Lidia. A DC3 story.

[george formby]

One helluva break down call.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9ruArctYYbM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[oldrider]

One helluva break down call.

Really good watch skipped along it - will come back and watch it fully later - a good post George thank you! :corn:

[TheDemonLord]

Almost as good as the Duct Tape plane:

http://gizmodo.com/5447738/bear-attacks-plane-pilot-fixes-plane-with-duct-tape-pilot-flies-duct-taped-plane-home

Those Alaskan/Canadian Pilots have Balls of steel.

[george formby]

Those Alaskan/Canadian Pilots have Balls of steel.


Yup, I remember reading about them loading pine tree branches into their planes when heading for remote landings. Quite often they would be flying on gauges in white out conditions and would throw the branches out of the plane to give them a point of reference for landing.:eek5::sweatdrop

[Bass]

Really enjoyed that - good story.

Not sure how I feel about a DC 3 on turbines. It seems the airframe can go on for ever but the radials don't.
I know it makes good (maybe great) engineering sense but it just feels wrong and that's from someone who has had to pay to keep Russian radials running.

[Woodman]

That shits inspirational........

[oldrider]

People working together for a common objective against the odds pooling skills and technical knowledge is a natural phenomenon and achieves utopian dreams!

Wonderful story!

On the other hand,

"WAR" is not natural uses up multiples of resources and wastes it for nothing but death and destruction and the benefit of a few - we should just stop doing it! :sick:

[Woodman]

People working together for a common objective against the odds pooling skills and technical knowledge is a natural phenomenon and achieves utopian dreams!

Wonderful story!

On the other hand,

"WAR" is not natural uses up multiples of resources and wastes it for nothing but death and destruction and the benefit of a few - we should just stop doing it! :sick:

FFS what the fuck? Stop bringing shit down. Its a cool story so just run with it ok. sheeesh.

[oldrider]

FFS what the fuck? Stop bringing shit down. Its a cool story so just run with it ok. sheeesh.

What the fuck are you on about do you think you are the only cunt that belongs on this earth my reference was all about the thread topic ffs!

Read the fucking post again you queer cunt! :facepalm:

[husaberg]

Really enjoyed that - good story.

Not sure how I feel about a DC 3 on turbines. It seems the airframe can go on for ever but the radials don't.
I know it makes good (maybe great) engineering sense but it just feels wrong and that's from someone who has had to pay to keep Russian radials running.

http://www.baslerturbo.com/bt-67.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6
They stretch them out as well.
Keeps the old girl flying, so all good to me.
better ending than the B29 story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4YBwjQTds
I remember going to this at the movies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Ygw3V48kvao
EXC producer Michael Fay.......lol

[Woodman]

What the fuck are you on about do you think you are the only cunt that belongs on this earth my reference was all about the thread topic ffs!

Read the fucking post again you queer cunt! :facepalm:


Seriously? ooookay then whatevs.

[Kickaha]

It seems the airframe can go on for ever but the radials don't..
Apparently because they're not pressurized according to the guys at the Aviation museum

[oldrider]

FFS what the fuck? Stop bringing shit down. Its a cool story so just run with it ok. sheeesh.

Hmmm - the way I reacted to your post I don't think I can make that claim about war being unnatural any more! :oi-grr:

It was the contrast between the two situations that I was trying to emphasize - I.E. the positive and the negatives of human cooperation!

As I said I really enjoyed that video!

[nudemetalz]

Great story, thanks for sharing :)

[pete376403]

Apparently because they're not pressurized according to the guys at the Aviation museum

Somewhere I read the DC3 has a "structure" that anchors the wings and other bits and which takes all the stresses. As long as this part is replaced at regular intervals the rest of the airframe is good for just about forever. Anyone care to elaborate / shoot down?

[Bass]

They stretch them out as well.
Keeps the old girl flying, so all good to me.
better ending than the B29 story
l

Thanks for that. The turbines are much lighter than the radials that they replace and so I wondered how they dealt with the C of G shift. Obviously the turbines are mounted further forward but that's not enough. Lengthening the forward fuselage would do it alright and give all the other advantages mentioned.

Some time ago, I read a book on salvaging veteran aircraft and the story of that B 29 was included. According to the book, they needed the APU running for the salvage work and so jury rigged a fuel supply for it, i.e. a tin and a bit of wire. Under the pressure to complete before the weather trapped them for another year, they neglected to sort it out properly before attempting to fly with the tragic result. Better on the ground than in the air I guess.

[Bass]

Apparently because they're not pressurized according to the guys at the Aviation museum

There is no doubt that anyone working at an aviation museum will know more about it than I do and yes, I have heard about pressurization before. A bit of basic arithmatic gives some appreciation of the stress cycling involved and it's not small.
However, there are a surprising number of aircraft out there whose life is limited by e.g. the fatigue life of major components which are not related to pressurization and can make them uneconomic to overhaul. Many of them are pretty modern too. Some Cessnas need major wing work after a specific time or are written off and I have been told (reliably??????) that the Strikemaster was limited by the life of the main spar.
So what I was wondering is why an 80 year old design doesn't seem to suffer from these issues or what it is that I don't know.

The engines can be kept going incidentally, but it's a cost thing. One of the local restoration guys told me a couple of years back that overhauls on e.g. Packard Merlins are pretty straightforward to get done cos there's so many of them around but it's about $US 250,000. That's one reason that operating a Mustang costs about $2,000 /hour.

[husaberg]

There is no doubt that anyone working at an aviation museum will know more about it than I do and yes, I have heard about pressurization before. A bit of basic arithmatic gives some appreciation of the stress cycling involved and it's not small.
However, there are a surprising number of aircraft out there whose life is limited by e.g. the fatigue life of major components which are not related to pressurization and can make them uneconomic to overhaul. Many of them are pretty modern too. Some Cessnas need major wing work after a specific time or are written off and I have been told (reliably??????) that the Strikemaster was limited by the life of the main spar.
So what I was wondering is why an 80 year old design doesn't seem to suffer from these issues or what it is that I don't know.

The engines can be kept going incidentally, but it's a cost thing. One of the local restoration guys told me a couple of years back that overhauls on e.g. Packard Merlins are pretty straightforward to get done cos there's so many of them around but it's about $US 250,000. That's one reason that operating a Mustang costs about $2,000 /hour.

The article I read but the price on overhauling the radials at about $48000 US ea However it also said the move to unleaded will likely kill them off.
No such issues with the turbines as the service interval is much longer.
From memory it said something like they are the most economical plane for cargo up to 3-5 tons and 500 miles.
There is no shortage of parts either for the old girls either.
It mentioned there was about 100 still used in commercial freight operations and about 200 in tourist flights etc.
I think the old bird continues to fly on as it just about a perfect design and like most aircraft in similar roles it was overbuilt for what it was. (The B52 is another and that was pressurised)
Most pilots recall dc3/c47s as being a great plane to fly.


Thanks for that. The turbines are much lighter than the radials that they replace and so I wondered how they dealt with the C of G shift. Obviously the turbines are mounted further forward but that's not enough. Lengthening the forward fuselage would do it alright and give all the other advantages mentioned.

Some time ago, I read a book on salvaging veteran aircraft and the story of that B 29 was included. According to the book, they needed the APU running for the salvage work and so jury rigged a fuel supply for it, i.e. a tin and a bit of wire. Under the pressure to complete before the weather trapped them for another year, they neglected to sort it out properly before attempting to fly with the tragic result. Better on the ground than in the air I guess.
They are also a bit more thirsty hence the larger tanks.
the turbine they use as a repower is basically the same engine as a Blackhawk and many other aircraft.




For an operator like Miami Valley Aviation, the basic math is inescapable. Good DC-3s with mid-time engines can be had for around $150,000, the same price as a new Cessna Skyhawk four-seat, single-engine trainer. The "-3s" have direct operating costs a little less than those incurred by a B200 King Air twin turboprop: about $600 to $700 an hour. Hanging rebuilt engines on a DC-3 costs, at $35,000 to $45,000 a side, about the same as re-engining a twin-piston, six-seat Beech Baron. And each of these airplanes has only a fraction of the carrying capacity of the DC-3.
well worth a read of all the pages
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/high-mileage-1053125/

[huff3r]

the turbine they use as a repower is basically the same engine as a Blackhawk and many other aircraft.



Or somewhat closer to home, the Beech 1900s AirNZ recently retired.

Blackhawk uses a GE T700, the beech 1900s and Lidia use the P&W PT6, along with damn near every light - medium turbo-prop.

[husaberg]

Or somewhat closer to home, the Beech 1900s AirNZ recently retired.

Blackhawk uses a GE T700, the beech 1900s and Lidia use the P&W PT6, along with damn near every light - medium turbo-prop.
Not the chopper, the Beechcraft Blackhawk
http://blackhawk.aero/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/XP135A-KING-AIR-90-SERIES-PRODUCT-CARD.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6

I didn't know the NZ pencils had them though.

[huff3r]

Not the chopper, the Beechcraft Blackhawk
http://blackhawk.aero/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/XP135A-KING-AIR-90-SERIES-PRODUCT-CARD.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6

I didn't know the NZ pencils had them though.

Oh the KingAir, never heard any variant referred to as a blackhawk before haha, learn something new everyday.

Same engine is also in the RNZAFs B200 KingAirs and the new T6 Texan II trainers.

[husaberg]

Oh the KingAir, never heard any variant referred to as a blackhawk before haha, learn something new everyday.

Same engine is also in the RNZAFs B200 KingAirs and the new T6 Texan II trainers.

I think its just the upgrade package that's called Blackhawk.
I was looking up a small turbo jet the other day, I couldn't believe just how many different applications it was used in.