Radials per se aren't an issue, though they do have lots of moving parts. Later, high power, multi-row setups have manageable cooling and packaging problems. It is the end-stage, turbo-compound radials, that give nightmares, whether packaged onto DC-7, Constellation, Neptune, etc., that creates a full-employment opportunity for those AMTs experienced in their care and feeding. In the move away from propellors, even the Electra disappeared quickly, and it was turbine powered. Eastern placed full page ads, remarking on the final Electra extra sections on the Shuttles (replaced by DC-9s). Passenger preference (voting with their wallets) forced the change, not maintenance issues. Very similar to the switch from pistons to turboprops to small jets in the regional airline business; "propellor avoidance". Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. - Bob Mann P.S. Reverting to the "beer can" thread, though I doubt there's much aluminum in the design, there is a debate going on between some in Congress who don't like the idea and staff at the National Air and Space Museum who are adamant on maintaining the "Bud Light" livery on the late Leo Loudenslager's Stephens/Akro Laser 200 acrobatic aircraft, now on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center museum space. See: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/loudenslager_laser.htm -- R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. >> Airline Industry Analysis Port Washington, NY 11050 >> tel 516-944-0900, fax -7280 mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxx >> URL http://www.RWMann.com/ This e-mail is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the above sender immediately then delete the original e-mail. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Evan McElravy wrote: > That may be so, Alireza, but radial engines are just about the biggest > maintenance nightmare in the history of internal combustion. There's a > reason all those Constellations disappeared so fast when jets came on the > scene, and a reason prop powered airliners are all turboprops now, and its > not just passenger opinion. > > Evan McElravy > > on 11/26/03 2:48 AM, Alireza Alivandivafa at DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/25/2003 3:39:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > > > > << The operating costs are not necessarily higher. While an older aircraft > > may consume more fuel, it also depreciated so the capital costs are less. Why > > do you think so many older aircraft are converted to freighters? >> > > > > Also, old piston craft use much less gas than jets. If you are using them > > for short flights and tours, that wont go much above FL200, they are fine for > > economy