DC 3 down near Berlin
Here in the accident report of PH-DDA you find a detailed study of the single engine performance od the DC3, especially with not fully feathered prop.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very much something that belonged in a museum when compared to a Twin Otter
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, absolutely!
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
Last edited by stevef; 29th Jun 2010 at 22:21.
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.)
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.)
Last edited by MarkerInbound; 30th Jun 2010 at 16:12.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever my visa lets me
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 - 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/39633...ml#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.
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 - 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/39633...ml#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.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In this very moment of a short life.
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Siguarda al fine; 21st Aug 2010 at 12:47.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK DC3s
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
blaming the EU which is probably rather simplistic
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
blaming the EU which is probably rather simplistic
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 21st Aug 2010 at 12:59. Reason: More info from the BBC website
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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...
I'm guessing Dak Man is a C-47 enthusiast, not a C-47 pilot. They're dangerous, enthusiasts...
