Talk:Douglas DC-7

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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Transcon range

A flat statement that DC-6s and DC-6Bs did not have the range to fly transcon is clearly unwarranted. We can all agree they could have made the trip; they couldn't have flown westbound in under 8 hours, and we don't know just what payload they could have handled westbound if the eight-hour rule hadn't been a problem.

(No reason to imagine the airlines were flying uneconomic payloads from California to Hawaii; remember PA, Northwest, Canadian Pacific, and Philippine flew DC-4s to Hawaii-- Matson too, I guess. But as I recall Calif-Hawaii is a bit shorter than NY-LA.)

The DC-7 didn't carry more fuel than the DC-6B (or the DC-6, I suspect). Wright claimed the Turbo-Compound was more efficient, which it would need to be just to get the same range, with a heavier aircraft flying faster. Brooks says in the cruise the DC-7 burned maybe 10% less fuel per mile than the DC-6B.

FWIW: a DC-6B flew nonstop LA to Paris in 1953 (delivery flight to TAI). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Zukas (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that these statements are unclear and/or unsourced. Reliable sources need to be provided to back up any claims (and I don't mean airline timetables, which prove nothing), or vague mentions of "Brooks". Btw, it was claimed that the CA-HI route was longer than the CA-NY routes, which is the context of operating with reduced payload - obviously some point was in error. And I'm pretty certain the LA-Paris filght wasn't with a full load either. - BilCat (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It for sure wasn't. Exactly what the article should say is up for discussion; all we know for sure is it shouldn't say "The DC-6B didn't have the range to fly transcon", since it will be quite impossible to find any reliable sources to back that claim. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I remembered wrong; it turns out HNL-LAX is 80 miles farther than LAX-IDL.) Tim Zukas (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, the TAI DC-6B did fly LA-Paris with more than the usual tankage; American Aviation says it started with 6760 gallons, with 840 left on arrival.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]