Turbine converted DC3

[bdhill1979]

It was off the runway by the 2000 foot marker and was super quiet.

I want one

 

[WalterSobchak]

Blah. They are still slow.

 

[esa17]

Blah. They are still slow.

Maybe so, but they're damn cool!

 

[coa787]

I've seen those before. They seem cool.

 

[JaceTheAce]

When I flew from San Diego to San Felipe, Mexico in a Commander 114, I got to see this beautiful bird take off right after we landed:

 

[Orange Anchor]

There have been a number of re-engined DC-3s including the updated BT-76 which is being used by some forces in Afghanistan. Fuselage lengthened and strengthened with new engines. Many use PT-6s and come with various props.

But the wing is the wing.. and you can add a bunch of horsepower which brings better t/o and climb perf but only so much increased speed. Still, interesting that some almost 70 yrs later, they are still flying.

 

[mooneyguy]

Maybe so, but they're damn cool!

I beg to differ, A DC-3 with those turbo prop things are sacriligious...Those big radials are the only thing that should be hanging of them!

 

[Orange Anchor]

I beg to differ, A DC-3 with those turbo prop things are sacriligious...Those big radials are the only thing that should be hanging of them!

If you are hauling chickens in the US at night or butts in the day, you're right. But if you are talking about flying at night in the Hindu Kush wearing night vision goggles, gimme the PT-6s. (there was a job open a while back flying re-engined DC-3s and BT-76s in Afghanistan and no, I don't want that limited performance in the mountains).

Here in ATL occasionally at night you can hear one singing its way through the black sky. I got to fly one for a short while when in the USAF. It was a base hack and we were flying low levels in Canada to make sure no farmers had erected some tall towers along the bomber ingress training routes. It is true what they say about a -3 and that is no matter how good you think you've got it sealed, when it rains, you will be wet.

But guess it is just me but given the choice of a -47 or its lesser appreciated sister, the -46, I'll take the -46

 

[pacer7a]

Here in ATL occasionally at night you can hear one singing its way through the black sky.

That's a sentence worthy of Cormac McCarthy or the likes. Beautiful.

I love to seem them. Even a twin Beech is thrilling to see anymore. I once hung around KASG in NW Arkansas where they flew a fleet of three ratty-looking D-18's at night on indiscernible freight missions. I learned to listen for them as they headed southwest, probably for Dallas or thereabouts.

Been pondering would it be fulfilling to head down to mid-Georgia to get some DC-3 time. There's a DC-3 sitting on the ramp in Rome, GA. Control surfaces are in silver, guess someone is working on restoring her.

 

[Foxcow]

I've seen one in MKE.

 

[Orange Anchor]

That's a sentence worthy of Cormac McCarthy or the likes. Beautiful.

Thanks. I will have to search for some of McCarthy's stuff. With Morgan now deceased, the best writer doing life-stuff and real good aviation writing is Budd Davidson.

I love to seem them. Even a twin Beech is thrilling to see anymore. I once hung around KASG in NW Arkansas where they flew a fleet of three ratty-looking D-18's at night on indiscernible freight missions. I learned to listen for them as they headed southwest, probably for Dallas or thereabouts.

Got a few hours in a Beech 18. Odd juxtaposition.. was flying a Lear 23 and at the same time got a few hours in the -18. MARKEDLY different skills required. Anyway, the -18 is a no-nonsense airplane. Was at a small airfield airshow recently and there was a Lockheed Electra. As I walked up and studied the polished machine, this young guy said, "It's not a Beech 18..." I had to laugh. I asked, "Was it always a Model 10 or was it military as a C-36?" He didn't know but he did know it was not an -18.

Been pondering would it be fulfilling to head down to mid-Georgia to get some DC-3 time. There's a DC-3 sitting on the ramp in Rome, GA. Control surfaces are in silver, guess someone is working on restoring her.

I have seen the -3 at RMG. Looks like there is a lot of work yet to be done. I can't remember where it was but we dropped into a small field in southern Tennessee and there was this wild yellow DC-3 being restored.

There was an outfit in Florida that was offering an SIC checkout in the -3. Don't know what they were charging. Friend of mine was flying the Delta -3 and another guy I worked with in training was flying the Piedmont DC-3.

 

[loubetti]

Blah. They are still slow.

Speed is not everything.

Even with fly-by-wire and glass cockpits, even today's aircraft owe much to the DC-3. It says a lot when it is worthwhile to put turbines on what could be 60-70 year old plane when many later model jets have already met their demise out in the desert. I dare say that there will be DC-3s flying after most of the current generation of "RJs" have become beer cans.

Here's some info on it: http://www.baslerturbo.com/bt_67_overview.html

Depending on your mission, it makes a lot of sense.

Pretty impressive for a plane so old.

A great airplane will live forever, and few planes can stake claim to a great place in history as the DC-3 has. Apparently the DC-3 mas more going for it than just speed or lack thereof.

Darn! I can't find a photo of the DC-3 with three engines! I know there was a conversion with a third one in the nose!

 

[Polar742]

I remember seeing my first Basler conversion at OSH some years ago. Kind of odd....but I think the gooney bird will be flying in revenue service somewhere in the world long after I retire..... I just hope you can still open a window in flight.

The CA I just flew with was checked out years ago on a C46. He said it was no DC-3. Said the yoke would turn 180 degrees, so you'd have the yoke inverted in an Xwind, and the seats were not straight forward.

Some great old machines...

 

[WalterSobchak]

Speed is not everything.

Even with fly-by-wire and glass cockpits, even today's aircraft owe much to the DC-3. It says a lot when it is worthwhile to put turbines on what could be 60-70 year old plane when many later model jets have already met their demise out in the desert. I dare say that there will be DC-3s flying after most of the current generation of "RJs" have become beer cans.

Here's some info on it: http://www.baslerturbo.com/bt_67_overview.html

Depending on your mission, it makes a lot of sense.

Pretty impressive for a plane so old.

A great airplane will live forever, and few planes can stake claim to a great place in history as the DC-3 has. Apparently the DC-3 mas more going for it than just speed or lack thereof.

Darn! I can't find a photo of the DC-3 with three engines! I know there was a conversion with a third one in the nose!

I used to work at Basler I don't need the info , but hopefully others do!:rawk: They are slow and don't really have all that impressive load hauling ability. However for the right mission they can be really great.

 

[trafficinsight]

When I flew from San Diego to San Felipe, Mexico in a Commander 114, I got to see this beautiful bird take off right after we landed:

I've seen that exact airplane at Livermore, CA of all places... Very clean... very Un-DC-3-like (i think that's a record for use of hyphens).

Still love it

I'm with Orange though, The C-46 has always been my favorite.

 

[Derg]

Hey, is that a skypointer?

 

[Minuteman]

Darn! I can't find a photo of the DC-3 with three engines! I know there was a conversion with a third one in the nose!

Perhaps you were thinking of the JB-17G?

JB-17G
Civil and USAF test-bed for an added 6000hp P&W XT34 "Turbo-Wasp," Wright XT-35, Wright R-3350, and Allison T-56 POP: 3 [N5111N, 44-85747, 44-85813]. While results were encouraging—the Turbo-Wasp alone produced more power than the combined four wing engines and more economically—the armistice and dawn of the jet age curbed the project.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Perhaps you were thinking of the JB-17G?

Nice try but the recips were NEVER removed. THE authority, Baugher, writes

In 1946, two B-17Gs were modified as flying testbeds for experimental turboprop engines. The Boeing company number Model 299-Z was assigned to these planes. The military equipment was removed, the pilot's cockpit was moved farther back, and the nose was completely modified to accommodate the experimental engine.
The first conversion was of B-17G-110-VE serial number 44-85813. It was turned over to the Wright Aeronautical Company under a bailment contract as EB-17G, the E prefix meaning that the aircraft was exempt from all but the most urgent technical orders issued for the type. The aircraft was fitted with a 5500 hp Wright XT35 Typhoon turboprop in the nose. This engine was more powerful than all four of the standard Wright Cyclone piston engines operating together. However, the Wright Typhoon was ultimately unsuccessful, and did not go into production. The aircraft was later used to test the Wright XJ65 turbojet, the engine being slung below a streamlined nose structure and the intake being covered with a cap for protection during ferrying.
The designation of this plane was changed to JB-17G in October of 1956, the J prefix having been introduced in 1955 to designate aircraft temporarily assigned to test work. In 1957, the plane was sold to Wright, which continued to use it as a five-engined testbed under the civil registration of N6694C. That year, it was used to test the R-3350 turbo-compound engine. The plane was later sold to an air tanker operator, and the missing nose was replaced by a hemispheric cap. N6694C crashed on takeoff in 1980 during a tanker mission and was damaged beyond repair. Its remains were purchased by warbird restorer Tom Reilly of Kissimmee, Florida for use in restorations of other B-17s.
The second conversion was of surplus B-17G-105-VE serial number 44-85734, which was sold to Pratt and Whitney for use in engine testbed work. It was converted at Seattle and was fitted with a dummy nose prior to delivery. It was assigned the civilian registry of NX-5111N. Following delivery to Pratt & Whitney at Hartford, Connecticut, an experimental XT-34 turboprop was fitted in the nose. The XT34 turboprop eventually went into production and ended up powering the Douglas C-133 Cargomaster long-range transport aircraft. A Pratt & Whitney T64 turboprop was installed briefly to test different engine and propeller combinations.
Following the completion of the tests in 1967, NX-5111N was donated to the Connecticut Aeronautical Historic Association based at Bradley International Airport. In 1979, it was heavily damaged in a tornado. In 1987, the damaged hulk was traded to Tom Reilly of Kissimmee, Florida, who plans to restore the aircraft to flying status in its original military configuration.
A third conversion was in the form of B-17G-110-VE serial number 44-85747, which was employed by Allison for use as a five-engine testbed. Unlike the first two, this conversion did not require that the cockpit be moved aft. It was retired prior to the establishment of JB-17 designation.
Other EB-17s included a number of SB-17Gs diverted to the Air Force Missile Test Center at Patrick AFB in Florida beginning in 1952. These planes were equipped with loudspeakers and VHF radios to warn boats and aircraft away from the area prior to missile test shots. They remained on duty at Patrick AFB until 1958. The EB-17 s became JB-17s in 1955, when the E prefix was replaced by the J and N prefix. The E prefix was reassigned to designate aircraft intended for the early-warning role.

From another site, this airframe is/was under restoration by Tom Reilly.. with the recips.. not the big turboprop

 

[Minuteman]

Nice try but the recips were NEVER removed.

Innnteresting ... I had a few questions about how they got around the "minor" structural change to the wing; they didn't!

I wonder if this is a case of an old-school propaganda job or a more-recent photoshopping. I could be convinced the forest pattern is repeated in front of the wings about where the nacelles would be.

Any idea if there was a tri-motor DC-3? The recurrence of a trinity on the plane would be quaint ... add a F/E, make the MTOW 33,333lbs, carry 33 passengers, increase the range by 1/3.

Nah, it looks fine the way it is.

 

[Orange Anchor]

I wonder if this is a case of an old-school propaganda job or a more-recent photoshopping. I could be convinced the forest pattern is repeated in front of the wings about where the nacelles would be.

Photoshop... and not that good if we can pick it out that easily.

Any idea if there was a tri-motor DC-3? The recurrence of a trinity on the plane would be quaint ... add a F/E, make the MTOW 33,333lbs, carry 33 passengers, increase the range by 1/3.

Nah, it looks fine the way it is.

Well, yes.. there were a number of earlier DC-3 conversions such as here...
Here is a page with not only the Dart DC-3 but also the Polar 3 engine DC-3
http://www.air-and-space.com/conroy.htm
http://www.douglasdc3.com/polair/polair.htm

No reason to add an engineer and I don't think Conroy stretched the fuselage.

Conroy went onto to bigger and better (?) things. Remember, Conroy was the one that turned the Guppy

Into the the Pregnant Guppy.

:nana2:

And these were the fore-runners to the stuff now.. Airbus' Beluga and Boeing's Dreamliner freighter.