Note that ancient and operated in a remote part of the world (well, remote to me, anyway!) does not necessarily mean poorly maintained. One (dubious) perk of m

Note that ancient and operated in a remote part of the world (well, remote to me, anyway!) does not necessarily mean poorly maintained. One (dubious) perk of my job is that I get to fly on all sorts of dilapidated airlines all over the world. I have never flown on a DC-3, but have tried its DC-4 and DC-6 siblings on a couple of occasions. They do have a couple of things going for them: a) Over-engineered to extremes; rather than calculating how much weight could be shed without making a part too fragile, it seems they did the opposite - just how sturdy can we make this and still be able to take off? This approach doesn't get them any fuel economy medals, but as for longevity? Oh-la-la. b) Very (VERY) simple to work on; simple access to just about anything that matters, very little by way of fancy solutions requiring deep specialist knowledge. As long as you maintain oil pressure, the engines will run. Also, the economics kicks in here, too - maintaining an airframe properly is cheaper in the long run than having to replace them occasionally after a total loss. Presumably also better for your reputation and recruiting capability. While chatting with the aircrew of a positively ancient Antonov in the Congo once, I found that a mechanic would come along for the flight. In my naïvety, I asked what he could do in the event of an issue while en route. The first officer shrugged and said 'Not much - but it sure keeps them focussed while working on the plane!' Crude, but effective.