Could involve some or all of the following - Wider cargo door, re-inforced floor for loading, different power units, tail cone etc but others with technical knowledge will probably be more specific

Another possibility at Croydon would be DC3 G-AICV c/n 1943 of Skyways, a charter operator in the late 1940s (not the same name reused later). This had started as KLM PH-ALV in 1937, had been confiscated by the Luftwaffe and was still intact at the end of the war. It was given back to KLM but not used by them, they sold it to Skyways, who operated it from 1946-8. Very likely to have been through Croydon in that time.

The DC3 was built for civilian operators, whereas the C47 is a military designation, for of course the military completely took over the production.

The C47 is characterised by a large rear port pair of cargo doors, with a smaller passenger door inserted into one of them. The DC3 just had passenger doors. Changing the draughty double doors back to the DC3 passenger arrangement was a common postwar modification. The structure was pretty flexible, it seems, as pre-WW2 American Airlines DC3s had their doors on the opposite side, because the previous aircraft in the American fleet, Curtiss Condors, had the same, so ground procedures were standardised. American was also the principal (although not only) purchaser of the DST, Douglas Sleeper Transport, available all through the DC3 production time, which had an extra row of narrow windows above the main ones (but were otherwise airframe identical) to suit to overnight services with two-tier sleeper berths, giving a narrow lookout to the upper berth. These likely got incorrectly described as DC3s as well.

Regarding engines, I understand both P&W and Wright units were options on both the prewar DC3 and the C47. Someone can advise how interchangeable they were.

I believe a handful of DC-3s have had their Cyclones replaced by Twin Wasps (and possibly even vice versa). I suspect a bit of work is involved.

AFAIK, no C-47s were built with Wright engines.

Looking at some notes I put together a while back when answering a different question, there were 8 basic families of variants as defined by the various FAA Type Certificates:

A-607: DST (Wright Cyclone)
A-618: DC-3, C-49, C-50, C-51, R4D-2 (Cyclone/R-1820)
A-619: DC-3A (P&W Twin Wasp)
A-635: DC-3B (Cyclone)
A-647: DST-A (Twin Wasp B)
A-669: DC-3A, DC-3C, DC-3D, C-41, C-47, C-48, C-52, C-53, C-68, C-117A, R4D (Twin Wasp/R-1830)
A-671: DST-A (Twin Wasp C)
6A2: Super DC-3, C-117D, R4D-8 (Twin Wasp/R-1830)

Are you absolutely certain of their provenance Dave? The reason I ask is of the following (FAA TCDS),

Optional Engines DC-3C

Interchangeable with the S1C3G engines. Ratings are same as S1C3G. 100 min. grade fuel must be used unless carburetor setting is revised to permit use of 91 grade fuel. All must have 16:9 reduction gearing:

R-1830-49, R-1830-57, R-1830-82, R-1830-96, R-1830-92

Interchangeable with the S4C4G engine at identical ratings. Ignition timing must be modified to 20° for 91 grade fuel. All must have 16:9 reduction gearing:

S3C4G, R-1830-90C, R-1830-65, R-1830-43, R-1830-90D, R-1830-67, R-1830-43A

So the engine designation would not necessarily point to the aircrafts ancestry. Of course the British may do things differently, and is the reason for asking Dave.

I have no idea of the British requirements, but the FAA required,The nameplate would make it the unambiguous reference.

In Australia all the airline aircraft I saw and rode in were Wright powered. Many were ex C-47 that had the P&W removed, in fact don't know if any were "real DC-3's". RAAF aircraft were P&W.

For readers you may find the FAA TCDS of interest.

P&W powered

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...20Rev%2032.pdf

Wright powered

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...20Rev%2023.pdf

Many thanks too Dave for listing all the TCDS, thought I'd include the links to a couple.

True, but if an aircraft is designated as a DC-3C, then that means by definition that it started life as a C-47 or R4D.

TC A-669 (the first of your links) specifically identifies (P9) the following MSN ranges (all originally C-47Bs, I think) as applicable to the DC-3C-R-1890-90C:

20599-20898
25524-27223
32527-33626
34134-34135
34137-34144
34146-34167
34169-34190
34192-34211
34213-34233
34235-34249
34251-34263
34265-34277
34279-34290
34292-34304
34306-34317
34319-34409

though it doesn't necessarily mean that every MSN in those ranges was converted.

Agree about where the C's started life, but the airframes were rebuilt by Douglas and given new MSN's. The data plate would no longer reflect its heritage, except to an anorak. Being pedantic I guess.

Back to the Junkers, Charles Woodley's definitive "History of BEA" is on line with a couple of pages and photos about Ju52 operations at Croydon.


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...upiter&f=false

Thanks again WHBM - Seems to settle all doubts regarding BEA JU52 ops at Croydon. postwar. Also same again regarding DC3's at Croydon same period.

If Davidson scolls back to my OP it should help explain the complexity of the problem I am engrossed in with an individual who appears to have set himself up as the ultimate authority on a/c movements at Croydon Airport after 1939.

This is his argument -

Bea never operated at Croydon post war
Bea did not exist in 1946
Junkers 52's and DC3 's were never seen or used at Croydon Airport post war.

Helpful assistance has already been supplied but with no proof that DC3's which were converted to C47 etc may or may not have been converted back to DC3's - and BEA JU52's were no longer JU52'S but would be known as Jupiters when operated by as BEA, then it becomes a little more clear to see how difficult the task is going to be to disprove his claims.

The debate about what constitutes a DC-3 is one that I would like to stay away from, but I think that you may be able to score a couple of points on the Junkers front. You say that the problem lies in the fact that the BEA Ju52s were known as 'Jupiters', but that was only a name that the marketing department (if they had anything like that in those days) stuck on the type. It did not change anything about the designation of the type. The page from Woodley's BEA book shows a photo of Ju.52/3m G-AHOC, if you look at the original registry entry for this airframe: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/Hi...ial/G-AHOC.pdf you will see that this is still a Junkers Ju.52, no matter what the marketing name for the type was.

With that in mind, the Woodley book provides enough information to disprove at least two of his claims if you ask me.

BEA in their earlier times had a tradition of calling their aircraft types by different names, generally a title that reflected the individual names they had given to each of the aircraft. They did this with their piston aircraft, but it died out with turbine types where they started to use the manufacturers' name instead, the Viscount being the first such. So the Vickers Vikings were known as "Admiral", the Airspeed Ambassadors as "Elizabethans", etc. It actually reflected old practice with classes of ships and railway locomotives.

The BEA Ju52s were used for a short while on Scottish internal routes, which apparently caused considerable opprobrium from those recently returned from the war. Probably elsewhere as well. I wonder why they even bothered, with fleets of DC3s - ah - C47s, and crews and engineers qualified on them, standing surplus everywhere.

Ju52
 

Look up 'Early Ringway'

BEA Ju52, at Manchester : refer pages 62 (text at bottom), 63 (photos) and 65 (text at top).

They were scrapped at MAN February 1948.

Actually BEA called the Viscount the Discovery Class.

BEA's practice of naming its aircraft fleets on a common theme became redundant with the introduction of the "red square" livery in the early 60s, which did not have provision for painting individual names on aircraft.

By then, the upcoming Vanguard fleet had been allocated names (based on warships from Nelson's era) but only G-APEA wore (briefly) the old peony scheme and I don't know if that featured its individual name "Vanguard" (which was also the class name).

The one class I missed was Pionair, for the DC3 - er - C47 (with Scottish Aviation mods, although not huge ones).

Does anyone have any idea what Pionair actually referred to ?

I'd always assumed it was because they were all named after pioneers of the air.

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/i...ome/beadac.jpg

Some better known than others ...

Dave's suggestion seems eminently correct, a play on the word "pioneer".https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%200107.html

Seeing as the mods were done by Scottish Aviation I wonder if the fact they used the name "Pioneer" as model designations for some of their aircraft could have had some influence. There was the single engine "Pioneer" and the "Twin Pioneer". Who dreamt up the name "Pionair", Scottish or BEA?

Really the only way to decide if a DC-3 is a genuine pre-war civil DC-3 is from the constructors number and an accurate production list like the Air Britain book, the rest are military production C-41/C-53/C-47/C-117/R4Ds..Post-war DC-3Cs were low time military airframes civilianized by Douglas and the 28 DC-3Ds were completed from the undelivered cancelled C-47 production line.
As said already the handful of pre-war genuine DC-3s briefly seen at Croydon came from Swissair, KLM , and a couple on the British register.Transair were a significant Dakota operator at Croydon until it closed and produced their own improved version which , like the Pionair had 4-abreast seating .
Question for PASIR...do you remember any more details about the reported KLM Skymaster visit to Croydon when you worked for them?