Boeing Stratocruiser

Big Al · 08-01-2011, 05:10 PM

I stumbled across this link full of great retro pics of Boeing's venerable post war airliner. Try the other links at the top too...

Boeing Stratocruiser

KLM4me · 08-01-2011, 08:23 PM

The front of this aircraft leaves much to be desired. But the interior is awesome. I wonder what it was like to fly on one of these?

gospodin · 08-07-2011, 08:41 PM

The days when flying was an adventure, and you were treated like royalty. Now, flying is to be endured, and you're treated like cattle. I guess that's progress.

AnonCollector · 08-07-2011, 09:01 PM

I always thought that thing was ugly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

The days when flying was an adventure, and you were treated like royalty. Now, flying is to be endured, and you're treated like cattle. I guess that's progress.

I disagree somewhat.

You had to be nearly royalty to afford it back then, so there is progress.

And really, some of the first and business class products out there now are as luxurious as ever. You can take a shower on board, for heaven's sake. just as then, you just have to be able and willing to pay, but now you have a choice of something less posh for less money.

not to mention that flying is immensely safer now.

mjabbasi · 08-07-2011, 09:03 PM

Well airlines like Emirates, SIA etc are trying to bring back some of this flavor, at least for their F and J class passengers on the A380.

I was watching a video the other day about Pan Am Flight 6 which in 1956 had to ditch into the Pacific after 2 of its engines gave out. Was the wreckage of that plane ever recovered or is it still down there?

gospodin · 08-07-2011, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnonCollector

I always thought that thing was ugly.

Yeah, the ancestor of the Whale Jet. The nose radar made it look worse, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnonCollector

I disagree somewhat.

You had to be nearly royalty to afford it back then, so there is progress.

And really, some of the first and business class products out there now are as luxurious as ever. You can take a shower on board, for heaven's sake. just as then, you just have to be able and willing to pay, but now you have a choice of something less posh for less money.

not to mention that flying is immensely safer now.

But the special sense of wonder and adventure is missing now. Flying has become tedious for many, with the airport security and the waiting...waiting...waiting. Then you're packed into the plane (unless you can afford Business Class), paying for everything that used to be a perk of flying. And flying is no doubt safer now, but was it really all that unsafe back then? I'm talking about when the Connies, Strats, Viscounts and 7s were all flying. Sure you had accidents, but statistically it was almost the same then as it is now, since the majority of accidents continue to be pilot error.

AnonCollector · 08-08-2011, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

Yeah, the ancestor of the Whale Jet. The nose radar made it look worse, too.

I think it's even uglier than the A380. But these are shades of grey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

But the special sense of wonder and adventure is missing now. Flying has become tedious for many, with the airport security and the waiting...waiting...waiting.

Well, that's true, even if you are flying in a premium class. I will concede that.

Unless you're flying out of something special like Lufthansa's terminal dedicated to first class passengers only. Or, unless you've got a private/corporate jet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

Then you're packed into the plane (unless you can afford Business Class), paying for everything that used to be a perk of flying.

But that's my exact point. If you want to travel in comfort, then pay for business class. The nice airline service of the 1950s and 1960s would be quite expensive in today's dollars. People were paying a lot of money for that.

The difference is that today, you also have the choice to pay less, and get less. That wasn't even an option back then. As it happens, it's an option that many people willingly take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

And flying is no doubt safer now, but was it really all that unsafe back then? I'm talking about when the Connies, Strats, Viscounts and 7s were all flying. Sure you had accidents, but statistically it was almost the same then as it is now, since the majority of accidents continue to be pilot error.

Not even close. Look up the statistics, expressed in fatalities per passenger-mile, or hull losses per flight, or however you want to express it. Flying was much more unsafe back then.

AnonCollector · 08-08-2011, 05:41 PM

ok, i have a stupid question about the stratocruiser. why didn't it suffer from metal fatigue problems like the comet did?

Big Al · 08-08-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnonCollector

ok, i have a stupid question about the stratocruiser. why didn't it suffer from metal fatigue problems like the comet did?

Good question, I'm going to guess that it didn't fly as high and therefore was not pressurised to the same degree...?

MarinerOne · 08-08-2011, 07:34 PM

This pic cracked me up ... WHY are these two dudes sleeping together ... except for obvious reasons???

gospodin · 08-08-2011, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnonCollector

ok, i have a stupid question about the stratocruiser. why didn't it suffer from metal fatigue problems like the comet did?

Aside from the Comet being a jet, I think it was the shape of the windows that caused the cracking.

B2707300SST · 08-09-2011, 03:48 PM

OT: Regarding the Comet...
The shape of the early ships window is square, but oval or square, metal fatigue due to a highly pressurized fuselage was the culprit of the Comet's catastrophic failures. The skin could only endure just so many pressurization cycles before cracking.

back on topic...I agree with Tony. The 337 was indeed slow, but compared to many of the "sterile bathtubs" of business and first class today; it was like a flying living room...with a panoramic flight deck that only the C-130 comes close to.

Blinder22 · 08-09-2011, 04:01 PM

I think the 337 was a beautiful aircraft, i think all the aircraft of this era were cool and were a kind of poetic romanticism of flying and all these early aircraft were beautiful in there own way, connies, DCs n 337s all classic designs imho

Big Al · 08-09-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarinerOne

This pic cracked me up ... WHY are these two dudes sleeping together ... except for obvious reasons???

The guy on the right is the double of my old Grandad Pat Kelly, although he'd much more likely be seen on a Royal Navy battleship in those days and only wore a suit to his funeral !

Big Al · 08-09-2011, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B2707300SST

OT: Regarding the Comet...
The shape of the early ships window is square, but oval or square, metal fatigue due to a highly pressurized fuselage was the culprit of the Comet's catastrophic failures. The skin could only endure just so many pressurization cycles before cracking.

back on topic...I agree with Tony. The 337 was indeed slow, but compared to many of the "sterile bathtubs" of business and first class today; it was like a flying living room...with a panoramic flight deck that only the C-130 comes close to.

I thought it would be along those lines Herb, good info.

Look at that picture though, wouldn't it be great to travel in such an informal, sociable aircraft layout as that ? Airbus have a 'downstairs' optional module in the A330, it can be a crew area, toliet area, a shop, bar or whatever. I experienced one A330 flight (Airtours) where it was a little sit down lounge area with some extra WC's. I'd certainly love to experience something like that again in the new breed of super large passenger jets.

For all that people complain about the external apperance of the A380, it sure does offer so much more potential for a little luxury onboard. To be able to get up, walk around and go sit/stand somewhere other than your actual seat makes long flights so much more tolerable to me.

AnonCollector · 08-09-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B2707300SST

OT: Regarding the Comet...
The shape of the early ships window is square, but oval or square, metal fatigue due to a highly pressurized fuselage was the culprit of the Comet's catastrophic failures. The skin could only endure just so many pressurization cycles before cracking.

So you're saying it was the level of the pressurization cycles that made the difference between Comet and Stratocruiser, going back to a difference in typical flying altitude?

Both of them have pressurization cycles, and both have window shapes that would tend to concentrate stresses.. there has to be some difference here.

Big Al · 08-09-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnonCollector

So you're saying it was the level of the pressurization cycles that made the difference between Comet and Stratocruiser, going back to a difference in typical flying altitude?

Both of them have pressurization cycles, and both have window shapes that would tend to concentrate stresses.. there has to be some difference here.

The Comet was designed (and pressurised) to fly above 30,000ft whereas the Strat would fly to a max of 25,000ft. I'm not entirely sure what the difference was in terms of air frame fatigue and cycles, but clearly it was all too much for the original Comet. Boeing and Douglas soon followed on with their 707 and DC-8, their own engineers admitting that were it not for what was discovered after the Comet failures then they probably would have made the same mistakes.

A shame though, the demise of British commercial airliner production can perhaps be traced back to the two Comet crashes.

AnonCollector · 08-09-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Al

The Comet was designed (and pressurised) to fly above 30,000ft whereas the Strat would fly to a max of 25,000ft. I'm not entirely sure what the difference was in terms of air frame fatigue and cycles, but clearly it was all too much for the original Comet. Boeing and Douglas soon followed on with their 707 and DC-8, their own engineers admitting that were it not for what was discovered after the Comet failures then they probably would have made the same mistakes.

A shame though, the demise of British commercial airliner production can perhaps be traced back to the two Comet crashes.

Hard to tell if that altitude difference is what saved the Strat but doomed the Comet; but it's an idea. I'm sceptical, but it's an idea.

I thought a large fraction of Strats were written off within the first 10-15 years. So maybe they just didn't survive long enough to hit cycling-induced fatigue that would cause failure. Or maybe there's more to the design/construction issues than simply looking at the shape of the windows.

Big Al · 08-10-2011, 01:12 PM

Interesting rendition...

British Airways Boeing 377 Stratocruiser Combo Aviation Design - Modified Airliner Photos

B2707300SST · 08-10-2011, 02:48 PM

Another consideration for the Comet accidents may be the metal contents and weight used for the fuselage skin, versus the contents and weight of the metal used for the Strat. Comet components may been built lighter. The 377 may have been built with heavier gauge materials...and as mentioned, had a ceiling of 25,000'. The Comet operated higher, and faster. It was most likely pressurized to a higher number of lbs per square inch, than the Boeing, thus may have been more fatigue prone. Hope that makes sense.
Also as Gospodin mentions, the window shape attributed to the metal failure. If you look at the tank test, the tears do begin in the window corners. Either way, fatigue would have found it's way to an explosive decompression. The square window may have been the perfect storm for its origin.

Big Al · 08-10-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B2707300SST

Another consideration for the Comet accidents may be the metal contents and weight used for the fuselage skin, versus the contents and weight of the metal used for the Strat. Comet components may been of lighter weight. The 377 may have been built with heavier gauge materials...and as mentioned, had a ceiling of 25,000'. The Comet operated higher, and faster. It was most likely pressurized to a higher number of lbs per square inch, than the Boeing, thus it may have been more fatigue prone. Hope that makes sense.

Yes it was noted during the Comet investigations that the skin may have been too thin, it was infact strengthened for the Comet 4 amongst the other changes made.

gospodin · 08-10-2011, 02:54 PM

Other factors about the Comet vs Strat metal fatigue would be the thickness of the aluminum skin, the quality of the metal and the construction techniques used. I just don't think you can compare the two aircraft very easily. As was stated earlier, the Comet would more likely be compared to the 707 and DC-8 as much was unknown about constructing passenger jet airliners capable of much higher speeds and altitudes. The sad early history of the Comet was the test ground for the American planes.

Agh, you beat me to it, Herb!

AnonCollector · 08-10-2011, 03:53 PM

Yes, I agree with all of the above - considerations like skin thickness have to be taken into account; all in all it's a question we can't answer for sure from our sofas, but we've got some good ideas here.