Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#31

Post by perl4ever »

tlb wrote: post #7

"...with a wingspan of over 150ft, the Boeing 314 was (and remains) one of the largest aircraft ever to take to the sky" "Remains" is stretching the point. The original 747 (1975) was 195ft wingspan. Modern 787s are also around 195ft. The 767-200 (1981) is comparable at 156ft. By weight, the 314 was small by modern standards: 84000 lbs MTOW, less than a 737-200 at 128000 lbs MTOW.

I had the general impression B-52s were some of the largest airplanes as well, but when I looked up the stats on Wikipedia it turned out they are quite a bit smaller than large passenger/cargo jets today.

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#32

Post by Gibbon1 »

elihu wrote: post #19

Whatever happened to large sea planes? I imagine they were phased out because they were too expensive, unsafe, or for some other logistical reason, but it seems like they would still be practical for some purposes.

I think passenger sea planes faded as airports were built and faster piston, later jet aircraft became available.

There are still some large sea planes used for fire fighting service and a few airworthy PBY Catalina's.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-415

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina

Catalina's were heavily used in WWII for scouting and rescue in the Pacific. There is a partial documentary of some guys flying a Catalina around the world which was cut short when they were forced to abandon it in Saudi Arabia.

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#33

Post by Gibbon1 »

sjm-lbm wrote: post #23
elihu wrote: post #19

Whatever happened to large sea planes? I imagine they were phased out because they were too expensive, unsafe, or for some other logistical reason, but it seems like they would still be practical for some purposes.

There's probabally other limitations, but as I understand it one of the limiting factors is takeoff and landing speed. Even on a good day and in a still harbor, water is pretty bumpy, which means you need to be out of it at a pretty low speed. This leads to all sorts of tradeoffs elsewhere in the airplane design (mostly, again - as I understand it, in wing design) that hamper the airplane in other ways. In the end, i…

Low take off speed means you need a lower wing loading and that limits your max speed and ultimate range. Perversely higher landing speeds are safer to boot.

Also read an interview with a pilot that flew Clippers. He said maintence was nightmarish due to salt water. And also being able to land in water sounds good until you factor in weather and the need to eventually dock.

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#34

Post by dexen »

tlb wrote: post #7

"...with a wingspan of over 150ft, the Boeing 314 was (and remains) one of the largest aircraft ever to take to the sky" "Remains" is stretching the point. The original 747 (1975) was 195ft wingspan. Modern 787s are also around 195ft. The 767-200 (1981) is comparable at 156ft. By weight, the 314 was small by modern standards: 84000 lbs MTOW, less than a 737-200 at 128000 lbs MTOW.

And then there's the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, with 230ft (~70m) wingspan. The last major piston-engind heavy bomber, design was started in 1941, put in service in 1949, and retired in 1959.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker

The plane's also notable for having been one of very few operational flying aircraft carrier types - able to carry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#35

Post by protomyth »

esaym wrote: post #6

Similar articles have been posted before. All of them are based on the book "The Long Way Home". I bought it for my 88 year old grandfather last Christmas. He power read through the thing in a couple of hours and handed it back to me, telling me to read it too. Certainly an interesting read. But with a little more historical context, you will find that even as early as the 1930's, the US was worried about dominance i…

For an early history of Pan Am and the Pacific check "China Clipper: The Age of the Great Flying Boats" by Robert Gandt. It’s second half is pretty much Pan Am only.

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#36

Post by caf »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #32
elihu wrote: post #19

Whatever happened to large sea planes? I imagine they were phased out because they were too expensive, unsafe, or for some other logistical reason, but it seems like they would still be practical for some purposes.

I think passenger sea planes faded as airports were built and faster piston, later jet aircraft became available. There are still some large sea planes used for fire fighting service and a few airworthy PBY Catalina's. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-415 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina Catalina's were heavily used in WWII for scouting and rescue in the Pacific. There is a par…

Catalinas were also used during the war as part of the Australia-England air link, cross the Indian Ocean from Perth to Ceylon.

https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history-catalinas/glo...

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#37

Post by azernik »

elihu wrote: post #19

Whatever happened to large sea planes? I imagine they were phased out because they were too expensive, unsafe, or for some other logistical reason, but it seems like they would still be practical for some purposes.

The question isn't why they were phased out; it's why they existed in the first place.

They enabled aircraft to make fuel stops at undeveloped supply caches that happened to have a functioning seaport, but no long runway. This was necessary both because of the scarcity of paved runways at the time, and because the short ranges of the time necessitated multiple fuel stops in order to make long-haul journeys.

Once those necessities faded, both because of the build-out of airstrips worldwide (e.g. paved runways in Sri Lanka) and because of improving aircraft technology (no need to stop in Sumatra on the way from Java to Sri Lanka), there was no reason to go with an aircraft that couldn't land inland and had its aerodynamic properties constrained by the need for seaworthiness.

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#38

Post by peterburkimsher »

It's a long, but exhilarating read. My grandpa told stories of his wartime flying experience, including stealing a plane to go to a party at another RAF base where Clark Gable was attending. Some things sound exaggerated, but it's an impressive story nonetheless. I'd really like to see it turned into a film.

Wikipedia says the registration was NC-18609(A), not NC18602 as in the article. I also noticed that the photo of the first ever Boeing 314 shows registration NC18601, which would make 18602 the second model ever built. Can anyone confirm which registration number is correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Clipper

Re: A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014)

#39

Post by baud147258 »

esaym wrote: post #6

Similar articles have been posted before. All of them are based on the book "The Long Way Home". I bought it for my 88 year old grandfather last Christmas. He power read through the thing in a couple of hours and handed it back to me, telling me to read it too. Certainly an interesting read. But with a little more historical context, you will find that even as early as the 1930's, the US was worried about dominance i…

I'm sure this exact article has already been posted.
Post reply on HN