If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

CONVAIR CV-240 Convairliner

From SKYbrary Wiki

CVLP
Aircraft
Name CV-240 Convairliner
Manufacturer CONVAIR
Body Narrow
Wing Fixed Wing
Position Low wing
Tail Regular tail, mid set
Type code L2P
Engine Piston
Engine count Multi
Position (Front) Wing leading mounted
Landing gear Tricycle retractable
Mass group UNK


Manufacturered as:

CONVAIR VT-29
CONVAIR ET-29
CONVAIR HC-131
CONVAIR Metropolitan
CONVAIR VC-131G
CONVAIR T-29
CONVAIR Samaritan
CONVAIR C-131 Samaritan
CONVAIR Convairliner
CONVAIR CV-240 Convairliner
CONVAIR CV-340 Convairliner
CONVAIR CV-440 Metropolitan
CONVAIR C-131


CONVAIR CV-240 Convairliner

CONVAIR CV-240 Convairliner CONVAIR CV-240 Convairliner 3D

Description

The Convair CV-240 is an American airliner produced by Convair from 1947 to 1954, initially as a possible replacement of the ubiquitous Douglas DC-3. Featuring a more modern design with cabin pressurization, the 240 series was able to make some inroads as a commercial airliner and also had a long development cycle which resulted in a number of civil and military variants. Although reduced in numbers through attrition, the "Convairliners" in various forms continue to fly into the 21st century.

Technical Data

Wing span 32.1 m105.315 ft
Length 24.8 m81.365 ft
Height 8.5 m27.887 ft
Powerplant 2 x Pratt & Whitney R-2800-CA3 Double Wasp / CA15 / CA18 / CB3 or CB16 18-cyl air-cooled radial engines, 1,800 kW each.
Engine model Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving CVLP

  • CVLP, vicinity San Juan Puerto Rico, 2012 (On 15 March 2012 the right hand engine exhaust of a Convair 440 freighter caught fire soon after take off and the fire was not contained within the exhaust duct or the zone covered by the fire protection system. After shutting this engine down, the subsequent Investigation concluded that the crew had lost control at low airspeed during an attempted turn back due to either an aerodynamic stall or a loss of directional control. It also found that the Operator involved was in serial violation of many regulatory requirements and that FAA oversight of the operation had been wholly ineffective.)