Lockheed Constitution

[ysi_maniac]

I was pretty sure there were already a thread devoted to this plane. But I cannot find it now.

[Daryl J.]

Perhaps it was found to be Unconstitutional!          

[kitnut617]

Maybe here Carlos

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=141.msg1859#msg1859

[ysi_maniac]

Anyway an interesting plane that just needed a more powerful engines. What if the power plant of C-130?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_R6V_Constitution

[ysi_maniac]

Hi kitnut617, that's a very interesting thread :) , but I did not mean that.

Perhaps it was found to be Inconstitutional!          

[ysi_maniac]

... What if the power plant of C-130?

[elmayerle]

I keep thinking of an alternate LAX of the 1950's with civil Constitutions and C-99s along with littler aircraft like Stratocruisers.  If the ICC had not intervened, perhaps full-cargo variants in the markings of Santa Fe Air Cargo and others (before being legally terminated, Santa Fe Air Cargo did fly some DC -4's with full "warbonnet" livery as applied to their diesel-electric locomotives).

[jcf]

Lockheed had offered a turbine powered development, the Model 289 with four Wright T35 Typhoon 5,500shp turboprops.
The engine never entered production so that variant died on the drawing board.
http://enginehistory.org/GasTurbines/Wright/T35/WrightT35.shtml

As to power for the R-4360 powered aircraft, what if instead of the GE turbo design used on the two built aircraft, Lockheed
had instead opted for their in-house designed seven-stage axial turbo-supercharger design? Perhaps that design would have
provided a path for better power growth, perhaps even developed into something like the turbine/supercharger unit used on
the Napier Nomad II?

[ysi_maniac]

Pan American Turbo Constitution