Saw a Dak on Sunday
Thread Starter
Saw a Dak on Sunday
Sunday 12 April right on mid-day. I was enjoying the sound of birds in the trees of my suburb in Melbourne when an old but familiar sound was heard in the sky. Looked up and it was a DC3 at 1500 ft flying southbound on final (?) for 17 at Essendon. Or maybe a flight around the Bay? .
With so few aeroplanes in the Melbourne skies at the moment, it was such a pleasure and I confess a bit nostalgic, to hear again the sound of twin Pratt & Whitneys. Better still to be able to catch a fleeting glimpse of the ever so graceful lines of the "Dak" as we called them in RAAF days.
Anyone know who owns that DC3 and where is it based?
With so few aeroplanes in the Melbourne skies at the moment, it was such a pleasure and I confess a bit nostalgic, to hear again the sound of twin Pratt & Whitneys. Better still to be able to catch a fleeting glimpse of the ever so graceful lines of the "Dak" as we called them in RAAF days.
Anyone know who owns that DC3 and where is it based?
I believe Ansett's VH-ABR was out and about on Sunday. If that is what you saw, the sound was Wright Cyclones, not Pratt's.
Doesn't really matter they both sing their respective songs so very sweetly.
Sunny, Alan normally flew TAA's AES before it when north to HARS. That said young Alan could fly any DC3 in his sleep, he's been flying them for over 50 years.
CC
Doesn't really matter they both sing their respective songs so very sweetly.
Sunny, Alan normally flew TAA's AES before it when north to HARS. That said young Alan could fly any DC3 in his sleep, he's been flying them for over 50 years.
CC
Thread Starter
RAAF Dakotas operated with full anti-icing equipment which included full length rubber de-icer boots on the length of the wings, stabiliser and fin.
Australian civilian registered DC3 passenger and freight aircraft had this equipment removed presumably to increase payload. The Regulator of the day (presumably Post War) must have approved this on an airworthiness basis? That said, both military and civil DC3's had propeller de-icing and windscreen de-icing fitted.
Despite the absence of airframe icing protection TAA, Qantas and Ansett and all the other VH registered DC3's often found themselves iced up; particularly during winter on flights to Tasmania. This scribe experienced being iced up numerous times when flying DC3 freight to Tasmania.
But you can bet your bottom dollar DCA would have added the caveat "Flight in icing condition prohibited" when approving the removal of airframe anti-icing equipment on VH registered DC3's but with tongue in cheek knowing it would be impossible to completely avoid icing in cloud.
I wondered about the politics involved when someone high up in the flight operations section of DCA deemed it safe for these aircraft to fly in icing conditions without adequate de-icing equipment.
Who decided it was safe to operate VH-registered DC3 passenger and cargo DC3's without airframe de-icing equipment installed, yet on the other hand mandated prop and windscreen de-icing on these aircraft?.
Where was the logic?
Australian civilian registered DC3 passenger and freight aircraft had this equipment removed presumably to increase payload. The Regulator of the day (presumably Post War) must have approved this on an airworthiness basis? That said, both military and civil DC3's had propeller de-icing and windscreen de-icing fitted.
Despite the absence of airframe icing protection TAA, Qantas and Ansett and all the other VH registered DC3's often found themselves iced up; particularly during winter on flights to Tasmania. This scribe experienced being iced up numerous times when flying DC3 freight to Tasmania.
But you can bet your bottom dollar DCA would have added the caveat "Flight in icing condition prohibited" when approving the removal of airframe anti-icing equipment on VH registered DC3's but with tongue in cheek knowing it would be impossible to completely avoid icing in cloud.
I wondered about the politics involved when someone high up in the flight operations section of DCA deemed it safe for these aircraft to fly in icing conditions without adequate de-icing equipment.
Who decided it was safe to operate VH-registered DC3 passenger and cargo DC3's without airframe de-icing equipment installed, yet on the other hand mandated prop and windscreen de-icing on these aircraft?.
Where was the logic?
Alan used to fly TMQ at Ausjet/Air Nostalgia as well.
Not sure what has happened to TMQ - I heard it had been sold and was heading to South Africa
Register still shows the Receivers as owners
Not sure what has happened to TMQ - I heard it had been sold and was heading to South Africa
Register still shows the Receivers as owners
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting flying the Dak in South East Asia during the wet season attempting find the gaps in the CBs. Many braised knuckles helping change the spark plugs. Always carried several sets.
Queen of the Skies
Queen of the Skies
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For getting rid of ice on the props - increasing the RPM will sling the ice off.
Thread Starter
these are both anti ice systems not de-ice. You wet both the props and windshield to prevent ice forming
Page 18 under OTHER CONTROLS, talks about Propeller anti-icers and Propeller de-icing pumps.
However, paragraph 34 talks about Windscreen de-icers
The windscreens were not “wetted” as in precautionary measure to prevent ice from forming.
According to the RAF Dakota Pilots Notes publication two independent systems are provided. Sliding Panel de-icers and main windscreen de-icers. Note the words de-icers.
The design required the de-icers to remove ice from the windscreen and sliding window after it occurred.
The flight manual of a Canadian DC-3 operator says,
Windshield is also referred to as änti icing, the TCDS though refers to de icing. The Constellation manual advises to turn anti/de ice alcohol on once ice has begun to form.
The propeller anti icing system is installed in the airplane to prevent the formation of ice rather than to remove it when formed. The system should therefore be used whenever icing conditions are expected or suspected.
The type of question that some check captains ask to prove that theirs is bigger than yours.....people it does not matter whether you call it a willy or a donger: what matters is that you know when to use it and how to use it..
Thread Starter
it does not matter whether you call it a willy or a donger: what matters is that you know when to use it and how to use it..
people it does not matter whether you call it a willy or a donger: what matters is that you know when to use it and how to use it
Theory only on offer, no "hands on" instruction available!
