Lockheed Constellation projects

The last picture seem to show the pressure distribution along the fuselage, Lockheed always claimed a lift benefit from the curved fuselage, and this seems to confirm this, see the under pressure at the cabin roof.
 
FXXII said:
The last picture seem to show the pressure distribution along the fuselage, Lockheed always claimed a lift benefit from the curved fuselage, and this seems to confirm this, see the under pressure at the cabin roof.
Click to expand...

That's right.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Jemiba said:
famvburg said:
I have some pics of the CL-410 ...
Click to expand...

Perhaps it looks somehow like this , just a kind of puzzle using the given
dscription in heshams post.
Click to expand...

Close (see CL-410-10).
Click to expand...
Orionblamlam, as you undoubtedly have access to better quality drawings of the '3-view drawing of the Lockheed CL-410-10', could you be so kind to tell me the overall wingspan of the design please?, as it appears to be somewhat longer in span than that of the 'Lockheed L-188 Electra its based on.:oops:


Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • 'Official' 3-view drawing of (CALAC) Lockheed CL-410-10 [L-188 Electra-based] ALRI study.gif
    'Official' 3-view drawing of (CALAC) Lockheed CL-410-10 [L-188 Electra-based] ALRI study.gif
    155.1 KB · Views: 340
Pioneer said:
Orionblamlam, as you undoubtedly have access to better quality drawings of the '3-view drawing of the Lockheed CL-410-10', could you be so kind to tell me the overall wingspan of the design please?, as it appears to be somewhat longer in span than that of the 'Lockheed L-188 Electra its based on.:oops:
Click to expand...

I can just make out the dimensions marked on the front view. It looks to be 1800 inches (150 feet, 0 inches), which is also consistent with the scale bar on the drawing. So that's a good 50% larger in span than the Electra.
 
TomS said:
Pioneer said:
Orionblamlam, as you undoubtedly have access to better quality drawings of the '3-view drawing of the Lockheed CL-410-10', could you be so kind to tell me the overall wingspan of the design please?, as it appears to be somewhat longer in span than that of the 'Lockheed L-188 Electra its based on.:oops:
Click to expand...

I can just make out the dimensions marked on the front view. It looks to be 1800 inches (150 feet, 0 inches), which is also consistent with the scale bar on the drawing. So that's a good 50% larger in span than the Electra.
Click to expand...

Thank you TomS!!
So that confirms my notion of the CL-410-10 design having an improved operational altitude, which is critical for the AWACS role/mission.



Regards
Pioneer
 
FXXII said:
The last picture seem to show the pressure distribution along the fuselage, Lockheed always claimed a lift benefit from the curved fuselage, and this seems to confirm this, see the under pressure at the cabin roof.
Click to expand...
Kelly Johnson also regarded the curved fuselage as a mistake due to the increased manufacturing costs and unusable internal volume that it created. Pretty only gets you so far, or so I've heard.
 
Pioneer said:
TomS said:
Pioneer said:
Orionblamlam, as you undoubtedly have access to better quality drawings of the '3-view drawing of the Lockheed CL-410-10', could you be so kind to tell me the overall wingspan of the design please?, as it appears to be somewhat longer in span than that of the 'Lockheed L-188 Electra its based on.:oops:
Click to expand...

I can just make out the dimensions marked on the front view. It looks to be 1800 inches (150 feet, 0 inches), which is also consistent with the scale bar on the drawing. So that's a good 50% larger in span than the Electra.
Click to expand...

Thank you TomS!!
So that confirms my notion of the CL-410-10 design having an improved operational altitude, which is critical for the AWACS role/mission.



Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, can I ask the forum, if anyone would like to make an estimate (guestimate) as to what the gain in altitude this addition 51ft (15.54m) of wingspan might have afforded the CL-410-10, in comparison to the legacy L-118 Electra?


Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Ok, something I've just picked up on in hesham's Post #14, which might have been obvious to others more observant than I... :

".....It's project, designated Cl-410, used the fuselage of the [L-188] Electra, to which were added the [L-1649] Starliner's wings.....

So this explains the greater wingspan in the 3-view drawing of the CL-410-10 supplied by Orionblamblam - hence critical to a AEW platform for altitude gain for maximum efficiency of the designs radar coverage. But then Lockheed seems to revert back to the standard and shorter Electra/Orion wing on the later CL-410-15 design.....odd.


Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
But then Lockheed seems to revert back to the standard and shorter Electra/Orion wing on the later CL-410-15 design.....odd.
Click to expand...

Excessive wing root bending loads, due to the increased span? Meaning that the fuselage wing root fittings would need to be re-engineered, meaning weight, cost, etc.
What was the timing on this? Another thought is that the Starliner was due to cease production, and it wasn't economic to retain the wing line just for this aircraft . . .

cheers,
robin.
 
robunos said:
Pioneer said:
But then Lockheed seems to revert back to the standard and shorter Electra/Orion wing on the later CL-410-15 design.....odd.
Click to expand...

Excessive wing root bending loads, due to the increased span? Meaning that the fuselage wing root fittings would need to be re-engineered, meaning weight, cost, etc.
What was the timing on this? Another thought is that the Starliner was due to cease production, and it wasn't economic to retain the wing line just for this aircraft . . .

cheers,
robin.
Click to expand...

Thank's for your informative reply robunos/Robin, the article indicates 1958.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
robunos said:
Pioneer said:
But then Lockheed seems to revert back to the standard and shorter Electra/Orion wing on the later CL-410-15 design.....odd.
Click to expand...

Excessive wing root bending loads, due to the increased span? Meaning that the fuselage wing root fittings would need to be re-engineered, meaning weight, cost, etc.
What was the timing on this? Another thought is that the Starliner was due to cease production, and it wasn't economic to retain the wing line just for this aircraft . . .

cheers,
robin.
Click to expand...

Thank's for your informative reply robunos/Robin, the article indicates 1958.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

There you go, then the last L-1649 Starliners were built in 1958 . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom