Surely, you cannot be serious with that comment?!

These were all built in 1939 and are used regularly in some high performance mountain environment. It's most impressive that they survived for so long and that speaks both for the Swiss and their art of maintaining and flying them. However these are machines that get used and grow old after some time. To put a very technocrat view on it you could find more modern planes with some character for daily flight duties. There must be a reason why the Swiss Air Force had semi retired them before. Even with all repairs and new parts old planes never become young again.
My point is if you want workhorses think about something newer. This goes for all oldtimer aircraft that are used beyond the odd display flight here and there like all with paying passengers.

Several prominent structural failure events years back prompted the FAA and other authorities to initiate "aging aircraft" programs. When I worked for deHavilland Canada, in the Twin Otter program, I attended several FAA presentations on this. Happily, at the time the Twin Otter fell just below their radar, and was already covered by fairly rigorous life limitations on some airframe parts. Similarly, now that I work on the Basler DC-3's, I know how much goes into their rebuild, and ongoing maintenance - it's a lot! No manufacturer of an aircraft more than a half century ago envisioned the aircraft still being in service in this era, nor did they enact a continuing airworthiness program to support such operations. Further to that, aircraft manufactured for military purposes in the WW2 years were definitely not made with decades longevity in mind! It's not too much work to assure the airworthiness of a 1940's Piper Cub or Tiger Moth, but a larger multi engined aircraft is many times more effort. It nice and romantic to think of taking a flight in these very old aircraft, though the cost to assure airworthiness of the aging aircraft makes for pretty high ticket prices!

Right at the Dübendorf base of Ju Air they built some new Junkers F 13 recently (single engine, four to five passengers). Maybe they could build new Junkers 52s as well given that the Ju 52 is considered to be sort of a flying national heritage in Switzerland? You might collect enough money to build them new for daily business and retire the old ones to museums or rare display flights?

I have just read the report and as far as I can see the final part lists a number of restrictions and obligations for Ju Air to comply with in respect of the other two aircraft but can't see a mention of flying permit being withdrawn. I may be wrong however as did it rather quickly but being German speaker I am pretty sure of what I read.
Happy to help with any translation but only short parts as I don't have time to do whole report.

I 've watched the video over and over.
Looks like they had some altitude in the dive.

Hard to believe they stalled it.....

Really? Airplanes perform better the higher you climb?

You've never actually flown one, have you?

I agree what you mean A Squared - but

"perform" better is why cruise is well above sea level.

I am reading some very short-sighted posts about flying vintage aircraft. There is a simple reality that the vintage airframes and engines need to be maintained to a high standard. Unfortunately, that standard is not always reached and so, incidents occur and regulation catches up. Therefore, the costs increase. Sometimes, particularly bad and sad incidents will reveal past shortcomings and precipitate greater changes. If this accident does force further changes, the cost/price equation of operating the aircraft will be effected and, it will be up to the wishes of anyone who wants to operate or fly in these aircraft if that price is worth paying. I do not see any reason for banning these vintage aircraft, although certain states might decline to licence them if they wished to do so.
It is worth remembering that even the latest and most modern aircraft do still have accidents.
I look forward to seeing vintage aircraft flying in our skies forever, and I would certainly fly or be a passenger in any properly maintained and operated vintage aircraft, as I have done! :ok:

OAP

Isn't it actually far sighted to think about the typical problems and issues that will come up over and over again regardless of money invested and repairs done? For regular duty one needs reliable and safe aircraft. If you have exchanged all those parts one day it's not your grandpa's plane anymore one way or the other. So why not build a new one for daily use? I admit not 100 percent authentic but at least reliable.
Those original birds approach 100 years of age and were never meant to be flown forever.
I'm writing this because I want to see historical aircraft fly. So let's recreate them.

Read the entire quote. Your engine does not make more power, you wings do not make more lift and your prop does not make more thrust. Yeah, as air density decreases you get a TAS gain, but only up to critical altitude or WOT. Pretty much everything else that could be considered a measure of performance decreases with altitude.

What would be the economics of building a new fleet of C47/DC3s from scratch for GA purposes, including nostalgia displays and enthusiasts' flights? Presumably the blueprints are still available. Or would the cost of manufacturing new recip engines be too much a problem?

A few years ago in the UK a brand new 'Peppercorn' A1 steam loco was built from the original drawings (at a cost of £3m it has to be said).

This is why I had mentioned the Basler for starters. Pret-a-porter - and running on kerosene.

Who is going to go for a "Nostalgia Flight" in a Basler turbo? Not to say it's not a good airplane, but it lacks most of what attracts people to novelty nostalgia flights. People want to fly in a DC-3 to hear the sound of radials, to see the start-up with all the smoke, all that "the way flying used to be" stuff. Other than the fact that the floor slopes when you're on the ground, you might as well be in a Dash-8 as a Basler.

It would work for scenic mountain flights and it is both quiet and powerful. Just an idea. Certainly cheaper to own than some new built Ju 52.
You could still offer old school sounds via cabin speakers or onboard WLAN if you feel like it.

"What would be the economics of building a new fleet of C47/DC3s from scratch for GA purposes, including nostalgia displays and enthusiasts' flights? Presumably the blueprints are still available. Or would the cost of manufacturing new recip engines be too much a problem?"

THE problem is not rebuilding a DC-3 from scratch - it's the cost of certification - you wouldn't be able to use a 1935 Certificate - it would have to be done to 2019 standards I believe if you want to carry passengers. You might get an Experimental Certificate in the USA but that doesn't allow you to ply for hire.........

Hi KK!
I think that you are confusing the situation. If you really want the original machine from the past, you have to look at the inert, static, dead airframes in museums, and even 99% of them are rebuilds! However, if you wish to experience the authentic original experience of the real flying machine, you can see or fly in them at many locations in the world. The critical factors are: that the airframe is built as original and that the engine is as original. Generally, the famous and respected vintage types have to conform to a fairly limited spectrum of airframe/engine standards. Anything less becomes absurd, like the rotary engined originals with radials or, god save us, flat-fours! :rolleyes:
Have you seen an exact Bleriot reproduction with a real rotary engine engine fly? The pilot has to be brave! The aircraft has the same limited ability as the original, because it is, the same as the original! Likewise the engine, cantankerous, noisy but, low powered and unreliable. To see such a thing at close hand, to hold it down for the engine check, to fly such a beast! :D

OAP

Thanks, but I think I'm not confusing anything. I have seen the Edwardians fly and flown onboard Ju 52s as a passenger. I'm talking about passenger flights and I just wonder about better options to avoid "wasting" very limited historic treasure airframes during daily duty. They will not fly forever so it would be good to think about now how to possibly delay this moment and keep some of the old flavor for younger generations.
Some years on and anything non-drone will be a sight by itself.

Hi KK!
However, just proposing flying turbine re-engined DC3's etc is no solution. Apart from the small proportion of genuinely dangerous airframe types (virtually all covered these days), there is NO reason to limit the operation of any type of aircraft or engine, unless you decree that you need a specific safety criteria that they fail to achieve. Shortly after that, you will need to ban most forms of Human enjoyment! :}

OAP

I am not proposing to ban anything. I want to prevent old aircraft from being banned or priced out by insurance rates and regulations. I want more of them flying not less.
Why not even build new ones if you find a sponsor like maybe Rimowa, Red Bull, Breitling, Paul Allen's Foundation or similar?