DC 3 down near Berlin

[Bidalot]

Hi, just did hear this one but no additional details. Has anyone more info ?

[Wartender]

I know they tried to return to the runway shortly after take-off but obviously did not make it.
Another traffic in the area reported them down somewhere near the threshold 07 and the construction site of BBI.
The airport was closed for about 15-20 minutes and media reports 4-7 injured passengers but nothing severe.

click (http://rbb-online.de/nachrichten/vermischtes/2010_06/rosinenbomber_bei.html)

[N7242G]

Associated Press:

BERLIN — A spokesman for Berlin's Schoenefeld airport says a DC3 plane carrying 25 tourists has made an emergency landing near the airport and seven passengers were slightly injured.
Spokesman Ralf Kunkel said in a statement Saturday that it was not clear why the plane — a so called "raisin bomber" that takes tourists on tours commemorating the post-World War II Berlin Airlift — had to make the emergency landing right after takeoff Saturday afternoon.
Kunkel said all 25 passengers and three crew members left the plane under their own power. Schoenefeld airport was closed for 15 minutes but has reopened.

[BEagle]

More here (in German) including a photo: Berliner Kurier - Rosinenbomber notgelandet: Verletzte (http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-kurier/berlin/rosinenbomber_bei_schoenefeld_notgelandet_-_verletzte/299946.php)

[fantom]

Raisin Bombers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisin_Bombers)

[RegDep]

Berlin Airlift, you know.
Plane was three years younger than I. Saw it often flying around. Thought I should take the trip some day.... Will be missed if they are not able to put it together.

[LN-KGL]

Photos from the site shows a very damaged Rosinenbomber. Large parts of the right wing was ripped off after a crash with a fence post close to a crash gate.

http://www.bz-berlin.de/multimedia/archive/00238/rosinenbomber-notla_2386916.jpg

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/schoene3/1863996.jpg
Right wing

[planecrazi]

Good 'ol DC-3. Strong as ever and I am sure the pax/crew were lucky to be in a DC 3 and not some plastic at 210kts clean into that field! Just unfortunate the numbers of DC-3's are not increasing.

Good job to the crew:ok:

[John Farley]

Looks a bit like a prop blade sticking straight up from the port donk - if that is indeed what it is then it was not rotating at impact.

[wingview]

That looks expensive :(

That looks like a w/o. :}

[chuks]

Well, the outer wing just bolts on to the inner stub wing outboard of the engine nacelle. See the story of the DC-2 1/2, for instance.

I was surprised to see a DC-3 being repaired with a shiny-new wingtip after the old one had been mangled in an argument with a telephone pole guy wire at Miami International about 30 years ago. The mechanic laughed and told me that there were warehouses full of DC-3 spares because so much stuff was produced during the War. If that still includes wings then this might not be so bad. Fixing the engine might be more troublesome.

[Mansfield]

Good to know that all are okay. I would suggest that the term write-off is not in the vocabulary of the warbird community.

[Avman]

Was once KN442 of the RAF (1945-1952), and G-AMPZ of Air Atlantique. Always sad to see a Dak get bent.

[Super VC-10]

G-AMPZ was the first Dak I flew in at West Malling in the mid-80s GWAS. :eek:

[Herod]

Just unfortunate the numbers of DC-3's are not increasing.

Now the Twin Otter is back in production, maybe the DC-3 should be next. :ok:

[protectthehornet]

xoxoxoxoxoxDC3

[RegDep]

Interesting: Out of the five DC-3s that I used to fly in as a pax way back then as a kid, two or three, and probably more, have ended up fatal. Yet, I would like fly in them if an opportunity arose.
RD

[ohreally]

Never mind the fin, I would be more worried about the orange glow coming from where No2 fuel, hydraulic, oil and alcohol lines are!

My guess regarding the fin, RFFS did not want to get downwind and this is the only direction to get the foam nozzle over the fuselage towards aforementioned No2. Damaged in the process.

Poor old girl, knew her well not so long ago. She will be back in the air do not worry about that:)

[Daysleeper]

Interesting pic - the fin is still intact here, but clearly damaged in the later shots.

Fire on the right side in that pic, airport fire engine on the left in the later pics probably just shoot through with the water canon.

Ah well farewell PZ queen of the skies.

[Low Flier]

Was that G-AMPZ?

Bugger!

In flew in that girl (baxseating) many many many times.

Not nice to think of her as dead.

It's a bit like hearing that a great-aunt has died.

[RegDep]

Accident: Air Service Berlin DC3 at Berlin on Jun 19th 2010, engine failure (http://avherald.com/h?article=42d26069&opt=0)

[niknak]

GAMPZ used to be part of the original Eastern Airways in the 70s and 80s, based at Humberside Airport, mostly doing charters UK and Europe wide.
It did the first Humberside - Heathrow sheduled service, quite a moment as we taxied in and were parked next to a B.A Concorde, it was even better to see all the BA Engineers bring out their apprentices to show them what a real aeroplane looked like!

[barry lloyd]

GAMPZ used to be part of the original Eastern Airways in the 70s and 80s, based at Humberside Airport, mostly doing charters UK and Europe wide.

And before that it was owned and operated by Starways at Liverpool in the 60s.

[infrequentflyer789]

A year or so ago I recall reading that UK DC3s had been grounded (for pax flights), by EU rules. Now I look here and see a pax-carrying DC3 just crashed in Germany.

Is it me (after just watching Dr Who) ? A quick look turns up:

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Dakota grounded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7451923.stm)

From June 08. To quote the video:

"...last chance anyone will ever have of taking a pleasure flight on one of these iconic planes, because from next month all passenger flights on them will be banned..."

So, WTF :confused:

Or is this another case of PITA EU rules that the UK imposes on direction from the rest of Europe who then ignore them or exempt themselves from them ?

[AnthonyGA]

I suspect the more serious ramifications of this will be to add weight to the 'elf 'n safety police who have already stopped such aircraft carrying paying pax in the UK.

Seriously? Why? The aircraft carried untold zillions of people in decades past, safely. Why would it be suddenly unsafe now?

Out of the five DC-3s that I used to fly in as a pax way back then as a kid, two or three, and probably more, have ended up fatal. Yet, I would like fly in them if an opportunity arose.

Ironically, if a large number of airframes end up destroyed in crashes, that may simply be an indication of reliability. After all, if you keep an aircraft airworthy with proper maintenance, you can fly it indefinitely … and if you fly it indefinitely, then logically the only thing that will stop it from flying is a crash that results in a write-off. So you might actually expect to see all of the most reliable aircraft end their lives in massive crashes.

[Flash2001]

Isn't this a C47?

[infrequentflyer789]

Berlin DC-3 crash: Early evidence of engine failure (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/19/343461/berlin-dc-3-crash-early-evidence-of-engine-failure.html)

MP on board says the donk packed in

THE donk ?

[ I know the DC3 single engine performance is legendary, but you're still supposed to at least start the filght with one on the other wing as well. ]

[stepwilk]

"Isn't this a C47?"

I think an earlier poster pointed out that it started its military life with the RAF. So though it may have once been a DC-3, it was never a C-47.

[Flash2001]

OK a Dakota then.

[Ford Transit]

can I ask someone with pilot experience what the DC3 is able to do on one engine ?
cheers
Pete

[SomeGuyOnTheDeck]

can I ask someone with pilot experience what the DC3 is able to do on one engine ?
I'm not sure how many DC3 pilots will be reading this thread, but as a mere admirer of the second-most wonderful aeroplane ever to have graced the skies (my first love carries a crowbar in the cockpit door ;) ), I'm sure any DC3 is not only capable of flying on one engine, but with a light load could probably take off with one - in fact if memory serves correctly, this was once demonstrated.

[Hydromet]

Sad to see this, hope it can be repaired.
Last flight I had in one was back in '70s, sidesaddle from Bougainville to Honiara. Pilots were twin brothers who had been QF apprentices a couple of years ahead of me.

As an apprentice in about 1963, I saw a poem about DC3s. All I can remember are the last two lines:
"They'll still be making bloody dough
When other planes no longer fly."

Does anyone have the whole poem?

[visibility3miles]

Arthur Emmons Raymond (March 24, 1899, Boston Massachusetts – March 22, 1999, Santa Monica, California) was an aeronautical engineer who led the team that designed the DC-3.
Arthur Emmons Raymond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Emmons_Raymond)

National Air and Space Museum Trophy

The National Air and Space Museum presents this trophy annually to recognize both past and present achievements involving the management or execution of a scientific or technological project, a distinguished career of service in air and space technology, or a significant contribution in chronicling the history of air and space technology. The trophy was created for the National Air and Space Museum by John Safer of Washington, D.C.
1991 Arthur E. Raymond
Trophies and Awards at the National Air and Space Museum - National Air and Space Museum Trophy (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/trophy/nasm.cfm)

Apparemtly thr first DC3 built couldn't attend the 50th aniversary fly-in because it was still in active service flying pasengers.

[Robert Campbell]

It's getting late here. I'll post more tomorrow after I learn more.

I've got about 3,000 hrs. PIC in DC-3s. Single engine performance depends on how good the pilot is, how strong the remaining engine is, and weight of the aircraft.

The book says it should climb out at better than 300 fpm on a single engine at gross. I don't know which model 3 this is, so gross could be anything between 25,200lbs. to 26,900lbs.

From the overview I looked at, I think the pilot didn't use enough right rudder to keep her straight. She drifted left, and I couldn't tell from the photos if the left prop was feathered. If it wasn't, she wouldn't climb.

[Ford Transit]

Thanks Robert,
I had wondered if they got the stopped prop feathered.
Must be huge drag from that big paddle.
Pete
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4716561124_a78b3a613f.jpg

[pattern_is_full]

Looks like the main gear that remain partially exposed even when retracted (mentioned recently in the Hudson Glider thread) did their job - the fuselage seems nice and high and not to have crinkled at all in these early shots (not to take anything away from the pilot's skill). :D

[OUAQUKGF Ops]

A sorry sight.
Before Eastern Airways G-AMPZ was operated by Rig Air at Norwich who in turn became Air Anglia in 1970 and she was their first Dak. I flew sitting on her jump seat several times.

[411A]

know the DC3 single engine performance is legendary,

It ain't that good, I'm afraid....and yes,I've flown one a fair bit.
The DC-3 (or, if you prefer, C-47) is not a transport category airplane and does not have CAR4B required performance.
In addition, 5606 (type fluid) hydraulic pressure holds the gear retracted...no hydraulic pressure available, the landing gear free falls into the down (but not locked) position.
Performance in this case with one engine inop (even with prop feathered)...very poor.
I'm sure any DC3 is not only capable of flying on one engine, but with a light load could probably take off with one - in fact if memory serves correctly, this was once demonstrated.
Negative, one engine shut down just after takeoff ex-INW many years ago on a demo flight from INW-ABQ....very light pax load.
IF you had flown the type, you would know.:\

[stevef]

Not quite; hydraulic pressure raises the gear but once up, it's locked by moving the selector into neutral, thereby trapping fluid in the lines. As you know, sometimes periodic 'Up' selection is required to stop the gear from lowering slightly in flight due to leakage past the selector shear seals.
As long as the landing gear is correctly serviced (lubricated), once it free-falls, either airflow pressure or application of a little 'g' should get the downlock latches to engage into 'Spring Lock'. Or, assuming there are no open lines, the handpump will snick it in, once the line suction has dissipated after a short while. When jacked in the hangar, light hand pressure on the crossbrace after free-fall is enough to prove the system isn't mechanically tight.

It's difficult to get a story from those photographs but I wouldn't be optimistic about getting the aircraft back into the air.
G-AMPZ was an old friend of mine; very sad to see her like this. In perspective, no one was badly hurt, so 'she done good'.

I remember reading that article about a DC3 taking off on one engine; I'll try to find it. It was empty though.
Ah, here we go:
One engine 1000 meter take off submitted by:John Miller (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.centercomp.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fdc3%2Fstories%3F1933&ei=UNkdTK3GBpf20gSj3cWjDQ&usg=AFQjCNF33HGpBD2cmgy8BZn6n29o-F4Idw&sig2=bHHq80gqzSYoT0VlHQ6X8A)

[411A]

As long as the landing gear is correctly serviced (lubricated), once it free-falls, either airflow pressure or application of a little 'g' should get the downlock latches to engage into 'Spring Lock'.
Spring lock is fine, except, it is not then firmly locked down.
only the mechanical lever lock will ensure that the landing gear will not collapse upon landing.
A primary design feature, at the time.

The aircraft could bite you and often fatally,
if you failed to get it right in all sorts of circumstances

Absolutely 100% correct.
The next in line, the DC-4, was a huge improvement, and not just because it has four engines.

[ABUKABOY]

Hmmmmm...........Many, many hours spent flying 'PZ with Intra Airways in the 70's. Procedures prior to the 1st flight of the day tested amongst other things prop-control and the electric feathering pump. Subsequent flights didn't, or maybe a mechanical pitch-control check if the pilot so wished. Mags we always checked before each flight.
When an engine failure occurred with the luxury of speed and altitude, the procedure was identify, throttle closed, button pressed, pitch fully coarse, mixture idle cut-off. Thus the electric pump only had to "finish off" the feathering of an already mechanically-coarsening prop.
However, the procedure with an engine failure IMMEDIATELY after take-off was identify, button pressed, mixture idle cut-off, leaving the crew to counter the swing, fly the aeroplane, get the gear up, and climb away. In this case the electric pump has to do ALL the work of changing the prop from fine to fully-feathered. IMHO this aircraft would have had no trouble climbing away with the stated load and a feathered prop, and no chance of sustaining flight with a windmilling prop in fine (takeoff) pitch on the dead engine. IF indeed the crew followed the above procedure, the position of No1 prop's pitch in the photograph would seem to point to a possible complete failure of No1 electric feathering pump.
I doubt the crew would have had the time or capacity to try the first procedure after realising that the second had not worked, and anyway it still would have resulted in a partially-feathered prop, and a whole load of drag.

Just my pennyworth................tough old bird, sad to see her like this.

[acementhead]

411A

"Spring lock is fine, except, it is not then firmly locked down."

Incorrect. Spring lock down has the "yale" tongue engaged exactly the same as positive down lock.

stevef is also correct on the hydraulic component (hydraulic lock maintains up).

411A you do not know the DC3, I do. I also solved the single circuit down lock indication problem immediately on being exposed to it(during my DC3 type rating course in 1961). I proved my solution as soon as I flew it. NZNAC had been operating DC3 for about 15 years but had not solved the problem previously. The solution is trivially simple.

[chuks]

Remember that big old starter motor up in the wheelwell that drove the unfeathering pump? It was from some sort of ancient automobile, I was told, a Buick or something.

We had a veteran DC-3 pilot in Miami lose one right at lift-off when the best he could manage was to pancake it right back onto terra firma half out of control, writing the aircraft off but walking away. Okay, perhaps he didn't do his whole 12-Point Program correctly but it might have been a case of running out of airspeed, altitude and ideas all at the same time, the sort to thing that can happen to almost anyone, really.

I flew one as an FO with a Navy veteran, a nicotine and caffeine fiend who could make that old bird sit up and talk. To watch him do a X-wind landing was quite something, when I was just left with the straight-and-level and a bit of talk-talk as my contribution to the group effort, with which I was cool, having already booked an Africa extended holiday, far from the Colombian Mafia.

Lots of folks nowadays forget the standards the old DC-3 was certified to, nothing like FAR-25.

[Avman]

:8 alert!

OK, just for the record (but I'll skip some of the dates) it is a DC-3 series C-47B-30-DK. First flew as 44-76540 (US Army Air Force) in March 1945. Almost immediately to the RAF as KN442 (1945-1952). Purchased and operated by STARWAYS as G-AMPZ, after which it flew with a handful of operators: TRANSAIR, WEST AFRICAN AIRWAYS (on lease), BRITISH UNITED AIRWAYS, SILVER CITY AIRWAYS, FLUGSYN (as TF-AIV), NORFOLK AIRWAYS, AIR ANGLIA, CLYDEN AIRWAYS (as EI-BDT), HARVESTAIR, JANES AVIATION, AIR ATLANTIQUE/ATLANTIC AIR TRANSPORT, and finally AIR SERVICE BERLIN.

There were a few other private owners and short leases here and there. The a/c has quite a history and it would be interesting to know how many hours it has under its belt.

[Super VC-10]

#44 - wasn't that the cause of the Dutch Dakota Association's accident in 1996?

Dakotaramp - Wikipedia (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakotaramp) (in Dutch)

[krohmie]

Pictures of the actual crash sequence

Bruchlandung - Rosinenbomber verunglückt - Berlin Aktuell - Berliner Morgenpost (http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin-aktuell/article1328731/Bruchlandung-Rosinenbomber-verunglueckt.html)

[J52]

I have witnessed a Dakota aerial top dresser fully loaded have an engine failure (port from memory) just as it cleared wheels and still take off and fly. Dumped the fertiliser down the remainder of the strip and cleared the boundary fence by about a 1m. Slow rising ground beyond the runway for about 3km resulted in the plane barely gaining any altitude but slowly it clawed it's way skyward and returned for a safe landing. I was running the airfield perimeter road when this all happened about 100m in front of me.

[Pistonprop]

Wasn't there, so couldn't get "the feel", but I wonder if the guys shouldn't have tried to gain a little more altitude before making the turn back? You can get fixated on getting back pronto instead of flying the aeroplane. But, as I say, I wasn't there and maybe they just didn't have that option. At least they all got out and that's the main thing.

[Gainesy]

The engines appear to be working in the pics posted by Krohmie.

[krohmie]

The right engine is working, the left engine is standing (or windmilling). Without Exif Data (Exposure time) we have no information about the rpm.

But question on my mind:

Why did he turn towards the dead engine?
Terrain?
Below blue line speed and to much power on the working donk?

Edit: Answer from another forum: --> Terrain and the PF on the left side had a better sight of the landing area.

[G-AGJV]

So sorry to hear of the demise of Papa Zulu,though glad all got out ok.
I started my avaition career with Air Anglia at ABZ in 1973 ,then we had the oldest Dak on the Uk register G-AGJV along with G-AOBN.
G-AMPZ used to visit if one of our base aircraft went tech.
I me her again whilst based in Shetland with Dai Air,old capt Joe Retchka flew in with some spares for one of our HS748s when PZ flew for Intra of Jersey.

I will cherish my small Corgi model of her which adores my bookcase.

I hope after assesment that some dedicated engineers may be able to salvage and rebuild her. Best of luck !!

[Gainesy]

OK, thanks.:)

[GotTheTshirt]

Picture in No7 shows Port prop almost feathered - not fully - so that may be the reason for turning that way. The newspaper sequence also shows the port engine slower than the Stbd in the shot in flight

For 411 :ok: anyone who has put these aircraft on the British register will tell you there is a big difference beteween a DC3 and C47:}

When I was in SA they put 50 DC3 in the air for the 50th aniversary of the DC3 (Can't remember the year but no doubt someone will :ok:)

[Super VC-10]

50th anniv would have been 1985.

[Dak Man]

I was booked on that next Sunday, phew, glad all OK. One of the first lessons you learn in a Dak, you lose a donkey and there is only one place you're going - down.

ps it looks like a C-47 not a DC-3, it has the "big door"

[PaperTiger]

When I was in SA they put 50 DC3 in the air for the 50th aniversary of the DC327 actually, but still a good showing: Dakota Association of South Africa DC-3 C-47 50th anniversary flypast (http://www.dc-3.co.za/dc-3-50th-anniversary-flypast.html)

[Avman]

Dak Man, I may be wrong but the C-47 denotes the series. Essentially the type is still a DC-3. See my previous post.

Beats me why a mod has placed this thread in this forum. If they don't want news in the R & N forum, then I would have thought this was for the Nostalgia forum. This a/c is neither GA, Ag, and certainly not a biz-jet. Perhaps the mod doesn't know what a DC-3 is :E

[411A]

411A you do not know the DC3, I do.
Rubbish...on the other hand, no telling what the Kiwi's did to jurry-rig the landing gear system.
Mechanical down lock absolutely required to be sure the gear does not collapse.
Designed from the beginning this way...in the USA, not in Kiwi-land.:rolleyes:

[Super VC-10]

Avman, I was wondering that too, I mean, it was news yesterday, wasn't it? :confused:

[stevef]

This is digressing from the thread's import but I know the DC3/C47 landing gear system very well; there is no way that the latches would ever disengage from the retraction jack slot/latch guide mechanism, once in Spring Lock. It takes a fair push with a screwdriver to move them against spring pressure and Positive Lock is only a floor-mounted clip to prevent the lever connected to the latch cables from being raised; there is no additional locking mechanism linked to it.
No aggressive input here, I'm simply explaining the way it works. :)

[krohmie]

Here in the accident report of PH-DDA (http://douglasdc3.com/dda/dda.doc) you find a detailed study of the single engine performance od the DC3, especially with not fully feathered prop.

[chuks]

When I got into the DC-3 I found it a bit of a shock, very much something that belonged in a museum when compared to a Twin Otter, say. You could see how modern it must have been in its day but that was just in comparison with what had gone before.

The ergonomics were just a nightmare, stuff like two handles you reached behind your left shoulder to grab, one with a row of rivets so that you didn't mix up the flaps (just plain, drag-only ones) with the gear. Then the gear had this goofy system with a little lever you had to operate in the correct sequence lest you break the downlock, with a flimsy flip-over bail as a safety mechanism.

You could just imagine a group of bright guys just having to make this up as they went along, pioneering design work on one of the first modern airliners.

The wipers were run by hydraulics, so that H-5606 would drip out on my knee while rain dripped in everywhere from the segmented windscreen. On the other hand you did have a very nice sliding side window for fresh air, great in the Bahamas but not so nice in cold weather, I bet, especially considering the truly bizarre avgas-burning hot water boiler behind the RHS that made up the heating system.

Then there was the galvanised tin pail that made up the sanitary system, another area of my responsibility!

One day we were rumbling along towards Georgetown in the Bahamas, taking a load of German dentists and doctors out to see a real-estate development they were eager to throw cash away on. One by one these clowns made their way to the cockpit to enjoy the nostalgia of the Goony Bird. One said to me, "Ah! You haff here a dream job!" when all I could think was that here, truly, stood a man with more money than sense.

We would keep two jerry cans full of straight 50-weight and throw one in each engine on our turn-around out in the Bahamas before heading back to Opa Locka, where we would douche down the oil drips as part of the post-flight procedure, using an old pump-type fire extinguisher.

I could not wait to get away from that piece of junk, just an accident waiting to happen. One of them had this odd vibration in cruise from Number Two, when it turned out that the overhaul shop had put one of the three prop blades in there one tooth out of register. Later the whole nose case came apart, just tired old alloy bits about 40 years old.

Conventional wisdom was that this bird was so over-engineered that it would fly forever. Well, some guys penetrated a cell at low level just south of Freeport one night and found out different, when eyewitnesses reported a large red glow in the sky that must have marked the point where a wing came off. Sod that for a lark!

[His dudeness]

very much something that belonged in a museum when compared to a Twin Otter

Exactly. Thats why they use it and not a Twotter for NOSTALGIC SIGHT SEEING. First flight was 75 years ago....and btw., if you think ergonomics have been fully developed these days, I´ll invite you onto a Citation cockpit....

I do know the captain, who used to be my copilot for about 2 years. His first job was motorcycle mechanic, he has the german degree of "Meister" on that one. (which means about 5 years of education altogether). Furthermore he is deeply in love with anything older than him and has a sixth sense for mechanics. I´d say he is the man for such a bird, as he most likely has adopted it as his child. I very much doubt that this was something one could have seen coming.

[Avman]

chuks, you obviously fly for a living but clearly have no love for aviation. Perhaps it wasn't so much the aircraft but the cowboy outfit you flew for :E

[chuks]

The boss had got the sack from Eastern for some fiddle or other and he absolutely hated anything to do with operating on the up-and-up. All I got was "You young guys!" (I was 32 or 33 at the time) whenever I would cite some rule or piece of conventional wisdom, such as no flying in IMC under VFR or "It is really not a good idea to fly through an area of imbedded thunderstorms without a weather radar."

He had a ragged fleet of Travel Airs, a Baron, an Aero Commander 500, a Cessna 402A (with its engines all out of whack since his wrench didn't have the tools to set up the fuel injection) and two Greasy Threes, one with Pratts and one with Wrights and both with serious cockroach infestations!

I got the feeling that this was a footrace between getting my hours and bucks up to get that ATP and getting my check cancelled by a mechanical or perhaps having either the FAA or the DEA or both come down on me like a load of Bricks. (Bet you didn't see that one coming!) I did 1200 hours in 11 months and then walked, got my ATP and went off to work in Africa for good money.

No question about it that a job like that will definitely take a lot of the gloss off aviation for you. For fun... glider flying, I guess and I still enjoy giving instruction but right seat in a DC-3, Fahgeddaboudit!

The guy offered me a free DC-3 type-rating if I stuck around but I didn't even bother to talk about it; that is how lousy an outfit it was. (That rumour a fellow pilot started that I was DEA might have had something to do with it too, since the Colombian Mafia didn't seem all that reasonable about such misunderstandings.) Of course the next low-timer walked right in the day I walked out.

[hawker750]

Big mistake keeping the landing lights on. As any respectable night driving Indian taxi driver knows that this drains power from the engine and I know of no Indian taxi driver who has crashed a DC3 so they must be correct.

Great news that all OK. Terrible moments when you know that a crash is inevitable. Happened to me in a DC3 in 1978 when 1 1/2 engines quit in the cruise.

[anacortes]

good to know that keeping the lights on was the problem..........
sitting in the right seat, loosing left engine on t/o, just airborne--- and right engine not performing as it should..........
it is an experience!

[krohmie]

The landing lights could be a contributing factor.

With the left engine he lost one generator and the feather system is powered by an electric pump!

[stevef]

If I remember rightly, the batteries are rated at 88 amp/hr total output. Even with a generator off-line, the prop will still feather quickly. Not theoretical - I've done it plenty of times in the hangar without external power.

I'm afraid to say that some observations posted in this thread are way off track; certain contributor's systems memories seem to be worse than mine, which makes me feel a little better. :)

[MarkerInbound]

Yes, the batteries are 88 amp/hour each.

The Dutch Dakota crash was a feathering circuit failure as I recall. Didn't make it through the full report linked above. To feather a prop you push the feathering button in. A holding coil is energzied holding the button in, the circuit is completed and the pump pressurizes oil from a standpipe in the engine oil tank and drives a piston in the prop dome to the feather position. When the pressure in the dome reaches some pressure that P&W thinks is enough to ensure the piston has traveled to its limit, a pressure switch releases the holding coil and the circuit is broken.

To un-feather, again the feather button is pushed in and HELD in with a thumb. All the above happens but when the pressure reaches the switch relief pressure, since the button is being held in, the pump keeps running. At some pressure above the switch threshold, a shuttle valve moves and the oil is ported to the other side of the prop piston and now drives the prop to the cruise or fine pitch range. Then you remove your thumb from the button.

Had the holding coil fry one time during a runup. Normally, you'd push the button and as soon as there was a rpm drop, you pull the button out. We pulled but the pump keep running and the engine shutdown. And then the prop blades started coming out of feather and going back in. The only way to stop the pump was to turn the battery master and other generator off. (Couldn't find the feather pump C/B quick enough.)

[anacortes]

well, let's see what the BFU finds out. Meanwhile, anyone out there needs a DC-3 Pilot?

[His dudeness]

why? have you been sacked?

[anacortes]

yes, do need a new, interesting seat, wherever.

[Round Engine]

Alright - there's been plenty of Dak bashing on this thread. Let me clarify some inaccuracies here;

1. The DC-3 is in an excellent single engine performer for its day. It is important to note though, that there are several factors which can lead the aircraft not performing adequately during single engine operation. In the case of D-CXXX - the case is very clear cut - the cowling flaps (or gills) were very clearly OPEN on both engines, thereby seriously damaging single engined performance ( a loss of 40ft/min at MAUW under ISA conditions, at sea level, also reducing the climb gradient by 0.4%, when opened on the "live" engine only). (Look at photographs here:Rosinenbomber muss notlanden - Berlin Aktuell - Berliner Morgenpost (http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin-aktuell/article1328731/Rosinenbomber-muss-notlanden.html) - the position of the cowl flaps can be seen most clearly in the photograph where the aircraft strikes the ground ). Read more on the same topic here: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/396331-dc-3-cowl-flaps.html#post5330786 . Furthermore - if a reduced power take-off was performed (not Pratt & Whitney approved) the aircraft would still be worse off in the perfomance stakes.

Remember that the Airplane Flight Manual is not conjecture. Both Douglas and the FAA actually flight tested the airplanes to ensure that they met this performance criterion. If the airplane is operated ( and even more importantly, maintained) to the manufacturers specs - it will perform as the manufacturer says.

2. " Had the holding coil fry one time during a runup. Normally, you'd push the button and as soon as there was a rpm drop, you pull the button out. We pulled but the pump keep running and the engine shutdown. And then the prop blades started coming out of feather and going back in. The only way to stop the pump was to turn the battery master and other generator off. (Couldn't find the feather pump C/B quick enough.)"

DC-3 feathering motors ARE NOT FUSED (there is NO C/B!) - thereby necessitating the decal in the cockpit "Do not operate feathering button for more than 90 seconds" (or suchlike). Your snag could not have be caused by the holding coil "frying" (as this is easily overcome by finger pressure), but rather by failure of the feathering relay.

3. "I was booked on that next Sunday, phew, glad all OK. One of the first lessons you learn in a Dak, you lose a donkey and there is only one place you're going - down. ps it looks like a C-47 not a DC-3, it has the "big door""

Thats funny - thats not what the FAA, USAAF or Douglas say? I admit I know where all this nonsense that DC-3 cannot fly one engine comes from - bad maintenance, in the majority. The graphs drawn up in the 1940's (and later) were drawn up after exhaustive test flying on aircraft that were "correct" or 100% serviceable to the manufacturers specs. In my long experience on DC-3's, flying and mx, the control surface rigging is often abysmal, a great amount of aircraft have engines which cannot perform properly as their mag timing is bad, tappets out of adjustment and as is very often the case cowl flaps out of adjustment... Many operators have a scant regard for weight and balance and never bother to correct their W & B to density altitude etc..

The D-CXXX accident can easily be proven by simulation with another aircraft (remembering that the landing gear doors actually improve the single engine climb performance by 25 ft/min, the gradient of climb is increased 0.4%).

4. BTW The DC-3's landing gear can stay down and can be flown without the mechanical latch, provided that a) there is at least 500 psi hydraulic pressure in the down line when the gear is extended or b) the 500 psi pressure is trapped in the down line by moving the selector to neutral. Braking action is only used if ABSOLUTELY necessary. The landing gear can remain down, without hyd pressure or mechanical latch due to a 3 degree over centre movement between the upper truss and the oleo legs. This, however, cannot withstand hard forward movement of the aircraft or any kind of braking action. Therefore there are THREE things that keep the DC-3 landing gear down - (1) Mechanical latch (2) Hydraulic pressure (3) Over-centre movement I watched, with my own eyes, how an experienced DC-3 crew collapsed the landing gear on a DC-3 on the landing roll, through misunderstanding the system. To achieve a green light and no horn, you need (1) The landing gear lever selected "down" (2) When the landing gear hydraulic pressure has risen (usually 750 psi, but min 500 psi), the latch lever is latched to the floor again (this merely latches the lever as the latches engage automatically via spring tension when the upper truss passes the chamfered latch pin. In the event of hydraulic failure, "down" selection will elicit a free fall, which with the application of a little "g" will easily engage the mechanical locks (latches). When the latches are engaged, the landing gear is sitting slightly overcentre, which prevents undue stress on the latches in the event of hydraulic failure. (3) moving the landing gear selector to neutral, will allow the light(s) to turn green (there are 3 microswitches required to give you a green light, two on the landing gear upper trusses, which can only be met if the landing gear has moved to its 3 deg overcentre position, and (goes without saying) is latched by the mechanical latches, and one adjacent to the landing gear lever in the neutral postion. In the case of the DC-3 gear collapse I witnessed, the gear had been put down and the lever returned to neutral too quickly (the latches had not latched yet, no overcentre yet and the little hydraulic pressure trapped in the downline, insufficient to support the aircraft once the stress of a brake application was made.

[DownIn3Green]

Chucks...nice job...identified your "employer" through your fleet description...Also the reference to the Colombian Drug cartels was a nice touch...I'm sure they appreciate that...as for you building hours and refusing a DC-3 "Type" to "stick around", you would have never made it...it takes 1,500hrs to QUALIFY for the ATP...where'd you get the other 300 hrs???

MIA is MIA and anyone who has flown out of "corrision corner" knows that...

So you went to Africa to make "good money"...Exactly whom for and what equipment???

I see that be your age you're probably retired by now...probably for the best...

I have only 32 hrs. in the 3 and all as SIC (mosquito control in S. Fla.) and that was 23 yrs ago...would I do it again????

Absoulutely!!!

[MarcK]

it takes 1,500hrs to QUALIFY for the ATP...where'd you get the other 300 hrs???

It used to take only 1200 hours. When did you start?

[Siguarda al fine]

DAK MAN If as you say that a C47/DC-3 cannot fly on one engine, it must mean that all the C47/DC-3's left in the world have never suffered an engine failure during there total flying time. I have flown them with 50k Hrs TT ...........Wow that is some safety record for the P&W R1830 engine.:rolleyes:
I wonder what my buddie who has been overhauling R1830's since 1972 that are sent into him failed condition has really been up to? Do you think he might have been smoking the same grass as you? If you knew the C47/DC-3 you would never utter such false, purile nonsense.:yuk: :mad:
411A I have no idea where you got your C47/dc-3 rating but it was a bad place and you should ask for your money back. Who ever told you that a C47/DC-3 with no HYD pressure would have the gear extend either never did a proper C47/DC-3 type rating or was smoking something maybe like DAK MAN while attending such. :ugh::ugh:

[The Ancient Geek]

Someone asked why the DC3 is not flying in the UK.
There was a bit of a fuss about this in the press, basically it became mandatory for aircraft in its weight class to have TCAS (or was it GPWS ?) and Atlantic, the only operator, decided that the expense was not justified so there are now no examples with a PT CofA in the UK.

A quick search gives BBC NEWS | UK | England | Coventry/Warwickshire | WWII plane takes last passengers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7507653.stm)
blaming the EU which is probably rather simplistic

[stepwilk]

"If you knew the C47/DC-3 you would never utter such false, purile nonsense"

I'm guessing Dak Man is a C-47 enthusiast, not a C-47 pilot. They're dangerous, enthusiasts...