EASA and the FAA say on EVERY commercial aircraft and or have a capacity of 9 or more PAX and an MTOW more than 5700 kg must be install a TCAS. BTW also an GPWSCAPFlyer wrote:No, the L-049 is equipped standard with period correct navigation instruments, which were more than enough to meet FAA and CAA requirements of the time because they were controlled by a Mk.1 Human called the Navigator.TwinFSX wrote:Have the "Conni" an TCAS and a FMS on Board to make online Atlantic crossings?
I ask this question because the Deutsche Lufthansa Berlin Stiftung renovate a "Conni" to make Atlantic crossings and they minimum requirements of the FAA and EASA: TCAS and a FMS
https://www.dlbs.de/en/Projects/Lockhee ... /index.php
yours faithfully,
TwinFSX
It also uses the default FSX GPS as part of the navigator's table pop-up, so if you load an FSX flightplan, it'll give you a magenta line to follow when out of range of radio navigation aids.
BTW, the FAA and EASA do *NOT* require a TCAS and FMS for Atlantic crossings. They are required for the aircraft to operate with paying passengers under the Lufthansa operating certificate. There are many smaller aircraft ferried across the Atlantic every year with nothing more than a handheld GPS for external navigation instruments.
Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
- Great Ozzie
- A2A Test Pilot
- Posts: 2054
- Joined: 16 Feb 2008, 15:49
- Location: KUMP
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
TCAS Regulatory Requirements (NBAA)
Aircraft registered in the U.S. and operating under Part 91 (GA) of the FARs are not required to be equipped with TCAS. However, if an aircraft is equipped, it must be an approved system operating under the regulations contained in FAR 91.221. For operations conducted under FAR part 135 (Air-Taxi), the aircraft must be equipped with TCAS if it is turbine powered and has 10 to 30 passenger seats (FAR 135.180).
§121.356 Collision avoidance system. (Air Carrier)
Aircraft registered in the U.S. and operating under Part 91 (GA) of the FARs are not required to be equipped with TCAS. However, if an aircraft is equipped, it must be an approved system operating under the regulations contained in FAR 91.221. For operations conducted under FAR part 135 (Air-Taxi), the aircraft must be equipped with TCAS if it is turbine powered and has 10 to 30 passenger seats (FAR 135.180).
§121.356 Collision avoidance system. (Air Carrier)
Rob Osborne
Flight Instructor - CFI, CFII, MEI, MEII
A & P Mechanic
FAASTeam - Safer Skies Through Education
Professionalism in aviation is the pursuit of excellence through discipline, ethical behavior and continuous improvement. NBAA
Flight Instructor - CFI, CFII, MEI, MEII
A & P Mechanic
FAASTeam - Safer Skies Through Education
Professionalism in aviation is the pursuit of excellence through discipline, ethical behavior and continuous improvement. NBAA
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Under EASA, "Unless otherwise provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1332/2011, turbine-powered aeroplanes with an MCTOM of more than 5 700 kg or an MOPSC of more than 19 shall be equipped with ACAS II".
-Esa
-Esa
- CAPFlyer
- A2A Aviation Consultant
- Posts: 2241
- Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 12:06
- Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
In addition to the corrections above, I not sure what a "commercial aircraft" is. Neither EASA, CAA, nor the FAA have a definition for "commercial aircraft". There are "Commercial Operators" and there are "Commercial Carriers", but not "Commercial Aircraft."TwinFSX wrote:EASA and the FAA say on EVERY commercial aircraft and or have a capacity of 9 or more PAX and an MTOW more than 5700 kg must be install a TCAS. BTW also an GPWS
Just as a point of clarification - equipment required is based on 2 things - type of operation and/or size of aircraft. There are certain requirements that all "Transport Category" aircraft (i.e. generally aircraft with a maximum seating of more than 19 and certified under 14 CFR Part 23) have, there are certain requirements that all "Turbine Aircraft" have, and there are requirements that all aircraft have. Then there are additional requirements for aircraft being operated under the various commercial operations defined in 14 CFR Parts 119, 121, 125, 127, 135, and 91.1000 or the EASA equivalent.
However, just because you're in a Transport Category aircraft (which the L-1649 is) and operated by an airline like Lufthansa; it doesn't mean you have to comply with the Commercial Operations regulations. In fact, Lufthansa's Ju 52 doesn't have TCAS, but it meets the requirements above. Why not? Because it's not operated as a "common carriage" aircraft under the same regulations (in the US, it'd be 14 CFR Part 119) as other aircraft. The reason that Lufthansa is upgrading the cockpit on the L-1649 is because they plan to operate it on normal revenue flights without navigation restriction so they need the extra equipment to comply with those operating regulations, not because of the aircraft itself.
- CAPFlyer
- A2A Aviation Consultant
- Posts: 2241
- Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 12:06
- Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
As with several other types, this was a misnomer. Neither the Connie nor the B377 had exceptionally high engine failure rates once their initial teething problems were solved, but despite this, they both gained the nickname, as did the early DC-7s (also powered by the R3350). The R3350 had an unfortunate reputation due to the B-29 of being something of a "fire hazard", however since the L-049 had cowlings that were much more "forgiving" and allowed more air through them than the B-29, the issue of overheating never really reared its head, so the most frequent source of failures was eliminated almost immediately. You are much more likely to get a partial engine failure (producing reduced power) versus a total engine failure, something that most "history" books don't talk about.triflyman wrote:I think it was said somewhere else...but the Connie was know as " The best 3 Engine Airliner in the World". Hopefully this is well modeled to give us a little challenge.
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
No FMC or GPS for me. Looking forward to blow dust of my collection of high altitude charts, and fly airways between VOR and NDB`s.
Been a long time since the 727 on my old FS 2004 sim.
Been a long time since the 727 on my old FS 2004 sim.
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Yes, when someone is loosely speaking of "commercial aircraft" I naturally translate that to "an aircraft used in commercial air transport". Even more if speaking of "passenger aircraft". I've noted that many instead intent these to mean a transport category airplane, or a "big plane". I can see how that can cause some confusion.CAPFlyer wrote:In addition to the corrections above, I not sure what a "commercial aircraft" is. Neither EASA, CAA, nor the FAA have a definition for "commercial aircraft". There are "Commercial Operators" and there are "Commercial Carriers", but not "Commercial Aircraft."
Interesting info, as always! To get a perspective, any ideas if there were any common points-of-failure with these engines?CAPFlyer wrote:[...] You are much more likely to get a partial engine failure (producing reduced power) versus a total engine failure, something that most "history" books don't talk about.
-Esa
- CAPFlyer
- A2A Aviation Consultant
- Posts: 2241
- Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 12:06
- Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
During my time working with Gary Austin (RIP) and the guys on the B-29/B-24 Squadron during the re-engine program for FiFi, the consensus basically was that the point of failure was the metal. The issue was that they were putting out 1/3 more power on less than 1/3 more displacement and the metallurgy just wasn't "up to snuff" to handle it. Add in the forward mounted exhaust ring and the tight fitting cowling, and you get the B-29 engine fires. The heat problem was solved in the L-049 by having bigger cowlings with a much higher volume of air flowing through on the ground and in the air, thus not allowing the forward exhaust ring's heat to "dwell" and overheat the jugs. The other problems that cropped up from the metallurgy issue were harder to solve, but again, usually only resulted in something like a valve/rod failure or a partial cylinder loss, both of which the engine can take and keep operating at reduced power.
The biggest thing I see is that without an engine ignition analyzer, which the DC-7 and L-1049 had, the L-049's engineer couldn't diagnose most power failures beyond the fact it lost power and whether or not it was smoking or on fire. Because of that, most airlines probably had their SOP be to feather and shutdown the engine as a precaution, however crew were known to restart that engine during descent (when it could idle) and so they could have it producing at least what it could in case of a go-around or other need for all the power they could muster. Engines were plentiful back then, so "saving" an engine wasn't really a concern. Saving the crew and passengers was.
BTW, if you want to hear more discussion about loosing a pushrod(pushtube in this case) can do, this video from Kermit Weeks on his L-1 and the power problems he'd had the last time he tried to fly it covers what happened -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU1Vy096LJU
The biggest thing I see is that without an engine ignition analyzer, which the DC-7 and L-1049 had, the L-049's engineer couldn't diagnose most power failures beyond the fact it lost power and whether or not it was smoking or on fire. Because of that, most airlines probably had their SOP be to feather and shutdown the engine as a precaution, however crew were known to restart that engine during descent (when it could idle) and so they could have it producing at least what it could in case of a go-around or other need for all the power they could muster. Engines were plentiful back then, so "saving" an engine wasn't really a concern. Saving the crew and passengers was.
BTW, if you want to hear more discussion about loosing a pushrod(pushtube in this case) can do, this video from Kermit Weeks on his L-1 and the power problems he'd had the last time he tried to fly it covers what happened -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU1Vy096LJU
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Excellent point! Many years ago, when I was a professional helicopter pilot, I had a passenger who owned a speed shop and we got talking about engines. I clearly remember his comment that the history of flight (and other machines, of course) is about the history of engine metallurgy. "Pushing the envelope" was (is!) always about finding out just how much stress the equipment can take.CAPFlyer wrote:... the point of failure was the metal. The issue was that they were putting out 1/3 more power on less than 1/3 more displacement and the metallurgy just wasn't "up to snuff" to handle it.
So, here's to all the scientists and engineers who keep working to find better ways.
Taildraggers rule!
- Lufthansa 380
- Staff Sergeant
- Posts: 266
- Joined: 17 Oct 2011, 16:46
- Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
By the way chaps, Lufthansa is currently restoring a L-1649A Super Star for commercial operations. It will be up to current aviation standards and have a Honeywell glass cockpit and FMS.
http://superstar.lufthansa.com/en/home.html
https://www.lufthansa-technik.com/en/super-star
http://superstar.lufthansa.com/en/home.html
https://www.lufthansa-technik.com/en/super-star
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Taildraggers rule!
- Lufthansa 380
- Staff Sergeant
- Posts: 266
- Joined: 17 Oct 2011, 16:46
- Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Nice! Judging by the pictures that's the fuselage of a L-049/649/749 Connie. Great to see those old legends come to life again all over the globe.
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Will you be doing repaints Ron? You are one of the best mate!Ron Attwood wrote:I have to say it's not the kind of thing I'd buy, nor will I, but that video made me wish it was. Superb!
-
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1837
- Joined: 26 Aug 2013, 22:03
- Location: Perth, W. Aust
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
It's a C-121J, which is a US Military version of the stretched L-1049G or H series of Super Constellations. It's great to see another Connie being restored here in Aus, as it was the Connie that opened up air travel to this country in the post war years. However, note that this article makes no mention of it being restored to fly. I suspect that this plane will be restored to static display, and not to airworthy status. At least Qantas are finally recognising that part of their history. Luckily, we have an airworthy Connie based just south of Sydney in the Historic Aircraft Restoration Society Connie. During it's restoration, it was planed to paint it as a tribute to the Qantas Connies, but that airline wouldn't go near the project. This is why it looks a bit like a Qantas Connie, but not quite. Where it should say Qantas, it says Connie.Lufthansa 380 wrote:Nice! Judging by the pictures that's the fuselage of a L-049/649/749 Connie. Great to see those old legends come to life again all over the globe.
Cheers,
Mike
- Ian Warren
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 19 Jul 2008, 17:48
- Location: EX- Christchurch now called "Wobblyville" New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Captain of the Ship 049 "Connie" 12-minute promo video
Mike a great read about this aircraft now based in Wollongong is 'Bringing home Connie' .. course go to HARS, a great DVD about it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests