|
|
Post by planewriting on Dec 1, 2020 21:09:20 GMT 12
When you wake up in the middle of the night and start thinking (again) about aeroplanes interesting thoughts sometimes come to mind. Such an occasion happened to me last night, as follows.
Some readers will know about the BCPA (British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines) DC-6 VH-BPE crash on approach to San Francisco in October 1953. The airline eventually went out of existence and TEAL (Air New Zealand's fore-runner till 1965) snapped up the remaining three DC-6s to commence its land plane operation. What I started wondering at 3.30am or thereabouts was, what would have been the course of TEAL history had they acquired all four DC-6s? Would, for example, TEAL have begun an Auckland - Norfolk Island service rather than have QANTAS do that route with DC-4s? Would the service to Tontouta, (New Caledonia) started sooner or perhaps consideration be given to adding Hobart to the network or possibly increasing frequencies of Christchurch flights. Who knows, then again, does anyone officially know if TEAL's intentions at that time were affected by that crash?
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 2, 2020 9:11:21 GMT 12
No hard facts, but so far as I know, TEAL never attempted to purchase another aircraft (DC-6) in all the time they operated the type (1954 - 61), and if they had they might have opted to replace the existing DC-6s with the much better -6Bs with later engines and greater passenger and fuel capacity, as well as a much better electrical system. It was frequently pointed out that the three (TEAL/RNZAF etc) DC-6s went right through their lives with the original type engines (CA-15 version of the R-2800) installed rather than upgrade them. Although originally fitted with Curtiss Electric propellers, these were exchanged for HS Hydromatics at a fairly early stage with BCPA. As the operations of international airlines in the 1950s throughout most of the world were very tightly controlled, with sovereign governments having a lot of say in such things, the entrepreneurial spirit "to blaze new routes" was somewhat stifled, particularly among British Commonwealth airlines, and especially government-controlled ones. Things tended to move fairly slowly and in a supposedly orderly manner, although there would always be agitators striving to get new ideas accepted. The books by Ian Driscoll have a bit to say on this subject, and I am fairly certain that other authors did too. Remember that TEAL got the DC-6s as part of the breakup of BCPA, taking the hardware whilst the other partners got cash and other stuff, such as airline routes. TEAL probably thought it had got the best deal, but soon realized that the DC-6s (only 5/6 years old) were in fact obsolete, although probably better than anything being produced in the UK at that time (with exception of the Comet, but that suffered several spectacular failures in 1954, and the Britannia also had major problems to overcome). Nevertheless TEAL stuck with the DC-6s, along with the one remaining Solent until 1960/61 when they went to the RNZAF. But this was only after they had to put them back into service for a period after the replacement Electras also had very major structural problems which could not be denied, and had to have major modifications before they could enter service. I just happen to find airline histories very interesting!
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on Dec 2, 2020 10:52:18 GMT 12
Thank you David. I rather suspected along the lines of what you have said but I thought if I "put it out there" then it may attract comment and what you have said is very interesting, not only for me but possibly for anyone else who reads this thread. That's what the forum's purpose is about - sharing information.
|
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Dec 2, 2020 11:27:16 GMT 12
No hard facts, but so far as I know, TEAL never attempted to purchase another aircraft (DC-6) in all the time they operated the type (1954 - 61), and if they had they might have opted to replace the existing DC-6s with the much better -6Bs with later engines and greater passenger and fuel capacity, as well as a much better electrical system. It was frequently pointed out that the three (TEAL/RNZAF etc) DC-6s went right through their lives with the original type engines (CA-15 version of the R-2800) installed rather than upgrade them. Although originally fitted with Curtiss Electric propellers, these were exchanged for HS Hydromatics at a fairly early stage with BCPA. As the operations of international airlines in the 1950s throughout most of the world were very tightly controlled, with sovereign governments having a lot of say in such things, the entrepreneurial spirit "to blaze new routes" was somewhat stifled, particularly among British Commonwealth airlines, and especially government-controlled ones. Things tended to move fairly slowly and in a supposedly orderly manner, although there would always be agitators striving to get new ideas accepted. The books by Ian Driscoll have a bit to say on this subject, and I am fairly certain that other authors did too. Remember that TEAL got the DC-6s as part of the breakup of BCPA, taking the hardware whilst the other partners got cash and other stuff, such as airline routes. TEAL probably thought it had got the best deal, but soon realized that the DC-6s (only 5/6 years old) were in fact obsolete, although probably better than anything being produced in the UK at that time (with exception of the Comet, but that suffered several spectacular failures in 1954, and the Britannia also had major problems to overcome). Nevertheless TEAL stuck with the DC-6s, along with the one remaining Solent until 1960/61 when they went to the RNZAF. But this was only after they had to put them back into service for a period after the replacement Electras also had very major structural problems which could not be denied, and had to have major modifications before they could enter service. I just happen to find airline histories very interesting! David D Any idea that TEAL wanted to spread their wings in the 1950's or have more suitable aircraft would have been ring fenced by the Australian Government? We only got the Electra's because it was included in a deal with Ansett, Qantas and TAA. |
|
|
|
Post by chinapilot on Dec 7, 2020 22:03:58 GMT 12
The fatal accident wasn’t the first time BCPA had a brush with San Francisco.
In 1947 a DC-4 operating the Oakland - Vancouver sector hit trees during the climb.
The turn onto the Oakland Range Station to intercept the northwest leg continued to the right towards high terrain.
Both pilots saw the trees through the clouds and simultaneously ‘pulled back’ - trees grazed the right wing and left stabiliser and the aircraft returned to Oakland.
|
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on Dec 13, 2020 8:14:39 GMT 12
While looking for something else in an AHSNZ Journal I found the following story on page 130 in the July 1961 issue. Following is the scanned verbatim story.
"The following article has been extracted in its entirety and without comment from the May 1961 issue of RNZAF NEWS, published by the Public Relations Office, RNZAF, Wellington.
"We learned recently that the RNZAF's 3 DC-6s had been allocated the identification numbers NZ3631, NZ3632 & NZ3633. It led us to enquire how these numbers were arrived at. Were they, as we suspected, pulled from a hat? Certainly not. They were chosen, we were forcibly told, by means of scientific selection. We invited our informant to elucidate. Here is his story.
"Normally it is the prerogative of the Equipment Branch to allot aircraft serial numbers. In the case of the DC-6s, however, the Operations Branch decided they would like some say in the matter. Following several exchanges between the two factions, in which many alternatives (including the continuation of the Hastings series for the DC-6s against the start of a new series) were discussed without agreement, a compromise was reached. The Equipment Branch was to select the first two numbers, or in other words the series in which the DC-6s were to be placed, while the Operations Branch was to choose the final two identification numbers. Diplomacy had prevailed.
Without any delay the serial numbers NZ36 were chosen as a logical succession to the NZ35 series of the Dakotas. The ball was now in the Operations court where an officer was also engaged on the task of devising a colour scheme and markings of the aircraft. This entailed showing the identification numbers of the aircraft on the tailplane (sic). Armed with a stencil kit, used by his daughter at school, he discovered that the only two numbers in the outfit that were correctly sized for his drawing of the aircraft were the figures "2" and "3". So, onto the drawing they went, only the other way round - "32". The colour scheme and numbers were approved.
All that remained to be decided was whether the registration should begin with NZ3631 or NZ3632. All that mattered was that one of the planes should have the number NZ3632. As is now known, the series was started with NZ3631. And everyone was happy.
“The selection of these numbers will also help to overcome a difficulty experienced in the past whereby all aircraft types had had identification numbers (the last two in the four-figure series) beginning at “01" At Whenuapai, for example, the reference ”01" could either mean a Hastings or a Bristol Freighter (sic). With the DC-6s this confusion will not arise.
"So now we understand the term "scientific selection".
|
|
