3 ms·
In terms of sheer aesthetic appeal, the DC-3/C-47 is at the top of my "most beautiful airplanes ever" list. It's just such an elegant, clean design; like the Pl
by smacktoward 7y ago
In terms of sheer aesthetic appeal, the DC-3/C-47 is at the top of my "most beautiful airplanes ever" list. It's just such an elegant, clean design; like the Platonic ideal of an aircraft.
On the other hand, my father had some occasion to spend time traveling various places in C-47s during his time with the Air Force, and he describes it as a bone-shaking experience. So maybe beauty isn't everything it's cracked up to be :-D
- xvf22 7y agoIt has a long life ahead of it especially with the turboprop conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_BT-67 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_BT-67
- smacktoward 7y agoI actually saw a turboprop DC-3 on the taxiway at Dulles Airport a few years back, while I was waiting around to catch a flight in a much more boring plane. It looked brand new, all gleaming metal and fresh paint. A beautiful sight!
- xvf22 7y agoIt's a workhorse and as much as I miss the thunder of the radial engines it's nice to see them get a new life. I doubt the C-54 will get the same treatment but that would be impressive.
- briandear 7y agoI saw one for sale on Controller recently that was in spotless condition done up in Pan Am colors for barely under a million. Though the maintenance costs on that beast and hourly operating costs would eat you alive. https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/22085883/1945-douglas-dc-3 https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/220858...
- jdsully 7y agoWhy the turbo prop conversion? It looks like it gets worse fuel economy with that. Is the higher power really worth the extra fuel?
- AshleyGrant 7y agoA turboprop engine is going to be far more reliable than any reciprocating engine.
- briandear 7y agoAlso it runs on Jet-A which is cheaper and more readily available worldwide.
- sokoloff 7y agoIn addition to the reliability mentioned, the surplus power is important for runway takeoff performance and safety (carrying more weight off a given length runway and, in the event of a single engine failure, you want the plane to be able to climb away on one and large power surplus at low altitude is the answer). Turbines also have much more predictable service schedules, with fewer unplanned maintenance events. Most turboprops also offer beta and reverse, which aids in stopping the airplane, contributing to both landing and rejected takeoff safety improvements. Lastly, turbines burn Jet-A, which contains no tetraethyl lead, unlike 100LL avgas. Jet-A is typically more plentiful and cheaper per Joule as well, offsetting some of the fuel economy in gallons penalty. (The fuel economy in dollars is less unfavorable.) There's a reasonable argument to be made that if the practical turbine were invented first, we might not have piston-powered aircraft.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoWhile safety and emissions are nice side benefits I doubt the owners care much about that in this context. They almost certainly did it because consumables and spare parts for the wasp are drying up and for a flying aircraft you kind of need those things.
- cyberferret 7y ago
- acmdas 7y agoMy first flight was in a DC-3, 1953, age 4. Philly to Cleveland, crossing the Appalachians at the low cruising altitude that they made was maybe not bone-crushing, but it was bumpy. The only time I ever got to use the vomit bag.
- cafard 7y agoAnd here I was about to claim seniority. Mine was probably 1956 or 1957, Buffalo to Washington. I would have been at most 2, so I have no recollection.