Another old lady gone....
 

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20190121-0
With respect to the crew that did not survive.

A brochure on the aircraft here:

http://www.aviatorshotline.com/sites...june202016.pdf

Some photos of the crash site here:

DC-3 Wayne County Ohio

- Ed

Very tasteful of them to show all the blood spattered around the place! Sad to see that it should have been survivable for all, but clearly the cockpit took the full brunt of the impact with the trees

Turbo Dak crash OH, 2 fatalities
 

From ASN

Any more information?

Think it is possibly hydraulic fluid NOT blood.

The fuselage stayed relatively intact, how unfortunate that they have hit something to destroy the cockpit.

Just out of general interest what is the performance like of these turbine conversions on one engine? I used to fly a Turbine Islands, obviously considerably smaller, and when simulating engine failure during LPC and OPC checks it was very difficult to get it to climb. I suspect in the real world a genuine engine failure shortly after take off would have left me looking for somewhere to force land.

apparently it was this one...

Douglas DC-3 Airplane Conversion | Preferred Turbine-3

well this particular mod had the same rated power from the PT-6 as it did with with the Wright Cyclone, or Pratt Whitney engine...so Im sure it wasn't an exceptional engine out performer

You beat me to it Sir.

Single engine performance
 

If there were only two crew on board, it should have been able to climb on one engine.

Freight
 

The thing with a conversion is that you need to keep about the same power as with the original engines so that the aircraft will behave similarly in an engine-out situation. If you went onto one much more powerful engine then the amount of control from the rudder would be quite insufficient. The Twin Otter, for example, limits the amount of power on the later versions of the PT-6 to that available on the original engine, for this reason.

One "gotcha" with this DC-3 conversion is that functioning autofeather is a required item, or so I have been told. Without it an engine failure immediately after lift-off can be a serious problem.

most if not all the large pistons had auto feather as well

some conversions have been modified to accommodate larger engines, CV-580 comes to mind

While it is not yet known if an engine failure was the cause of this accident, it is worth remembering that any delay before feathering the prop in a turbo prop aircraft means the drag from the windmilling prop is so great that airspeed and directional control would be lost in seconds. The DC3 has very small rudder pedals close together and it is not easy to apply full rudder especially against the drag from a windmilling prop.

In a similar accident many years ago in Australia where a piston powered DC-3 had a total engine failure at 200 feet after take off over water, the investigation found the PF used insufficient rudder against the windmilling prop and then applied almost full aileron to aid directional control until ditching a few seconds later. The full aileron caused significant drag. The initial combination of windmilling prop, less than optimum rudder and airspeed and full aileron, meant the DC-3 was never able to climb because of the amount of the drag involved. The captain feathered the propeller which stopped several degrees before the fully feathered position. By then its drag had reduced considerably. Fortunately, in the case of the ditching, everyone (27 people?) got out without serious injuries as the water was shallow.

The thing with airplanes certified to older standards is that you do not necessarily have this modern transport aircraft capability of assured performance, when you can either stop or else go with an engine failure. That would be in any reasonably foreseeable case assuming that you operate within your performance limitations. With the Greasy Three there's often a little gap, but a very significant one, where you are probably going to come down with a thump if one of the donkeys quits. That gap lies between stopping safely and flying away.

There was one like that when I was working in Miami (which included a few hours as a right-seater on the DC-3), where a local hero lost one engine right after take-off, did a graceful pirouette, and crashed still abeam the runway. I understand that if that man's name had been Bob Hoover or Chuck Yeager then he might well have managed not to crash, but modern aircraft are certified for a pilot of normal ability to manage such a failure and get away with not crashing. Not the DC-3, however!

I bet that a CV-580 is longer than a CV-440. If so, that would give a longer arm for the rudder, no? That or else that the Allison engines are de-rated for takeoff.

Generally, you can not simply hang souped-up engines on an old twin engine airframe and be good to go. You get into certification problems that way because of Vmc and all that sort of thing. According to Wikipedia the Basler Turbo BT-67 uses PT-6A-67 engines that produce 1220 hp. The original Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp produces 1200 hp.

Where you often get the big gains through re-engining is with flat-rating, the extra thermal horsepower coming into play as you climb. Too, a turbo-prop is generally much more dependable than an old radial engine, because of design and age issues.

We used to get these guys coming up to the cockpit on the DC-3 as we were rumbling along at 3,500 feet, heading out to some island in the Bahamas. They would burble on about the romance, how this was "real flying" and all that hogwash, when I thought they should do a preflight on an R-1830 or R-1820 engine sometime and see how it leaks oil. (The joke with a radial is that if you see no oil leaks on the pre-flght, don't go flying; it is out of oil!) On a PT-6 I think it's one liter per ten hours, allowed oil consumption. On our DC-3 we would dump 5 gallons into each oil tank on turn-around out in the Bahamas when it was a long leg to Georgetown. Romantic, no so sure, but it certainly was sloppy!