I was a mechanic in the first and only Air Force Turboprop Test Squadron, stationed at Kelly AFB, Texas, from 1955-1957. We flew around the clock, starting with two YC-131's. Then we got two YC-97's and two YC-121's. We also tested Pratt & Whitney T-34 engines. Over the next two years, they broke every speed record for prop driven aircrsft at that time. The Y designation was for unaccepted aircraft, yet to be proven. The outfit was disbanded in1957, and we were shipped to Dover AFB, to begin accepting the new C-133's, then the largest plane in the Air Force.
Thanks for your service! What an interesting time to be in aviation. And being in the ONLY Air Force Turboprop Test Squadron pretty much establishes you as a really sharp mechanic. Way to go!
So wish the YC-131/Connie had been pursued w turboprops, never understood why it wasn't a success, guess it wasn't much faster and the jets were driving props out, anyway. Interesting the Electra popped up about then, though!?
@@donaldstanfield8862 Well we still broke all the speed records. I do not know why the C 131 wasn't utilized after our testing period. Maybe it was just because it was only meant to be a test bed for the T-56.
@@donaldstanfield8862 I do not know this reply works. I thought I sent one but I do not see it. I guess we will never find out why the Air Force didn't pursue our squadron's aircraft.
@Donald Stanfield It is my understanding that the problem with the Constellation was its expense. The dolphin shaped fuselage may have made for a very photogenic plane. But it was FAR more expensive to produce than a simple cylindrical fuselage. Thus, it was replaced with the Electra, which was of a more conventional (and cheaper to produce) design.
One big advantage of turboprops over piston engines was that they are vastly less noisy, resulting in a more comfortable flight experience for passengers on the plane. This was demonstrated with the Vickers Viscount, where the four Rolls-Royce Dart turboprop engines demonstrated how much quieter the plane was compared to similar piston-engined aircraft.
I started working for Allison‘s in 1994 As an inspector FPI MPI inspect about every part of the T56 engine and gearbox The good old days they outsource most of the work now I make single crystal turbine blades:-)
I would fly to Chicago as a young child once a year or so for a few years in a row with my television engineer father going to see the trade demonstrations of RCA studio television cameras and equipment. Each time both coming and going on a few different Convair 240 types. Sometimes it would be in a radial engine and sometimes on the way back it would be in a newly converted turboprop version. Years later I saw one after it had crashed at the local airport, it was broken and split in the fuselage, don't know that it might have been one I once flew in. My first airliner flights, an autumn delight.
T56 - the most famous, reliable turbo prop combination ever. It is a shame that pure jet transports weren’t far behind; but the labours of Hercules and Orion military ships go on to this day. General Motors should never have sold off the Allison division. And I just love the sound of four of them going overhead, it is unique.
The C-130 plus the Allison T56-A-15 equals one of the world's enduring, successful designs, along with the TU95 with it's mighty Kuznetsov NK-12...first flown 1952 and still operational
A few years after the Allison Turboliner was developed, local service airlines would convert the "Convair-Liners" in their fleets with the 501-D13, the commercial version of the T56, resulting in the Convair 580.
No, it was a lot more than a few years later that the first Convair 580, based on the larger Convair 340 and 440 was converted. The 240 test ship here had T-56s installed in 1950. The first 580 was not converted until 1961.
+Miles Rich, actually the Turboliner was powered by T38 engines; engine problems caused the project to be scrapped and the airframe returned to Convair. The T38 was a forerunner of the T56/501.
I worked on 580s at Aspen Airways in the 1980s. It has been brought to my attention that Convair Never built a "580". The 580s were designated 340-A and 440-A, the "A" meaning Allison Conversion for the 501D-13.
I didn't know how to reply to your text to me so I'm doing it here. Thanks for your info. i think the Conny had the most gracefull shape of any plane around.
The specific fuel consumption numbers for the T-56 aren't bad, especially when you consider it's a 50 year old design. It would be interesting to see what kinda performance numbers the Convair 580 could put out with a pair of the newer Pratt & Whitney 100 series engines.
I was an A&P at Continental Airlines on the Viscount 2 with the Dart RR. The Viscount and the RR was a easy to work on. CAL had the highest time Viscount in the world. Vickers was writing the MX manual as we went along.
@ 2.06 -What happens to those beautiful models? Where are they now? Man I would give my eye teeth to own one of those. Gonna check out e-bay. Fingers crossed.
If you want to see crazy turbo prop examples - look at the Fairey Gannet's Double Mamba engine.Twin turbines driving a contra rotating prop through a combo gearbox. One surviving example is near my house (and I wish they'd hanger it)
and as it's lockdown and there's plenty of time to go off on youtube/wikipaedia tangents - who would have guessed the world's 1st turboprop was ...Hungarian (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jendrassik_Cs-1)
I had never heard of the Fairey Gannet until you mentioned it. I scooted off to Wikipedia and WOW! That thing looks like a monster. The power must have been huge, and the double-folding wings are the first I've seen on any aircraft. The whole aircraft looks like an American football player... raw muscle in a single package. it looks like a flying tank! Thanks for mentioning it, David. That's a really cool airplane, and I loved seeing all the pictures of it.
By the time this film was made turbo prop engines we not new. British manufacturers were producing them at the end of world war two and had a substantial lead in development of both turbo prop and pure jet engines.
Rolls-Royce was a pioneer in turboprop power. To the best of my knowledge there were three other British manufacturers of turboprop engines, Napier, Bristol and Armstrong Siddeley (the latter two later merged to become Bristol Siddeley). Today all three are, like Allison, Rolls-Royce heritage companies.
@@johneddy908 The first really successful turboprop was the Rolls-Royce Dart, developed in the 1940's. It became well-known because of its early success on the Vickers Viscount and the Fokker F27 Friendship.
Turboprops could have continued on in larger transport and cargo aircraft if they'd continued research on the open rotor concept, which was heavily studied in the 1980-90's. Although efficient, one of the apparent drawbacks was noise caused by propellor cavitation. With higher fuel efficiency in the newer HBR turbine designs, advanced turboprop research slacked off.
Modern piston ICE engines are far more fuel efficient than gas turbine and whilst requiring more regular maintenance... parts and labour costs are a fraction of cost. Commercial airlines recoup these costs with aircraft spending less down time in the workshop but makes little sense in GA unless you have a fatter wallet than most of us. A rebuild on a PT6 will buy you a nice apartment in most western cities.
I have heard from time to time of experiments to use props with adapted higher power engines for "jetliners." It would seem that one of the major obstacles would be propeller speed exceeding the speed of sound... you end up with a drop in power and a continued sonic boom all the passengers would get to enjoy for most of their flight. Also, technically speaking, most airliners generate much if not most of their thrust at cruising speed with their huge partial bypass fan blades. In a way, I would say that qualifies it as a sort of turbofan if not turbo prop.
@@PeterWalkerHP16c , if I had a favorite among those it would be the de Havilland Canada DHC-8, or "Dash 8." It's still built today, in Downsview, Ontario. Alaska Airlines (through its Horizon Air subsidiary) flies it. Today, de Havilland Canada has a sister company located near Victoria, B.C., Viking Air Ltd., that builds the DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400
I flew in a Viscount which landed saftely in a peasouper..I (being 6 at the time...I'm near 70 now) drove my mother crazy when we were walking part of the wayto LimeStreet tation in London playing if I could see my hand at nose lenght...I couldnt, I only realised how amazing that landing was in the 70's long after the event... :)
Which is an advantage, because you can pack more pounds of fuel in existing tanks when switching from Avgas to Jet A. Also, Jet A provides more BTUs for weight than Avgas, making it about 5% more efficient as a fuel. Plus, it has a much higher flash point, making it safer. Win, win, win.
lb/hp*hr is units for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. It is simply fuel mass flow divided by power produced. It's one of the basic quantities that engineers use to measure the efficiency of engines.
I was a mechanic in the first and only Air Force Turboprop Test Squadron, stationed at Kelly AFB, Texas, from 1955-1957. We flew around the clock, starting with two YC-131's. Then we got two YC-97's and two YC-121's. We also tested Pratt & Whitney T-34 engines. Over the next two years, they broke every speed record for prop driven aircrsft at that time. The Y designation was for unaccepted aircraft, yet to be proven. The outfit was disbanded in1957, and we were shipped to Dover AFB, to begin accepting the new C-133's, then the largest plane in the Air Force.
Thanks for your service! What an interesting time to be in aviation. And being in the ONLY Air Force Turboprop Test Squadron pretty much establishes you as a really sharp mechanic. Way to go!
So wish the YC-131/Connie had been pursued w turboprops, never understood why it wasn't a success, guess it wasn't much faster and the jets were driving props out, anyway.
Interesting the Electra popped up about then, though!?
@@donaldstanfield8862 Well we still broke all the speed records. I do not know why the C 131 wasn't utilized after our testing period. Maybe it was just because it was only meant to be a test bed for the T-56.
@@donaldstanfield8862 I do not know this reply works. I thought I sent one but I do not see it. I guess we will never find out why the Air Force didn't pursue our squadron's aircraft.
@Donald Stanfield
It is my understanding that the problem with the Constellation was its expense. The dolphin shaped fuselage may have made for a very photogenic plane. But it was FAR more expensive to produce than a simple cylindrical fuselage. Thus, it was replaced with the Electra, which was of a more conventional (and cheaper to produce) design.
Looks like this jet propulsion idea has a bright future in aviation...hope that C-130 turns out OK....
I have a feeling it will be...😉
Can one imagine the thoughts of the creators of this film, that it would get this many views in 2020.
That narrator seems to have done the voice overs for every U.S. training and documentary film from the 40's to the 60's.
One big advantage of turboprops over piston engines was that they are vastly less noisy, resulting in a more comfortable flight experience for passengers on the plane. This was demonstrated with the Vickers Viscount, where the four Rolls-Royce Dart turboprop engines demonstrated how much quieter the plane was compared to similar piston-engined aircraft.
But that was ear-splitting turboprops!?!
I started working for Allison‘s in 1994 As an inspector FPI MPI inspect about every part of the T56 engine and gearbox The good old days they outsource most of the work now I make single crystal turbine blades:-)
NOTHING like the sound of four T56’s on the wing of a P3 or C130 making a low pass!
If I can't get to sleep, I'm going to listen to that guy's voice. I was dosing now just hearing it.
Very interesting.
I would fly to Chicago as a young child once a year or so for a few years in a row with my television engineer father going to see the trade demonstrations of RCA studio television cameras and equipment. Each time both coming and going on a few different Convair 240 types. Sometimes it would be in a radial engine and sometimes on the way back it would be in a newly converted turboprop version. Years later I saw one after it had crashed at the local airport, it was broken and split in the fuselage, don't know that it might have been one I once flew in. My first airliner flights, an autumn delight.
T56 - the most famous, reliable turbo prop combination ever. It is a shame that pure jet transports weren’t far behind; but the labours of Hercules and Orion military ships go on to this day. General Motors should never have sold off the Allison division. And I just love the sound of four of them going overhead, it is unique.
Why? Rolls Royce is doing an OK job!
The C-130 plus the Allison T56-A-15 equals one of the world's enduring, successful designs, along with the TU95 with it's mighty Kuznetsov NK-12...first flown 1952 and still operational
PT-6A has the highest dispatch reliability- 99.7%. No other engine comes close.
Great footage of the Convair B-36, the intercontinental bomber that was the "hybrid" of its day.
Outstanding!
The T56 lives to this day as the T56-427 in the E-2D. Hawkeye new builds
Another great division of General Motors sold
A few years after the Allison Turboliner was developed, local service airlines would convert the "Convair-Liners" in their fleets with the 501-D13, the commercial version of the T56, resulting in the Convair 580.
No, it was a lot more than a few years later that the first Convair 580, based on the larger Convair 340 and 440 was converted. The 240 test ship here had T-56s installed in 1950. The first 580 was not converted until 1961.
John Eddy que
+Miles Rich, actually the Turboliner was powered by T38 engines; engine problems caused the project to be scrapped and the airframe returned to Convair. The T38 was a forerunner of the T56/501.
I worked on 580s at Aspen Airways in the 1980s. It has been brought to my attention that Convair Never built a "580". The 580s were designated 340-A and 440-A, the "A" meaning Allison Conversion for the 501D-13.
...the 501-D13 series also powered the Lockheed L-188.
Too bad the Connie and turboprops together didn't fare better, that could have been an amazing airliner!
I didn't know how to reply to your text to me so I'm doing it here. Thanks for your info. i think the Conny had the most gracefull shape of any plane around.
one of the greatest turbines produced. Super reliable and will take a beating.
Please don't beat on it.
@@rrhone
Always good advice...
The specific fuel consumption numbers for the T-56 aren't bad, especially when you consider it's a 50 year old design. It would be interesting to see what kinda performance numbers the Convair 580 could put out with a pair of the newer Pratt & Whitney 100 series engines.
Or the Rolls Royce AE 2100, it is essentially the next generation of the T-56 and shared mound and thrust line making conversion fairly simple
I was an A&P at Continental Airlines on the Viscount 2 with the Dart RR. The Viscount and the RR was a easy to work on. CAL had the highest time Viscount in the world. Vickers was writing the MX manual as we went along.
@ 2.06 -What happens to those beautiful models? Where are they now? Man I would give my eye teeth to own one of those.
Gonna check out e-bay. Fingers crossed.
If you want to see crazy turbo prop examples - look at the Fairey Gannet's Double Mamba engine.Twin turbines driving a contra rotating prop through a combo gearbox. One surviving example is near my house (and I wish they'd hanger it)
and as it's lockdown and there's plenty of time to go off on youtube/wikipaedia tangents - who would have guessed the world's 1st turboprop was ...Hungarian (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jendrassik_Cs-1)
@@clewerhillroad Did Szilard have Einstein sign a letter to FDR to build them?
I had never heard of the Fairey Gannet until you mentioned it. I scooted off to Wikipedia and WOW! That thing looks like a monster. The power must have been huge, and the double-folding wings are the first I've seen on any aircraft. The whole aircraft looks like an American football player... raw muscle in a single package. it looks like a flying tank!
Thanks for mentioning it, David. That's a really cool airplane, and I loved seeing all the pictures of it.
Yaasss!
The Armstrong Siddeley Double Mamba also powered the Blackburn B-54. Both were carrier-based attack aircraft built for the Royal Navy.
this video is perfect for when you're having trouble falling asleep....
still work on them, -13 and D22. on wing turbine and RGB changes. they are swinging Aeroproducts and HAM standard. D13 TIT 971 4kHP, D22G 1049 4300HP
By the time this film was made turbo prop engines we not new. British manufacturers were producing them at the end of world war two and had a substantial lead in development of both turbo prop and pure jet engines.
Rolls-Royce was a pioneer in turboprop power. To the best of my knowledge there were three other British manufacturers of turboprop engines, Napier, Bristol and Armstrong Siddeley (the latter two later merged to become Bristol Siddeley). Today all three are, like Allison, Rolls-Royce heritage companies.
@@johneddy908 The first really successful turboprop was the Rolls-Royce Dart, developed in the 1940's. It became well-known because of its early success on the Vickers Viscount and the Fokker F27 Friendship.
@@Sacto1654 well said, but remember this is Allison/General Motors promoting itself
@@natewatl9423 GM sold Allison Engine Company in 1993 to a management-led group which in turn sold it to Rolls-Royce two years later.
And yes I do remember when America Airline aircrafts looked like this...
Turboprops could have continued on in larger transport and cargo aircraft if they'd continued research on the open rotor concept, which was heavily studied in the 1980-90's. Although efficient, one of the apparent drawbacks was noise caused by propellor cavitation. With higher fuel efficiency in the newer HBR turbine designs, advanced turboprop research slacked off.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE36
What engine is best? for todays planes???
Geez, the turbine idea might catch on for other vehicles. They should use one in a tank or some such.
Try an M1A2 Abrahms main battle tank, mate!
@@AnthonyTolhurst-dw1nc Maybe I wasn't sarcastic enough?
Modern piston ICE engines are far more fuel efficient than gas turbine and whilst requiring more regular maintenance... parts and labour costs are a fraction of cost. Commercial airlines recoup these costs with aircraft spending less down time in the workshop but makes little sense in GA unless you have a fatter wallet than most of us. A rebuild on a PT6 will buy you a nice apartment in most western cities.
The C-130 at 17:48 has three-bladed props.
I only ever recall seeing those with four blades!?
Early models, up to and including C130 E; later came the fat paddle 4 bladers
Great stuff but the turboprop airliners didn't really last that long as the jet took over quickly. They may make a comeback. Who knows(?).
There' loads of tutboprop airliners flying. Saab, DeHaviland, ATR, Pilatus, Bombardier ...
@@PeterWalkerHP16c Yes there is. I was talking about the big major airlines for over 1500 mile flights.
If they'd built more Viscounts United wanted 60 more after they bought Capital. It was a while before the 737 guppy's came out to fill in.
I have heard from time to time of experiments to use props with adapted higher power engines for "jetliners." It would seem that one of the major obstacles would be propeller speed exceeding the speed of sound... you end up with a drop in power and a continued sonic boom all the passengers would get to enjoy for most of their flight.
Also, technically speaking, most airliners generate much if not most of their thrust at cruising speed with their huge partial bypass fan blades. In a way, I would say that qualifies it as a sort of turbofan if not turbo prop.
@@PeterWalkerHP16c , if I had a favorite among those it would be the de Havilland Canada DHC-8, or "Dash 8." It's still built today, in Downsview, Ontario. Alaska Airlines (through its Horizon Air subsidiary) flies it. Today, de Havilland Canada has a sister company located near Victoria, B.C., Viking Air Ltd., that builds the DHC-6 Twin Otter Series 400
If only the didn't burn so much fuel... 20+ for a 200 hp ga engine
Because development of these ga engine have been standing still for 50 years. Modern IC engines for ga are much more efficient.
@@flexairz Recips may be not turbines, that 200hp turbine i am talking about is state of the art fadec computer controlled
I would fly thru a hurricane on a Rolls Royce Dart powered aircraft,said no one ever.
I flew in a Viscount which landed saftely in a peasouper..I (being 6 at the time...I'm near 70 now) drove my mother crazy when we were walking part of the wayto LimeStreet tation in London playing if I could see my hand at nose lenght...I couldnt, I only realised how amazing that landing was in the 70's long after the event... :)
6,000+ engines, 40+ years of service though!
I don't know, that C130 is too fat and ugly. I predict a short production run. ;)
Yeah they will cancel that hog pretty quick, how many have they made to date, 2500 as of 2015.
C-130 Requirements written by Marine Commandant.
@@robertsullivan4773 , Lockheed Martin still builds it today, as the C-130J Super Hercules. It is powered by Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 engines.
@@johneddy908 I was being sarcastic, I live in Atlanta not far from the Marietta GA. They fly over my house often.
Next year, 70 years old design. Still making them, how’s them apples?
Jet fuel weighs more than avgas.
Which is an advantage, because you can pack more pounds of fuel in existing tanks when switching from Avgas to Jet A. Also, Jet A provides more BTUs for weight than Avgas, making it about 5% more efficient as a fuel. Plus, it has a much higher flash point, making it safer. Win, win, win.
lb/hp*hr is units for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. It is simply fuel mass flow divided by power produced. It's one of the basic quantities that engineers use to measure the efficiency of engines.
I believe the std wgt for Avgas is 6.02 lb/ gal & Jet A is 6.14 lb/gal. Correct me if I'm wrong.
@@andyharman3022 Not exactly. It'd be fuel mass per work done. Power is work per time. Fixed yer units problem.
@@jacquesblaque7728 No. Fuel flow divided by power. I have no units problem.