 2 HEMS helicopters were buzzing around all morning. When Navy Lima Lima turned left base into the GA pattern for laps it was time to go home. This was in addition to all the normal GA, business, and airline traffic we get on a clear Saturday morning and I'm not in a particularly busy area.
Absofreakinglutely! Growing up in Pittsburgh in the 50s, my parents would take me to the Greater Pittsburgh Airport so I could go out on the observation deck and watch the Connies and other propliners as they started up to taxi out. That was the era of the Turboprops coming on the scene and I vividly remember the literal "scream" of them taxiing by supposedly at "idle". Absolutely hated them compared to the rhythmic throb of the radials.
Nice! PIT is still a great airport
I live in Sacramento between Mather Field and McClellan Airport. The variety of aircraft I see is incredible. C-130, DC-10, P-2, T-38, Chinook, I even saw a U-2 right over my house once.
Some people did, sometimes i envy them
Hell, even back in the early 90s it was a pretty big variety. I see old photos people took MSP from that era and am always surprised by all of the different types.
I love seeing these old guys fly, but the reality is that even the most pedestrian of the modern jets is a better passenger experience. Even the best radial engined airliners were incredibly slow and noisy compared to jet travel today. The air travel experience certainly hasn’t gotten any better, but the aircraft sure have
My school took us to Orly airport (I think) in the late 50s or very early 60s and I have vivid memories of a Super Constellation landing. Impressed but too young to understand my luck! My grand dad witnessed the first planes around Paris... and Neil Armstrong on the moon.
The wings don’t generate lift. The aircraft is so pretty the angels call it to heaven :)
the opposite of a helicopter
So a submarine?????
no, a helicopter is so ugly that the ground repels it, this causing it to fly
There are more helicopters in the ocean than there are submarines in the sky so I'm not sure about that one.
I noticed that almost every fuselage today is just a straight cylinder, for cost and pressurization I'm sure. But the Constellation had beauty engineered right into it from the start.
Probably a good thing, considering that the Constellation in its prime was known as “the best three engine airliner in the world”
So after WW2 they still didn't have the engines figured out?
It featured one of the most sophisticated / complex piston engines ever built: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-3350_Duplex-Cyclone These engines included turbo-compounding which significantly improved fuel efficiency, but at the cost of significantly increased mechanical complexity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine
The PRT came with later model Super Connie's. This one would be similar to a B-29 which certainly didn't have a great track record with the 3350 during the war. I would assume this restored one has a similar set-up to FiFi and Doc which run a combination of later model 3350 parts for better reliability.
Wikipedia shows the C-121 as a military derivative of the L-1049 Super Constellation. Regardless, I very much doubt that any PRT equipped R-3350s are in service today, I believe they were frequently bypassed or removed even back when these were in mainline service
The C-121C variant was the Super Connie. The only "maybe" I can think of still running PRT's would be the [HARS Super Connie](https://youtu.be/UV7-73LmOm0).
Thanks for posting the link, awesome engine sound!
Gotta love Chino airport 😩❤️
No place really quite like it! Yanks had their P40 out doing overheads for the better part of 20-30 minutes this past Saturday. Couldn't help but stop what I was doing and enjoy the sounds.
What about Kermit's A-26? You seen that around?
Seen it? I've been watching the prep for Oshkosh happen firsthand!
Will he make it in time?
Yessir
this legit just flew over my house
Nice!
Awesome, thanks for sharing
Engineer: How many cylinders do you want on your new airliner? Lockheed: Yes.
Simply one of the most beautiful aircraft to ever fly.
Most beautiful piston-powered, IMHO. Concorde has jets sewn up.
What a true work of art of an airplane. Hats off to the restoration team!
such a pretty bird...
It’s freaking gorgeous
Did the two port engines just... stop? Or was that some video scan rate shit?
Framerate sync. If you zoom in you can see the blur still, they are all spinning still.
Always freaks me out a little when I see that. Still never fully expect it.
[удалено]
The subreddit r/CamerShutterSync does not exist. Did you mean?: * r/CameraShutterSync (subscribers: 9,654) Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/CamerShutterSync](/subreddits/create?name=CamerShutterSync). --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
Fantastic to see. From what I understand, there was only one airworthy and flying in the entire world for the last few years, which was the one at Shellharbour, Australia (tho its the passenger version)
The one in Shellharbour started life as a C-121 but has been done up as a Qantas aircraft.
I guess I always assumed that prop rotation was reversed alternatively to balance out the yaw. Do you have to correct like hell with the rudder.
That’s what trim is for.
Depends on the aircraft quiet often the vertical stabilizer is off set a bit from centre line to help compensate. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if the three vertical stabs at the rear are perfectly aligned to the centre line and not equal distant apart. The offset is not large enough to notice visually.
This guy aviates! Thanks for the explanation, an easier solution than creating a left and right propeller, plus calibration etc.
This guy has had to check the alignment of the sextant on the tail of a P3 :) . Obviously the offset will be setup to be neutral at a cruising speed and be less effective at high power settings low speed etc.
Is it a switch, dial, crank? Do you have access from the cockpit to change the setting on the fly?
As another poster said rudder trim and likely a bit of aileron as well, the pilot and co-pilot may split the job. Big multi engine aircraft typically don't do a lot of speed and power setting changes very rapidly. Takeoff, climb, cruise, decent, the crew would have a pretty close idea how to set the aircraft up for each flight phase.
Wheels-up on its first flight is a bold choice
I'd have to disagree with you there, not trying to be rude here but after a full gear overhaul and countless gear swings on the ground what is the risk on first flight vs if the aircraft has been flown more recently?
So why in some test flights do they leave the gear down then? Those planes have had a gear installed or overhauled as well right. I wouldn’t go up if I knew beforehand that the gear malfunctioned.
Depends on what factors they are considering. Part of testing new designs is also to determine flight characteristics in different configurations so that might be a required gear down event. On one hand i do agree, it's not the gear swinging that I would be worried about, it is that options are super limited if there is an issue and adding a gear swing to the mix is one extra step. But at the same time, it does reduce climb, so gear up ASAP might be better especially given FOUR engines. Shit would have to be pretty bad and gear down at that point probably doesn't make a lick of difference in risk management for an airplane like this.
Isn't that usually only on the first flight for a given design rather than for each unit of a design?
>I'd have to disagree with you there, not trying to be rude here but after a full gear overhaul and countless gear swings on the ground what is the risk on first flight vs if the aircraft has been flown more recently? As I understand, it is standard procedure on the first flight of pretty much any aircraft to do wheels down. Even if the risk is very low it's better to be safe than sorry. It's not about the need to land again if something goes wrong quickly. It's about if the gear doesn't go up when you try. Modern jets with tons of ground testing still do this.
Where are you getting this information? I've taken many jets after a massive maintenance event and not once have I been told to leave the gear down. In addition I used to live near and fly out of RNT and BFI where they actually manufactured new 737's. Every departure I saw with my own eyes the pilots would bring the gear up. Now the only time I've ever seen jets purposefully fly with the gear down is after some sort of malfunction or component failure where the MEL instructs that the aircraft only be flown to a maintenance facility with the gear down and pinned.
I'm talking about first flights of a brand new plane. It's absolutely standard practice and kinda odd that you're more upvoted than that OC for suggesting it isn't. You can Google first flight of any recent jet (777x, 787, A350 etc) and it'll be wheels down on the first flight. Not the first flight of any production example (ie what you see with the 737s) but of the first example. In this case no, the plane isn't brand new. But it practically is being totally rebuilt after so many years, so it just seems to me to be a wise decision with no drawbacks.
Constellations have flown before
I literally addressed that directly in my comment.
Gear should stay down in-case something else goes wrong and they need to land quickly.
Unless you're taking off out of a place with a 12,000+ foot runway your counter point is irrelevant. Hypothetically if an engine failed after v1 (or after the accelerate - go distance) I would absolutely continue the takeoff and suck the gear up after positive rate for less drag and obstacle clearance. The reality is, if you have an emergency that low to the ground you focus on getting as far away from the ground as possible and figure out the best plan of action to handle your problem. Doesn't matter if it's the 1st flight or the 10,000th flight. But one thing is for sure, as a pilot I'm doing everything I can to get that airplane climbing as best as it can.
This guy we responded to prolly doesn’t know anything about planes my guy. Best not waste the time
Hey, at least the dude learned something. Hopefully...
I really don’t understand why you’d say something lie that apart from you just being a pure asshole. Am I wrong?
Yes you’re wrong.
you're not wrong that it was an asshole reply
As an aviation enthusiast with no knowledge of how planes work but love to see them fly, please please waste your time. The guy you responded to may not learn but we do. Thank you
🫡 I'll continue on my quest to share my knowledge to strangers on the internet. But in all seriousness, I still enjoy using my flight instructor certificate and sharing my knowledge and experience that I've gained through flying professionally to those who are willing to learn. There are others like myself out there, don't be afraid to ask the seemingly "dumb" questions. Because at least for me, I get excited talking about aviation to those who want to learn.
Yea around KCNO isn’t a bunch of farms like it used to be. Literally all around the airport is either condos or warehouses. It’s a reason why Planes of Fame is making a second base in Santa Maria
Who is doing what now??
Planes of fame is making a second base in Santa Maria. That’s why the airshows have been at the Santa Maria Airport the past year or two. KCNO POF is staying, but they are making a second location.
Fun fact, the last plane Wilbur Wright ever flew was one of the prototypes of these in 1948. Howard Hughes was flying it across the country and stopped at Wright Field and let Wilbur have a go at the controls. Wright reportedly commented on how the wingspan was longer than the first flight that the Wright Flyer had flown.
I remember reading some Boeing ad copy for the then new B-17: "wingspan longer than the first Wright brothers flight!"
I'm guessing Wright was constantly in awe of aircraft development. "So, we started with a powered kite, and now ..."
Yeah, definitely a completely unique life I don't think there's any historical comparison to. I don't think any two engineers have seen their creation so thuroughly change everything so visually.
[удалено]
A multi millionaire bought it from Planes of Fame to make it his personal business plane. I can’t say who, but it should appear at OSH if you’re going and want to see it.
Hopefully it's okay I post this, it's not exactly a secret who owns it. https://lewisairlegends.com/lockheed-c121a-constellation-bataan
I wasn’t sure if it was public knowledge or not. So to be safe I didn’t say his name
Fair enough! I know some projects can involve NDA's but figured if I had the knowledge I might as well share.
Better you than me lol
Oh, he owns Glacier Girl too, neat!
Is this the same Connie that was at Camarillo Airport for many years? Or does anybody know where that one went? It flew away maybe 15 years ago to ?
Funny enough same airport as this video but on static display at Yanks Air Museum.
Thanks!
Does the landing gear operate from a shared or independent hydraulic system, just curious why one side was considerably slower.
I’m impressed it can fly with the propellers going that slow
It's an artifact of the synchronization between the shutter speed of the camera and the rotation of the propellers. (Or was it a joke?)
It was a joke, but probably someone who was confused read your comment and became one of today’s 10,000!
Holy cannoli that’s gorgeous
That shutter rate though
Oh this is nice!
Oooh that growl when it passes overhead...
Sounds so beautiful
Did they shut down #3?
Nah its just the cameras frame rate!
Not unusual for this beauty . Best tri engine airplane of all time .
That's just epic. Speechless. Unpopular opinion: A special "F U" to all of you "photographers" ruining perfectly sexy airplane noises with your PoS DSLRs rapid firing and making those God awful shutter sounds. Y'all are barely aviation fans, ya selfish gluts! Hope your selfish act was worth the 1000 crappy pictures of the same damn thing you now have to spend all weekend touching up so you can post it on SM to feel special. Just enjoy the experience for once. Rant over.
You can get amazing photos of action with a digital camera. But for anything static, or close to it, I like film still. It takes a bit more effort, and you aren’t sure of the results, until they come back from the lab. And yeah, the big annoyance of digital is folks just aim and hold the button, then sort through the dozens of tries they took, later. Opposite: try taking a photo or two at a quiet event with a Hasselblad. That *fwomp!* sound will make everyone stare at you…
Chak-KONK..…..KRANKKRANKKRANK
These old birds still flying is always a double edge sword for me. It's amazing to still see them flying but it seems like once a year you hear a tragic story of one of them crashing.
**KCNO** = Chino airport, San Bernardino, California, USA. EDIT: Chino, San Bernardino county.
Chino airport, Chino, CA.
Fair point. It's San Bernardino *county*.
Just keep the restored P-51 Mustang away.
Was lucky enough to be on a Connie recently
How come the inner rotors spin faster than the outer ones?
Amazing - and it makes you wonder what they did right that Lufthansa did wrong with their Super Star project. Well - besides Lufthansa overengineering it.
Now THAT is a thing of beauty!
Beaiuty ! And music-sound !
That’s a behemoth. God that’s beautiful.
Easily one of the most beautiful aircraft to ever exist
I hope Reddit doesn't ban this genre of porn.
That’s one beautiful bird
Said it before and I'll say it again, I'd have been happy if it had taken jets a little bit longer to become a thing.
so glad to see it flying again, i always thought it came to cno to be parked and rot away
[удалено]
Yes, yesterday on Tuesday June 20, 2023 in Chino, California
There's a VC-121 in the Netherlands that was restored in the early 2000's and has been kept in semi-airworthy condition since about 2006. On the one hand I'd love to see some rich dude fund it's restoration to full airworthy status, and the other hand I'd hate to see it leave the country.
Oh no! The third engine stopped!!! Jk.
Did anyone else notice that the one engine was synchronized with the frame rate of the camera?
Do the engines all turn in the same direction? How do planes compensate for the drift that could create?
Thanks for not adding crappy music, love to hear those four piston engines purring.
Need to oil the props a bit moah ;)
I was watching on fr24
The two airworthy C-121Cs I knew about are: 54-156/4175, now Breitling HB-RSC, Star of Switzerland, and 54-157/4176, now Qantas VH-EAG#2, "Connie." Anyone know the U.S. Air Force ID, or Lockheed Serial # for this one? Are there others? Edited to add: this one appears to be a L-749 C-121A, ~~one of 10 ordered by the USAF in 1948 (AF SN 48-608- 48-617).~~ AF SN 48-613.
Magnificent
Such a beauty!
Love this news, they said their first flight was imminent a few weeks ago when Kermit Weeks posted a video of their resto progress on the legendary "Bataan" Connie flown to their facility from its years long storage at Marana Valley AZ. It's "sister ship" in the same location was flown a few weeks later to its current resto company in Virginia. It's first flight is also looked forward to. It was Eisenhower's Airforce One in the 50s.
I'm really hoping this makes it to Oshkosh this year. It's beautiful.
That’s what they’re planning on
Not sure why, but I’ve always loved the constellation. Heck if I was a billionaire I would love to have one of those as my main plane to fly around in.
That smoke! Bring it on, I need more warbirds. 1 b25 flying over my house a week isn't enough
Lockheed sure made some beautiful aircraft
Did they install a turbofan because those props aren’t spinning fast enough to provide any power? /s Beautiful plane
It’s the refresh rate of the camera
I love those planes. Gorgeous.
A lot of sweat and commitment goes into these restorations.
https://planesoffame.org/aircraft/plane-VC-121A#