Lidia. A DC3 story.

[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-to...leage-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/upl...ODUCT-CARD.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_...ney_Canada_PT6

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

[huff3r]

Not the chopper, the Beechcraft Blackhawk
http://blackhawk.aero/wp-content/upl...ODUCT-CARD.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_...ney_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.