3 ms·

Debates about what counts as "modern" are always subjective, but the DC-3's longevity owes a lot more to its indestructibility, its convertibility to non-airlin

Debates about what counts as "modern" are always subjective, but the DC-3's longevity owes a lot more to its indestructibility, its convertibility to non-airliner uses, and and relative lack of interest on the part of modern airframers in newer small, slow models optimised for bouncy landings than it having much in common with what most people think of as a "modern" airliner. Similarly, the lack of first generation jets flying today has a lot more to do with metal fatigue and the maintenance requirements that resulted than the notion that small slow planes with less to go wrong with them are a more modern design. Suspect there are more retro rotary phones in service than first generation iPhones today for similar reason, but I'm not sure that weakens the iPhone's claim to be the first modern mobile phone.

ghaff 4y ago
Basically both Boeing and Douglas (and others) had various dual-prop planes that could be used for passenger service in the early 30s timeframe--of which the DC-3 is the best-known (and came a couple years after the plane in the article). But were these modern airliners and which was the first in that class. <shrug>
- notahacker 4y ago
  Plus of course a few takes on all metal monoplanes with multiple engines and multiple rows of passenger seats in the 1920s, if those are the criteria for modernity... Think there's a decent case for the Vickers Viscount in the early 1950s too, as the first airliner with a modern turboprop engine type, with speed and range and passenger experience (big pressurised cabin) comparable to small airliners still being built, unlike the 247 or DC-3.
sofixa 4y ago
> Similarly, the lack of first generation jets flying today has a lot more to do with metal fatigue and the maintenance requirements Don't forget engine efficiency. Early jets engines were extremely fuel hungry, and even today in the span of a decade engine efficiency has drastically improved.
- notahacker 4y ago
  True, consistent fuel efficiency is a huge part of the limited design life of modern aircraft, and why it makes sense for airliners to pay for brand new aircraft to replace perfectly adequate 10 year old aircraft on competitive routes. And the fuel economy of the Comet and 707 was awful. But to my knowledge the DC-3 fuel economy doesn't compare favourably on a passenger-km or tonne km basis with later generation jet aircraft that have been retired Difference is you can keep an ancient DC-3 around for occasional use with relatively basic maintenance, whereas a second generation jet or turboprop comes with service and life-limited parts requirements to make it considered airworthy that would cost more than the aircraft is worth...

ghaff 4y ago

Basically both Boeing and Douglas (and others) had various dual-prop planes that could be used for passenger service in the early 30s timeframe--of which the DC-3 is the best-known (and came a couple years after the plane in the article). But were these modern airliners and which was the first in that class. <shrug>

notahacker 4y ago
Plus of course a few takes on all metal monoplanes with multiple engines and multiple rows of passenger seats in the 1920s, if those are the criteria for modernity... Think there's a decent case for the Vickers Viscount in the early 1950s too, as the first airliner with a modern turboprop engine type, with speed and range and passenger experience (big pressurised cabin) comparable to small airliners still being built, unlike the 247 or DC-3.

sofixa 4y ago

> Similarly, the lack of first generation jets flying today has a lot more to do with metal fatigue and the maintenance requirements Don't forget engine efficiency. Early jets engines were extremely fuel hungry, and even today in the span of a decade engine efficiency has drastically improved.

notahacker 4y ago
True, consistent fuel efficiency is a huge part of the limited design life of modern aircraft, and why it makes sense for airliners to pay for brand new aircraft to replace perfectly adequate 10 year old aircraft on competitive routes. And the fuel economy of the Comet and 707 was awful. But to my knowledge the DC-3 fuel economy doesn't compare favourably on a passenger-km or tonne km basis with later generation jet aircraft that have been retired Difference is you can keep an ancient DC-3 around for occasional use with relatively basic maintenance, whereas a second generation jet or turboprop comes with service and life-limited parts requirements to make it considered airworthy that would cost more than the aircraft is worth...