@Radialbuzz I tell you, There's just something EXTREMELY romantic about the HEALTHY, POWERFUL and THROATY ROAR of radial engines that NO modern turboprop or high- bypass ratio turbofan can ever come CLOSE to replacing!!! I had the chance to fly in a restored Constellation, That was awesome!!! And I also own a De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver with an R-985 PW on amphibious floats, That's ALWAYS a joy to fly!!!
Yea, gotta love the old DC-4, DC-6, and DC-7 (and the Connie). But jet turbines are definitely the way to go. These old radials were stressed and you had to have flight engineers just to get them to operate correctly. Fuel economy was not the problem, maintenance costs were. They were also unreliable, noisy and vibrated. But I loved all the miles I rode in 3's, 4's, 6's and 7's. And I once got a 20 minute hop in a Ford Tri-Motor that I will remember (vibrated, noisy, and slow).
Radialbuzz, The key to staying airborne is speed thereby lift. When you fly an old radial engine originally designed for 125 octane fuel but is derated to todays 100LL fuel you need a longer rollout to keep a positive rate of climb, especially if you lose an engine. Watched a privateer takeoff once, had engine trouble, and almost instantly, dropped the whole retardant load as a precaution. Lesson here: don't stand under fire bomber departures!
Well, uh..... no. Actually, the R-3350 engines with PRTs were designed for 115/145 (purple) fuel (dry, no ADI), and there never was a 125 octane aviation fuel. The R-2800CB series on the DC-6A/B used 108/135 (red) fuel (wet, with ADI) to deliver 2500BHP, or 2400BHP with 100 octane fuel. I am not sure what the reduced ratings on the R-3350 are, but the grades 108/135 and 115/145 fuel have not been available since I was last flying these beasts in the late 1970's.
@WMAcadet You really seem to know your DC-6 & 7 . I'm 63. First plane trip--DC-4--San Francisco to Honolulu, 1951. Then lotsa DC-3 around the islands, then DC-6, DC-7 and Boeing Stratocruiser back and forth to the mainland. Got a 20 minute hop in a Ford Tri-Motor, very noisy and slow. Oh yeah, a float Beaver and once a 1958 Tri-Pacer around the Islands. Good times and Memories.
@WMAcadet On 100/130 (green if full lead, blue if low lead), power is 2880 BHP achieved at 2900RPM (as before), 234 psi of BMEP, 51 inches manifold pressure at sea level. I have a few hundred hours in DC-7s and Super Connies, mostly as a flight engineer. 115/145 I'm told is still produced in limited quantities each year--for the Reno Air Race.
Actually, the R-3350 engines with PRTs were designed for 115/145 (purple) fuel (dry, no ADI), and there never was a 125 octane aviation fuel. The R-2800CB series on the DC-6A/B used 108/135 (red) fuel (wet, with ADI) to deliver 2500BHP, or 2400BHP with 100 octane fuel. I am not sure what the reduced ratings on the R-3350 are, but the grades 108/135 and 115/145 fuel have not been available since I was last flying these beasts in the late 1970's.
@green66vw Old airplane running on low octane gas, probably 100 low lead. So, no rush, you don't want to baby it, but no sense horsing it off the deck either.
Fox field is about 2500 ft altitute which may explain the long roll. Plus it's used by the forrest service. So this plan is probably full of flame retardent.
@joefacc Actually no tanker 66 was empty that morning, It was just a really hot morning. The plane and crew were redeploying somewhere else, and didn't come back to Fox. This was taken when the October 2007 California wildfires were winding down.
@joefacc Actually no tanker 66 was empty that morning, It was just a really hot morning. The plane and crew were redeploying somewhere else, and didn't come back to Fox. This was taken when the October 2007 California wildfires were winding down.
@Radialbuzz In addition to temperature, the pilots may not have been applying full throttle to the engines - the Wrights have a bad reputation for not handling prolonged full-power settings. It was not uncommon for the 7's, during passenger days, to take long takeoffs and low-angle climbs to reduce the demand on the engines.
Back in the "propeller days", sometimes passengers were limited on flights in order for the aircraft to be within weight limits for takeoff from airports such as Midway. Especially on hot days!
@Radialbuzz I tell you, There's just something EXTREMELY romantic about the HEALTHY, POWERFUL and THROATY ROAR of radial engines that NO modern turboprop or high- bypass ratio turbofan can ever come CLOSE to replacing!!! I had the chance to fly in a restored Constellation, That was awesome!!! And I also own a De Havilland DHC-2 Beaver with an R-985 PW on amphibious floats, That's ALWAYS a joy to fly!!!
ford9572 4 weeks ago
How wer u aloud to get that close!?
trainguy3 7 months ago
@trainguy3 I work the Line at Fox, so I can get right up to the runway if I want.
Radialbuzz 4 months ago
@Radialbuzz thats awesome
trainguy3 4 months ago
In '67 i flew with an DC-7 from Copenhagen to Palma de Mallorca.
It took 4 hours and we had to flew through the pass in the Alps.
1957kramer 10 months ago
Yea, gotta love the old DC-4, DC-6, and DC-7 (and the Connie). But jet turbines are definitely the way to go. These old radials were stressed and you had to have flight engineers just to get them to operate correctly. Fuel economy was not the problem, maintenance costs were. They were also unreliable, noisy and vibrated. But I loved all the miles I rode in 3's, 4's, 6's and 7's. And I once got a 20 minute hop in a Ford Tri-Motor that I will remember (vibrated, noisy, and slow).
milano61 1 year ago
Nice video, on of the most beautiful propellor planes, with a too short career, due to arrival of jet planes
superality 1 year ago
Beautiful take off in a classic aircraft.
VerdantMoon 1 year ago
Radialbuzz, The key to staying airborne is speed thereby lift. When you fly an old radial engine originally designed for 125 octane fuel but is derated to todays 100LL fuel you need a longer rollout to keep a positive rate of climb, especially if you lose an engine. Watched a privateer takeoff once, had engine trouble, and almost instantly, dropped the whole retardant load as a precaution. Lesson here: don't stand under fire bomber departures!
planespotter67 1 year ago
@planespotter67
Well, uh..... no. Actually, the R-3350 engines with PRTs were designed for 115/145 (purple) fuel (dry, no ADI), and there never was a 125 octane aviation fuel. The R-2800CB series on the DC-6A/B used 108/135 (red) fuel (wet, with ADI) to deliver 2500BHP, or 2400BHP with 100 octane fuel. I am not sure what the reduced ratings on the R-3350 are, but the grades 108/135 and 115/145 fuel have not been available since I was last flying these beasts in the late 1970's.
WMAcadet 1 year ago
Comment removed
milano61 1 year ago
@WMAcadet You really seem to know your DC-6 & 7 . I'm 63. First plane trip--DC-4--San Francisco to Honolulu, 1951. Then lotsa DC-3 around the islands, then DC-6, DC-7 and Boeing Stratocruiser back and forth to the mainland. Got a 20 minute hop in a Ford Tri-Motor, very noisy and slow. Oh yeah, a float Beaver and once a 1958 Tri-Pacer around the Islands. Good times and Memories.
milano61 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WMAcadet On 100/130 (green if full lead, blue if low lead), power is 2880 BHP achieved at 2900RPM (as before), 234 psi of BMEP, 51 inches manifold pressure at sea level. I have a few hundred hours in DC-7s and Super Connies, mostly as a flight engineer. 115/145 I'm told is still produced in limited quantities each year--for the Reno Air Race.
Propliner1955 1 year ago
@planespotter67
Actually, the R-3350 engines with PRTs were designed for 115/145 (purple) fuel (dry, no ADI), and there never was a 125 octane aviation fuel. The R-2800CB series on the DC-6A/B used 108/135 (red) fuel (wet, with ADI) to deliver 2500BHP, or 2400BHP with 100 octane fuel. I am not sure what the reduced ratings on the R-3350 are, but the grades 108/135 and 115/145 fuel have not been available since I was last flying these beasts in the late 1970's.
WMAcadet 1 year ago
Comment removed
Propliner1955 1 year ago
great film ---of a DC6!
tim60s321 1 year ago
@tim60s321
No it isn't, it's a DC-7!
Proplinerman 1 year ago
seems like too much runway for that bird.
green66vw 1 year ago
@green66vw Old airplane running on low octane gas, probably 100 low lead. So, no rush, you don't want to baby it, but no sense horsing it off the deck either.
milano61 1 year ago
Cool plane! How were you able to get such a good shot from the ground?
fryingsok 1 year ago
@fryingsok I work the Line at Fox, so I can get right up to the runway if I want.
Radialbuzz 1 year ago
It's a 7, easy way to tell is that it has four bladed props instead of three.
kevtorry 1 year ago
Are you sure that is a DC-7? It looks more like a DC-6.
mrblujet 1 year ago
Fox field is about 2500 ft altitute which may explain the long roll. Plus it's used by the forrest service. So this plan is probably full of flame retardent.
joefacc 2 years ago
@joefacc Actually no tanker 66 was empty that morning, It was just a really hot morning. The plane and crew were redeploying somewhere else, and didn't come back to Fox. This was taken when the October 2007 California wildfires were winding down.
Radialbuzz 1 year ago
@joefacc Actually no tanker 66 was empty that morning, It was just a really hot morning. The plane and crew were redeploying somewhere else, and didn't come back to Fox. This was taken when the October 2007 California wildfires were winding down.
Radialbuzz 1 year ago
@Radialbuzz In addition to temperature, the pilots may not have been applying full throttle to the engines - the Wrights have a bad reputation for not handling prolonged full-power settings. It was not uncommon for the 7's, during passenger days, to take long takeoffs and low-angle climbs to reduce the demand on the engines.
suhail3920 1 year ago
Damn thats quite a takeoff roll. I didn't know they required so much space.
Transam941 2 years ago
Interesting sound difference from this one to a Super Connie with identical engines, but the Seven has four-blade props.
Petergloor 2 years ago
That is a long take-off roll !
mrblujet 2 years ago
Wonders how these types of planes ever were able to operate into and out of Chicago Midway Airport.....
AccessAir 2 years ago
The Op's guy's kept them light. Low fuel light load.
klesmer 2 years ago
Back in the "propeller days", sometimes passengers were limited on flights in order for the aircraft to be within weight limits for takeoff from airports such as Midway. Especially on hot days!
hudson501 2 years ago
Awesome video, thanks for posting this, I love the old DC's! @hudson501, I've had to pull bags off modern CRJ's to meet weight restrictions in PHX!
pdutube 2 years ago
that still happens
gaguy1967 2 years ago
Long take off. Must have been hot out & heavy in.
fastheinz039 3 years ago
Great shot. Longer than expected take off roll.
smokingws6 3 years ago
I love the sound of those engines. Great video
planelover3640 3 years ago
That is so HOT.
Billyothon 4 years ago
that is great stuff. hope to see more of it in the future. :)
ktmdudeone 4 years ago
When was this?
davidphantomoftheope 4 years ago
@davidphantomoftheope during the October 2007 California wildfires
Radialbuzz 1 year ago
excellent stuff,you held camera nice and steady and stayed with aircraft once airborne
tecmovie 4 years ago
Very amazing sound!
aviatorsbh 4 years ago 2