Talk:Canadair North Star

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The opening line says that a north star is 35 mph faster in crusing, but the cruise speed listed in the DC-4 article is 227mph while the speed listed here is 325mph. That's not 35mph, it's 98mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.132.1 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 325mph figure is probably the correct one for the North Star/Argonaut so it was more likely 98mph faster in cruise than a standard DC-4. I suspect that Canadair would not have bothered with the modifications if the net gain in performance was only in the order of 35mph. The Merlins BTW also had better fuel economy, so they made for cheaper, if noisier, operating, than the standard DC-4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.61.98 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table in The Aeroplane for 16 Oct 1959 says "Recommended cont. cruise" for the Argonaut was 217 knots at 17000 ft, 69000 lb, with 950 hp from each engine and total fuel consumption 224 Imperial gallons per hour. The World's Airliners (the 1962 Putnam by Brooks) says "Typical Cruising Speed" was 230 mph (not knots) at 16000 ft, 71000 lb, with 900 hp from each engine and fuel burn of 1650 lb/hr. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some schedule times in the 10/52 OAG: TCA Gander-Shannon 1722 nm great-circle, 8 hr 15 min eastward, 13 hr 20 min westward; TCA Gander-Prestwick 1843 nm 8-45 east, 13-00 west; BOAC Dakar-Recife 1716 nm 8-50 east, 8-20 west. (The difference betw east and west on the North Atlantic naturally seems unlikely-- maybe the clock difference was somehow 2.5 instead of the 3.5 hours I used?) Tim Zukas (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prevailing wind blows from the West over the north Atlantic - see image - which is why all the early trans-Atlantic flights took off from North America and flew East - that way they had a tailwind. Flying the opposite way into, say, a 30mph headwind, will increase the overall flight time considerably for a large-ish 200-300mph piston-engined aircraft as the groundspeed is thereby reduced by 30mph. Over an eight-hour flight the aeroplane has to, in effect, travel an additional 240 miles. This made a big difference in the amount of fuel needed to be carried (more for the same amount of reserves), as well as the amount of cargo/payload possible, i.e., less due to the increased weight of the additional fuel.

Of course if you fly Eastward then your groundspeed is your airspeed plus the 30mph wind speed, in which case the actual groundspeed will exceed the airspeed, so the flight time will be shortened compared to what the aeroplane could normally achieve in still air, and you will use less fuel as the time in the air will be reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays the meteorology of the north Atlantic is better known, and routes and higher altitudes are available that minimise the differences. Plus today's jet airliners travel much faster, which in itself tends to reduce the effect of winds on timetables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, according to Canadair figures in a Flight article of 1948 [1] the cruising figures for the C-4M are maximum continuous cruise at 32,000ft is 325mph, whilst the economical cruising speed at 25,800ft is 315mph at 80,200lb. Why the figures differ from the ones in The World's Airliners and The Aeroplane you quote, I don't know. Perhaps BOAC were just being mean and saving petrol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons TCA chose to re-engine the DC-4 with the Merlins was because they and BOAC had had excellent results operating the Merlin-engined Lancaster and Lancastrian on numerous repeated both-way Atlantic crossings during the war. Most of the other types had only had to fly one way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.249 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turbochargers

I don't believe the radial DC-4s were turbocharged. The only turbo R-2800 I know of is in the P-47. None of the R-2000. Indeed, on the R-2000 page there is an image of a DC-4 engine nacelle, which clearly has no turbo setup. Superchargers were the norm for most radials and inline engines. If the radials were quieter, it was likely due to the fact that the exhausts wee easily routed to exit from the outsides of the nacelles, nothing to do with turbos..45Colt 09:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the relevant paragraph to correct it and make it clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.114 (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name

The article should be moved to the correct name, which was Canadair Four.

'North Star' and 'Argonaut' were merely names the airlines used for them, TCA and BOAC respectively. 86.8.126.91 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]