It was off the runway by the 2000 foot marker and was super quiet.
I want one
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).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!
That's a sentence worthy of Cormac McCarthy or the likes. Beautiful.Here in ATL occasionally at night you can hear one singing its way through the black sky.
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.That's a sentence worthy of Cormac McCarthy or the likes. Beautiful.
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.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.
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.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.
Speed is not everything.Blah. They are still slow.
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.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'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).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:
Perhaps you were thinking of the JB-17G?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!
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.
Nice try but the recips were NEVER removed. THE authority, Baugher, writesPerhaps you were thinking of the JB-17G?
From another site, this airframe is/was under restoration by Tom Reilly.. with the recips.. not the big turbopropIn 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.
Innnteresting ... I had a few questions about how they got around the "minor" structural change to the wing; they didn't!Nice try but the recips were NEVER removed.
Photoshop... and not that good if we can pick it out that easily.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.
Well, yes.. there were a number of earlier DC-3 conversions such as here...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.