RAAF Dakotas operated with full anti-icing equipment which included full length rubber de-icer boots on the length of the wings, stabiliser and fin.
Australian civilian registered DC3 passenger and freight aircraft had this equipment removed presumably to increase payload. The Regulator of the day (presumably Post War) must have approved this on an airworthiness basis? That said, both military and civil DC3's had propeller de-icing and windscreen de-icing fitted.
Despite the absence of airframe icing protection TAA, Qantas and Ansett and all the other VH registered DC3's often found themselves iced up; particularly during winter on flights to Tasmania. This scribe experienced being iced up numerous times when flying DC3 freight to Tasmania.
But you can bet your bottom dollar DCA would have added the caveat "Flight in icing condition prohibited" when approving the removal of airframe anti-icing equipment on VH registered DC3's but with tongue in cheek knowing it would be impossible to completely avoid icing in cloud.
I wondered about the politics involved when someone high up in the flight operations section of DCA deemed it safe for these aircraft to fly in icing conditions without adequate de-icing equipment.
Who decided it was safe to operate VH-registered DC3 passenger and cargo DC3's without airframe de-icing equipment installed, yet on the other hand mandated prop and windscreen de-icing on these aircraft?.
Where was the logic?