Turbine DC-3s
 

Has anyone flown the turbine conversions of the DC-3 , Basler DC-3 BT-67 (PT6A-67) and the DC-3C-TP from South Africa (PT6A-65) ?

Dodson (DC-3C-TP) have some take off and landing distances on their website showing 3,600ft or 1,200m runway requirement at sea level , seems like a lot.

If they could operate out of 1,000m sea level equivalent strips I could have a few Indo operators interested.

Any comments on either aircraft from an operator or pilot's perspective would be appreciated especially getting in and out of shorter strips.

3600'/1200m was the minimum useable runway length for the standard piston DC-3, at least in UK CAA Public Transport category back in the 70's. This was straight out of the Douglas book, and happened to be the minimum accelerate/stop to 82-86kts (long time ago!), at Max AUW, ISA, sea-level. Would be very surprised if turbining has not produced better figures.

The Aero-Mod Intl. book I've got (65-ARs) shows at sea level on a 25c day, no wind or slope, about 3700 feet to make it to 35 feet weighting 24,000 pounds. Up it to 26,900 and it's around 5200-5300 feet. Accel-stop is always a lower number. Second segment is 2% gross at 26,900, I've forgotten what the turboprop requirement is.

I've now found my old piston DC-3 Manual, and I hesitate to post any more figures for the moment, as it would seem to indicate that it out-performs some turbine DC-3 conversions, about which I know very little.
Think I'll wait for someone else to post some more turbine figures first. Incidentally 12,200kgs/26,900lbs was our MLW in the 70's. 12,700kgs/28,000lbs was our MTOW. Do I take it a blanket airframe restriction was put in place at some time?

If the turoprop engine is not flat-rated, the piston DC-3 probably does have pretty good numbers up to (some) altitude (as it's supercharged).

Previously, the -3 was 25200lbs.Max (25346 with deice boots).

Most US DC-3's are now limited to 26200 (pax) or 26900(cargo) Max TO/Max Lndg by their Increased Gross Weight STC performance manual.

Some Part 137(Ag) operators would go up to 31000 or 31500 lbs for TO, like old WWII "war loads", but with a dump system for the chemical.

When I started flying them in 1980, all of ours were ex-C47s used as freighters and all had MGTO, MZF and MGL at 26,900 and V1, Vr and V2 at 84.2. If you could explain where the .2 knots came from, the oral was over.

It's not flat rated but de-rated from 1424 to about 1220. It'll pull that till 30 degrees C.

If you could explain where the .2 knots came from, the oral was over.

Conversion from MPH to KTS?

I suspect, but cannot prove, that the seeming lack of TO performance comes from the prop, which is probably optimized for a faster aircraft. If you could change out the prop gear ratio and swing a bigger prop (3 blades, like the old HSD), you might gain a worthwhile TO improvement.

Pilot DAR might have something to say on the issue.

Seems a waste to buy a turbine Dak and spend all that money and end up with the performance of ... a piston Dak.

Ok , it burns avtur not avgas but seems like an opportunity was missed to give the aircraft some decent performance gains.

You might want to try Avcanada forum. 'Kenn Borek Air' who has several of them and I heard getting more, (unconfirmed). They have many crew and management very chatty on that site I expect will happily reply to your request. The book figures and what people will tell you they do may be two different things, KBA has a reputation for getting the job done if you know what I mean.

Just be aware that Avcanda site is very heavily moderated now, and is very pro KBA I hear,(management are mods) but that shouldn't effect the information you are after.

When in South Africa a couple of years ago, I heard the unmistakable whine of a couple of RR Darts, and then noticed a passing DC-3, just departing.
So...did someone fit Darts to the 'ole bird?

BEA converted two aircraft to Darts and used them for a short while in the early fifties. They were only used for freight (with the crew on oxygen) due to being unpressurised and obviously weren't economical for paxing at comfortable lower altitudes.
I'm absolutely certain there are no Dart-powered Dakotas/DC3s in existence, flying or otherwise.

Rolls did a couple for BEA pre-Viscount to get some operating experince but they were un-converted after a couple years.

Conroy Aircraft put Darts on a Three and Super Three around 1970. They later pulled the Darts off the Three and put on PT-6s, don't know what happened to the Super Three.

I'd guess the reason the performance numbers don't change much is the power plants are staying in the 1200-1350 HP range of the recip engines. No one seems to want to do the engineering to up the power plant. What you do get is a bit more cruise speed - less frontal area - and a whole lot less maintenance.

Good start Dufo, but the conversion of what number?

Dart-powered Daks..
 

I seem to recall that the Dart-powered Dak had the blue/red/amber prop-status lights which were fitted to F27s and other types.... nightmare! bm

With a finite mass, I suspect it's got more to do with the strength of the trusses/wing spar than a missed opportunity.

Just nice to see the old girl still going. Remember visiting one on Beef Island many years ago and looking in the cockpit at the throttles and rpm levers all shiny brass - with use. An aircraft with character.

The first generation that flew them are probably all grand dads or pushing up daisies - but the aircraft are still there - that says something (not sure what, but something . . .).

Great-grand-dads, easily.

But that's not all. The mother of the last KC-135 pilot has not yet been born. :eek:

Oh, come now, they weren't that bad....:rolleyes::}

I've had a couple of years flying piston, Basler-67 and South African -65AR versions of the DC3 (and the Basler -45 demonstrator).
SA -65AR MTOW 29,000lbs, Basler -67 MTOW 28,750lb, piston MTOW 26,900lbs
IMHO the Basler is the better aircraft, as it is totally remanufactured, whereas the South African aircraft are just conversions.

Grizzly Bare. Tell us more. They can't be many people in your position.