Hi folks,
An idea I've been thinking about for a while is a Jet DC-3 whiff - in much the same way as the Vickers VC.1 Viking was fitted with Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets to create the first British pure jet transport aircraft (see below). I'm thinking maybe a little earlier though and using say a pair of Rolls-Royce Derwents:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rafmuseum.org.uk%2Fmilestones-of-flight%2Faircraft%2Fimages%2F1946%2F1946-6154-3-V-Viking.jpg&hash=0b358916a70d7b8530feb41b7aa12b40fbfee504)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fdd%2FVickers_Nene_Viking_G-AJPH.jpg&hash=b053873178893f703e7d4f38ca4cbe20e1008944)
Any other ideas for whiff DC-3s?
Regards,
Greg
in the 'Afghanistan Fire Force' thread, there was discussion of a Rhodie Dak acting as a gunship. Burncycle suggested adding an RCL, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought that forward firing underwing RCLs would be better. Also mentioned using the Dak as a bomber with Frantans (napalm tanks).
Mav
Add lots of nice bumps and aerials for elint stuff.
Add Darts for enhanced performance on a military machine.
Add underfuselage tank for firebombing.
Add a 3rd radial engine in an extended nose.
Add top and side gun positions for a bomber, with an extended nose with fixed machine guns and a bomb aimer's clear panel.
Add a V-tail. :party:
QuoteAdd top and side gun positions for a bomber, with an extended nose with fixed machine guns and a bomb aimer's clear panel.
Technically speaking, would extensive modification be needed to install a twin .50 MG turret on the dorsal position?
After reading that ROCAF used DC-3 to drop grenades onto communist supply line at night during the civil war, I began imagining when playing CFS2 about a bit more thorough bomber version of DC-3 used by ROCAF against Japanese (assuming that the US didn't drop atom bombs).
Modifications include a dorsal twin .50 turret (maybe salvaged from B-25 lost in action), one waist .50 MG shooting out of a window on each side. At the beginning I was thinking under fuselage bomb racks, but after reading postwar South American bomber mods (having bombs rolling out of the cargo hold via existing doors) I thought of it as seemingly more elegant......
One of the russian DC-3s (called Li-2 I think) had a dorsal turret.
DC-3's were used as level bombers during the soccer wars, but I don't think they had much effect.
I'd like to have seen a gunship version with a 75mm pack howitzer in the door on a recoiling mount, maybe a couple of 20mm in the windows.
QuoteQuoteAdd top and side gun positions for a bomber, with an extended nose with fixed machine guns and a bomb aimer's clear panel.
Technically speaking, would extensive modification be needed to install a twin .50 MG turret on the dorsal position?
After reading that ROCAF used DC-3 to drop grenades onto communist supply line at night during the civil war, I began imagining when playing CFS2 about a bit more thorough bomber version of DC-3 used by ROCAF against Japanese (assuming that the US didn't drop atom bombs).
Modifications include a dorsal twin .50 turret (maybe salvaged from B-25 lost in action), one waist .50 MG shooting out of a window on each side. At the beginning I was thinking under fuselage bomb racks, but after reading postwar South American bomber mods (having bombs rolling out of the cargo hold via existing doors) I thought of it as seemingly more elegant......
Well, if you decide to butcher a 1/48 C-47 or DC-3 let me know. I've got at least one turret assembly. complete, from a Monogram B-25. I may possibly have 2.
Let me know.
how about a DC-3 with a big full fuselage float and 2 decent size ones for the wingtip floats lol the ultimate "GOONEY BIRD" :wacko: :P
Since the Monogram AC-47 is out and has paddle props:
Return it to a modified C-47 status with extra filtration for desert air, night exhausts, remove the upper blister, paint it up in Tamiya Desert Yellow and trim it in white/green for the EgypTours C-47 used by the Mercenaries of Marrakech. There would be a blend of seats and cargo. Accompany it with a Tamiya Desert Kubelwagen and the soft top have the same green/white. No miniguns since the time frame is 1953-1955 or so and the tour goes from Cairo down to Luxor with occasional jaunts over to Tangier or into the Afar Depression in Ethiopia.
BTW, could the C-47 carry a Willys?
:thumbsup:,
Daryl J.
Quote from: Daryl J. on May 28, 2008, 06:19:41 PM
BTW, could the C-47 carry a Willys?
:thumbsup:
http://members.aol.com/WW2JeepMBGPW/Photos/JeepItalyC47.jpg
Well when Basler do a Turbo-Dak, they have to add a serious fuselage plug just behind the cockpit to maintain the CofG, given that the PT-6As are MUCH lighter than the radials. Looking at that plug, it occured to me that you could fit the EMI Searchwater dome from the little AEW Islander, to give a much bigger cheapo-AEW platform.....
Kit-wise, you'd probably be looking at nicking the radome off an AEW Gannet or Avenger or something similar, if such a kit exists, of course....
Quote from: Weaver on May 30, 2008, 07:51:43 PM
Well when Basler do a Turbo-Dak, they have to add a serious fuselage plug just behind the cockpit to maintain the CofG, given that the PT-6As are MUCH lighter than the radials.
Conway's(?) turbine conversion puts a third turboprop in the nose. That's another way to get around ther CofG problem.
For a jet engine Dak, how about a version as you mentioned with two Nenes/J42's, followed by a DC-4 when it was realised that the tail dragger configuration was not the way forward, maybe with four Derwents/J33's? Similar to how the Avro Tudor Mk.8 developed into the Avro Ashton.
Any early Douglas development of turbo-jet aircraft as suggested would require the removal or death of Donald Douglas, he was publicly doubtful of the potential commercial market and, along with the Douglas board, chary of spending the necessary funds. The DC-8 was launched largely because Boeing was determined to go ahead with the 707.
The preferred Douglas scheme was for turbo-prop developments of existing airframes.
Jon
So a potential aircraft from Donald Douglas could be a stretched DC-3 with an added wing center section making it 4 engines like what Derek Pennington (?) made some time back on Hyperscale except with 4 turboprops. Could this be the alternate for the P-3C Orion?
Daryl J.
Quote from: Daryl J. on June 03, 2008, 07:06:52 PM
So a potential aircraft from Donald Douglas could be a stretched DC-3 with an added wing center section making it 4 engines like what Derek Pennington (?) made some time back on Hyperscale except with 4 turboprops. Could this be the alternate for the P-3C Orion?
Daryl J.
In many ways the original DC-4 design (later designated DC-4E) was an enlarged DC-3, the design was abandoned and the Douglas designers went back to the drawing board and produced the more familiar DC-4/C-54 family. Look at the fuselage of the DC-4/C-54 and you'll see a resemblance to the DC-3, in many ways it is your stretched DC-3. The DC-4 begat the DC-6 which begat the DC-7.
I suppose a heavily redesigned turbo-prop DC-4 could have been a competitor for the Lockheed L-188 Electra and thus possibly in the running for what became the P-3, the problem is the DC prop jobs all precede the Lockheed by many years (DC-4 late 30s, L-188 mid 50s) and as such would not be technologically competitive.
Any jet conversions or DC-3 stretches originating from Douglas are very doubtful, of course that doesn't mean someone else couldn't have played around with such notions.
Taking a different tack with Douglas one could pursue the Mixmaster idea, the first concept designated DC-8 used that propulsion setup.
Maybe semi-buried turbine engines driving a contra-prop pusher setup in place of the Allison V-3420 engines that were planned.
Jon
Not too long ago I contacted another member of the WHIF forum to purchase a resin conversion kit for the Boeing XB-38 (Allison V1710 engine cowlings) which is a bit primitive when compared to the current crop of resin conversions out there. Having no real desire to build the XB-38 which is really sleek looking I had other plans for the parts such as using them as the starting point for a turbine power egg for a couple of other projects. This leaves me with several of the Allison engine cowlings that could be put to other uses such as a V1710 powered C-47/DC-3. So I figured I would share that idea with you all and let your imaginations wander.
Trouble with coming up with an original Dak idea is that someone, somewhere has thought of it first. And probably built it. In 1:1 scale.
How about a version with a T-tail and rear loading doors? Or a high-wing version?
Personally, though, I have always liked the design of the C-46 better. If not for bad timing, Curtiss might have been able to bury Douglas with what was arguably a better aircraft. How about adding the Commando to this thread?
Quote from: rallymodeller on December 15, 2008, 08:19:10 AM
Personally, though, I have always liked the design of the C-46 better. If not for bad timing, Curtiss might have been able to bury Douglas with what was arguably a better aircraft. How about adding the Commando to this thread?
Except that the Curtiss-Wright CW-20/C-47 was not designed as a DC-3 competitor,
rather it was an attempt to leapfrog the competition.
The CW-20T was designed in 1936 as a 'New Era', long-range, pressurized 'stratosphere' airliner,
and apparently designed without input from potential customers, had the aircraft entered airline
service in the early 1940s (the prototype CW-20T flew in 1940) it would not have been long before the
CW-20T was directly up against the DC-4.
The big-twin design of the CW-20T (wingspan was 4 feet greater than that of the B-17)
was a gamble that many historians feel would have relegated the aircraft to limited
airline use, especially as it had a strange mix of features:
twice the fuselage volume of a DC-3 with only 1.5 times the seating;
50 percent greater gross weight requiring more powerfu engines with higher
fuel consumption thus negating the advantages of increased fuel volume;
it would have had twenty berths as a 'sleeper' for night routes, however
the 'dayliner' interior variations offered only had 24 to 34 seats, a uneconomical
number for an aircraft with such a large internal volume.
Had the timing been different it is probable that the CW-20T would have been a commercial flop
and today the aircraft would be just another obscure design of the late 1930s.
Many of the features that made the design a questionable choice as an airliner were
precisely what suited it to the role of military transport and produced its lasting reputation.
Serendipity saved the day for C-46.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on June 04, 2008, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Daryl J. on June 03, 2008, 07:06:52 PM
So a potential aircraft from Donald Douglas could be a stretched DC-3 with an added wing center section making it 4 engines like what Derek Pennington (?) made some time back on Hyperscale except with 4 turboprops. Could this be the alternate for the P-3C Orion?
Daryl J.
In many ways the original DC-4 design (later designated DC-4E) was an enlarged DC-3, the design was abandoned and the Douglas designers went back to the drawing board and produced the more familiar DC-4/C-54 family. Look at the fuselage of the DC-4/C-54 and you'll see a resemblance to the DC-3, in many ways it is your stretched DC-3. The DC-4 begat the DC-6 which begat the DC-7.
I suppose a heavily redesigned turbo-prop DC-4 could have been a competitor for the Lockheed L-188 Electra and thus possibly in the running for what became the P-3, the problem is the DC prop jobs all precede the Lockheed by many years (DC-4 late 30s, L-188 mid 50s) and as such would not be technologically competitive.
Any jet conversions or DC-3 stretches originating from Douglas are very doubtful, of course that doesn't mean someone else couldn't have played around with such notions.
Taking a different tack with Douglas one could pursue the Mixmaster idea, the first concept designated DC-8 used that propulsion setup.
Maybe semi-buried turbine engines driving a contra-prop pusher setup in place of the Allison V-3420 engines that were planned.
Jon
:wub: :wub: Love this! :thumbsup:
I've seen the old Revell boxing of the DC-3 for under £7 in my local TK Maxx. It has the Finnish Ilmavoimat DC-3 photo on the front.
I'm thinking of doing this as a Li-2, the Soviet license-build version for the Red Star GB next year.
Does anyone know of any good reasons not to bother with this kit?
It's an excellent kit, an easy build, a re-boxed Italeri kit at an excellent price.
I've built loads.
Tips......ignore the interior....you'll see nothing anyway.
I leave out ALL bulkheads as you'll need to make these smaller if you want the fuselage halves to fit.
I cut the centre out of the front bulkead though, and fit each half to it's respective fuselage half, and I attach the seat backs to this.....that's all you'll see of the cockpit anyway!
Leave all glazing until you've finished painting/decalling.
Cut each fuselage transparancy from Christmas Card packing...that thin clear plastic stuff, and after coating the inside edges of each apperture with clear white glue, float each new window into place. Make sure you cut each new window slightly undersize and cut a few extra as the odd one will drop inside. Use a template for cutting strips of glazing. It sounds complicated but I can glaze a C-47 in about 30 mins and it'll look great.
Split the windscreen transparancy into teo on the centre line and fit, or better, leave it intact but glaze is the same way as on the side transparancies, only use the kit piece suitably sanded to siz
Enjoy.
It's a great kit. :thumbsup:
Clucking Bell. Spherical objects. Excrement.
I spotted these kits on Friday. -_-
Realised what I could do with one on Monday. :o
Got to the shop today and all 3 of the kits had gone. :banghead:
I will look in another store tomorrow but it is unlikely they'll have one in stock.
Thinking along the same lines I could look out for a cheap B-29 or other postwar Soviet heavy bomber. :unsure:
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 26, 2009, 11:56:12 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 26, 2009, 11:45:27 AM
I've done one of those Dak floatplanes, and what a pig it was too! I hope anyone doing a Wimpy floatplane would put the floats directly under the engines. Douglas put theirs inboard of the engines by about a foot, thus creating difficulties for modellers ever since.
Sorry a bit off topic----
I found I had to toss all the struts in the bin, too short and not enough of them. But Aeroclub's Contrail Strut Package came to the rescue. Also found the main wheels were totally wrong, there's a real one still flying, or was a couple of years ago, and it has Catalina wheels so that's what I change mine too.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Douglas-DC-3-G202A/0338369/L/&sid=580cae7246625373e08cef81785b8943 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Douglas-DC-3-G202A/0338369/L/&sid=580cae7246625373e08cef81785b8943)
I copied this here Robert, it seems more in place.
It sounds like you made yours from a kit, was it?
I didn't know there was one and did mine from bits. The floats were the largest ones Aeroclub do in their vacform kit, extended by about an inch, and the struts were all piano wire with styrene 'spats' around them. They were a bitch to bend correctly to get the right positioning. I can't remember where my wheels came from, but luckily they are pretty invisible under the float. I've lost one of the nosewheels and can't find a replacement now, or I'd post a piccie of mine.
I think that one you posted the link for is actually the prototype, and it's STILL flying, amazing. It seems they made quite a few in the field from conversion kits sent out to the Pacific Islands. That must have been a job and a half!
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 26, 2009, 12:14:14 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 26, 2009, 11:56:12 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 26, 2009, 11:45:27 AM
I've done one of those Dak floatplanes, and what a pig it was too! I hope anyone doing a Wimpy floatplane would put the floats directly under the engines. Douglas put theirs inboard of the engines by about a foot, thus creating difficulties for modellers ever since.
Sorry a bit off topic----
I found I had to toss all the struts in the bin, too short and not enough of them. But Aeroclub's Contrail Strut Package came to the rescue. Also found the main wheels were totally wrong, there's a real one still flying, or was a couple of years ago, and it has Catalina wheels so that's what I change mine too.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Douglas-DC-3-G202A/0338369/L/&sid=580cae7246625373e08cef81785b8943 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Douglas-DC-3-G202A/0338369/L/&sid=580cae7246625373e08cef81785b8943)
I copied this here Robert, it seems more in place.
It sounds like you made yours from a kit, was it?
I didn't know there was one and did mine from bits. The floats were the largest ones Aeroclub do in their vacform kit, extended by about an inch, and the struts were all piano wire with styrene 'spats' around them. They were a bitch to bend correctly to get the right positioning. I can't remember where my wheels came from, but luckily they are pretty invisible under the float. I've lost one of the nosewheels and can't find a replacement now, or I'd post a piccie of mine.
I think that one you posted the link for is actually the prototype, and it's STILL flying, amazing. It seems they made quite a few in the field from conversion kits sent out to the Pacific Islands. That must have been a job and a half!
I got the RVHP conversion, 1/72 of course. The floats are solid resin and the conversion is geared to the Italeri kit. There's another converion out which I think is the old RVHP moulds Hannants has it listed under XC-47C I think. The front wheels aren't too bad actually except they have forked u/c legs. I left those as they were, the main wheels I got the True Details Catalina wheel set.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FXC-47CFloatplane003.jpg&hash=e8854420dbfc96b9f2945b552dc979f5bf97e448)
Hm, wish I'd seen that before I did mine!
I had to put lots of lead in the nose of the floats, as well as in the fuse just behind the cockpit, AND in the engine nacelles, all to keep the thing on its nose. It weighs a ton!
There's a fair bit of weight just in the floats but I did have to add some forward of the cockpit, and you're right it does weigh a ton.
Just had a re-read of your post, the prototype crashed during testing but Edo made 150 sets of floats which all got installed in the field, so I've read.
Wow! learn something new everyday. :thumbsup:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 26, 2009, 12:14:14 PM
I've lost one of the nosewheels and can't find a replacement now, or I'd post a piccie of mine.
I'm building a Dash-8 floatplane using this same floats conversion but I'm going to use more up-to-date u/c and wheels, I'll pop the front wheels left over from the conversion in the mail for you if you like.
Quote from: Weaver on May 30, 2008, 07:51:43 PM
Well when Basler do a Turbo-Dak, they have to add a serious fuselage plug just behind the cockpit to maintain the CofG, given that the PT-6As are MUCH lighter than the radials. Looking at that plug, it occured to me that you could fit the EMI Searchwater dome from the little AEW Islander, to give a much bigger cheapo-AEW platform.....
Kit-wise, you'd probably be looking at nicking the radome off an AEW Gannet or Avenger or something similar, if such a kit exists, of course....
I've got the Heritage Aviation Turbo-Dak conversion (PT-6 and 1/72 scale) and it comes with the plug and a lot of bits to make an SAAF AEW Trainer, I've also got the Dart Dak conversion too which has the really extended engine cowlings. I have also come across the three engined conversion kit but do you think I can find it now.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on June 04, 2008, 12:00:34 AM
Taking a different tack with Douglas one could pursue the Mixmaster idea, the first concept designated DC-8 used that propulsion setup.
Maybe semi-buried turbine engines driving a contra-prop pusher setup in place of the Allison V-3420 engines that were planned.
Jon
And that would take advantage of the XB-42/43 development wouldn't it. I like that idea --- hmm! I wonder -------
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 26, 2009, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 26, 2009, 12:14:14 PM
I've lost one of the nosewheels and can't find a replacement now, or I'd post a piccie of mine.
I'm building a Dash-8 floatplane using this same floats conversion but I'm going to use more up-to-date u/c and wheels, I'll pop the front wheels left over from the conversion in the mail for you if you like.
You're a scholar and a gentleman sir, gratefully accepted. They can piggieback with the vacform Arrows! >:(
I have that three engined Dak conversion too, isn't it Swiss or similar? Some superb resin castings, with a complete Italeri kit as well.
Basler Daks in Israeli service, I'd also like to do a turbo-Dak gunship fitted with a pair of M197s . . .
Currently working out the idea for an gunship variant in either SE Asia or South Ameica:
Guns firing down through the lower fuselage...
Landing lights relocated to the nose.....
SE Asia modified scheme, with Bat nose-art, like on WW2 B-25s......
Outer wing panels replaced with Bat wings.......
I'm pretty much ready to start, using the Revell version of the C-47, and it'll be done for Bolton :thumbsup:
Perhaps Rumanian, though, with Li-2 mods.....
Certainly Eastern Europe might figure well, or Greece?or Turkey?
But I suppose Vampires live everywhere, especially under the bed or in the wardrobe :wacko:
Quote from: Shasper on September 01, 2009, 04:43:58 PM
Basler Daks in Israeli service, I'd also like to do a turbo-Dak gunship fitted with a pair of M197s . . .
The Colombian Air Force has Turbo Dak gunships called "Fantasmas"
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/71m-in-c47-dakota-conversions-to-colombia-01435/
http://wikimapia.org/3481830/2-AC47T-Fantasma-COIN-aircraft
Thx Ray I didn't know that :-)
An initial idea for the armed military versions of the Soviet Li-2 was to equip it with 2 x 37mm cannon and 3 x 20mm cannon, as well as 3 machine guns and a few bombs.
Also, the chap that devised the gun configuration/concept for the AC-47 first suggested the idea in WW2 :rolleyes:
Done some butchery today.
We're looking at a C-47, specially modified for nocturnal missions over Korea...you'll have seen nothing like it!! :party:
I should complete the essential build by early next week, and then the fun with the paintwork and decals will begin!! :drink: :drink: :party:
>We're looking at a C-47, specially modified for nocturnal missions over Korea...you'll have seen nothing like it!! <
If you put some ECM stuff in it.......do you have an aircraft capable of nocturnal e-missions?? :blink:
The Winter Solstice, etc... has delayed things, but we're progressing.
I'm also dreaming up some other variants, including turbo-prop ones, and Royal Navy Immigration Control C-47s; possibly RAF C-47s in Iraq/Afghanistan too.
I've got some more DC-3s/C-47s on the way too. :thumbsup:
The Batwinged C-47 will be ready for Thursday's Club meeting, and I hope to take some photos there, as well as send something to Brother Narses....working on an artice.
I'll cut out the next C-47 while I'm there.....ready for Turno Props and an Immigration Control role. :blink:
Turno props are powered by Turnips ;D
I meant "turbo props" :drink:
>...Immigration Control role.<
Maybe a "Spooky" gunship with rubber bullets and dye to deter illegal crossings?
Quote from: Radish on January 11, 2010, 11:39:23 AM
The Batwinged C-47 will be ready for Thursday's Club meeting, and I hope to take some photos there, as well as send something to Brother Narses....working on an artice.
Looking forward to that Rad
How about converting one into a high winged, twin turboprop, ground hugging machine? Why? Why not? :blink: :blink: Maybe the US Coast Guard could use it for transporting South American drug bust hauls to locations of unknown addresses, or Lysander-like insertions of agents into Latin American minidicatorships.
:cheers: (cold tap water)
Daryl J.
Or a biplane?
Or a rotating wing.... :drink: :drink:
I'm liking these ideas!
Regards,
Greg
While Wikipedia is not always the best resource for facts and such they do help with compiling pertinent details and information on some subjects that helps. The sheer number of aircraft designations associated with the Douglas DC-3 is astounding and Wikipedia has attempted to list the majority of those known here is the link for the Wikipedia entry for the Douglas C-47 family of aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-47_Skytrain)
How about a Hump Buster C-47 with extra power:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FC47hunpbuster.jpg&hash=1cf0b5411a28fee75fbb819f7c5ea80a72d07423)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on March 27, 2010, 02:29:17 PM
How about a Hump Buster C-47 with extra power:
I'm only surprised they didn't do it for real! It surely wouldn't have been THAT difficult.
Why only three blades on the props and not 5 or 6 blades with a turboprop engine on each wing?
Perhaps a cannon and machinegun nose arrangement similar to a B-25J attached to a FANTASMA- call it an upgraded FANTASMA call it SAYONA (a particular wraith like spook known all over Latin America) or LA PELONA (the bald lady- as sometimes the angel of death is called in parts of Latin America)
:cheers:
Last couple of ideas.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yellowairplane.com%2FExhibits%2FModel_Airplanes_Mexico_City%2F20-Trimotor_DC-3_Passanger_Airplane.jpg&hash=af353b7e07e6ad557f1faf673dea3e2a14e8c0dc)
Some other fun stuff.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%2Fimages%2Fuploaded-images%2F2009-4%2F4%2F41399.jpg&hash=a973d0ecc06e521b0c08f9b720371706dde5d083)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boeing.com%2Fhistory%2Fmdc%2Fgraphics%2Fhistlarg%2Fhist083b.jpg&hash=8433868eae9b8a6b2abd14dad11951a1c030428f)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_M5dnB4X3_Fg%2FSj1w9Yp6nrI%2FAAAAAAAAAns%2FoKdLAEfrB0U%2Fs640%2FCanadian%2520C-47%2520Pinocchio.jpg&hash=19a97f727fe74b1d8c1b47d14846f1c7681d72b6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_M5dnB4X3_Fg%2FSi9c_3ZlOuI%2FAAAAAAAAAeE%2F0kgpRxcB960%2Fs640%2FHill%2520airshow%25202006%2520171.jpg&hash=b8e40ec2bd9e904ce5cec005127790b71d49ea3b)
That Super DC-3 makes me wonder a bit about an AC-Super 47.
I offer the suggestion of the DC-2 and half http://www.douglasdc3.com/dc2half/dc2half.htm (http://www.douglasdc3.com/dc2half/dc2half.htm)
Quote from: Daryl J. on March 27, 2010, 08:45:19 PM
That Super DC-3 makes me wonder a bit about an AC-Super 47.
The Super DC-3 was used by the USN/USMC as the R4D-8, with the 1962 US service designation standardization
they became the C-117D.
So perhaps a USMC AC-117D? ;D
What type of turbines are those above? That, and when did they go into production?
TIA,
Daryl J., with a Monogram AC-47 in the stash.
Quote from: Daryl J. on March 28, 2010, 03:20:50 PM
What type of turbines are those above? That, and when did they go into production?
They're all variations on the PT6A. The PT6A-6 was in full production model by 1963 but only generated 580 shp. These conversions all use 'large' PT6s (Conroy Tri-Turbo Three 3 x PT6A-45As, Basler BT-67 and similar conversions 2 x PT6A-67s) which originated in the mid-'70s.
Quote from: Daryl J. on March 28, 2010, 03:20:50 PMWhat type of turbines are those above? That, and when did they go into production?
TIA,
Daryl J., with a Monogram AC-47 in the stash.
Basler Turbo Conversions LLC
255 West 35th Ave.
PO Box 2305
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2305 (http://www.baslerturbo.com/)
Basler BT-67 is a rebuilt to zero time C-47/DC-3 airframe with a fuselage plug added just behind the flight station to increase payload capacity. Powered by PT6A-67R Turboprop engines from Pratt & Whitney Canada and 5-blade metal propellers from Hartzell. There was or is still a company based in Waco, Texas that offers a similar re-manufacturing program for the C-47/DC-3 using Garrett turbines instead of the P&W Canada PT6.
My bet is the fuselage plug is for CG purposes since the PT-6s are quite a bit lighter than the R-1830s. It had a side effect of increasing capacity.
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on March 28, 2010, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: Daryl J. on March 28, 2010, 03:20:50 PMWhat type of turbines are those above? That, and when did they go into production?
TIA,
Daryl J., with a Monogram AC-47 in the stash.
Basler Turbo Conversions LLC
255 West 35th Ave.
PO Box 2305
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2305 (http://www.baslerturbo.com/)
Basler BT-67 is a rebuilt to zero time C-47/DC-3 airframe with a fuselage plug added just behind the flight station to increase payload capacity. Powered by PT6A-67R Turboprop engines from Pratt & Whitney Canada and 5-blade metal propellers from Hartzell. There was or is still a company based in Waco, Texas that offers a similar re-manufacturing program for the C-47/DC-3 using Garrett turbines instead of the P&W Canada PT6.
What about a Douglas Rotodyne for those short commuter hops
Hey tigercat, I think the Russians got there ahead of you. I cant find the images of it at the moment but basically they mounted a turbine and set of rotors above the cabin of a dc 2? Someone else will post the links/pictures im sure.
It just goes to show as said before that the Dakota has had pretty much had everything that could be done done to it
Heres the
XCG-17
One C-47 tested as a 40-seat troop glider with engines removed and faired over.
Still waiting for the USAF to grab some BT-67s for some gunship work ;)
Speaking of the Dak, has anyone heard about a 1:35 DC-3/C-47 kit coming out?
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: philp on March 27, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Some other fun stuff.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%2Fimages%2Fuploaded-images%2F2009-4%2F4%2F41399.jpg&hash=a973d0ecc06e521b0c08f9b720371706dde5d083)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boeing.com%2Fhistory%2Fmdc%2Fgraphics%2Fhistlarg%2Fhist083b.jpg&hash=8433868eae9b8a6b2abd14dad11951a1c030428f)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_M5dnB4X3_Fg%2FSj1w9Yp6nrI%2FAAAAAAAAAns%2FoKdLAEfrB0U%2Fs640%2FCanadian%2520C-47%2520Pinocchio.jpg&hash=19a97f727fe74b1d8c1b47d14846f1c7681d72b6)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh4.ggpht.com%2F_M5dnB4X3_Fg%2FSi9c_3ZlOuI%2FAAAAAAAAAeE%2F0kgpRxcB960%2Fs640%2FHill%2520airshow%25202006%2520171.jpg&hash=b8e40ec2bd9e904ce5cec005127790b71d49ea3b)
Actually what I had been thinking of (more precisely) were those crazy propellers found on the newer Hawkeyes and Hercules of the US Armed forces or those high tech propellers created by NASA.
:cheers:
MasterCraft or something similar. Also a Hadrian (why not a CG-4?) & a Ju 52.
Quote from: GTX on April 01, 2010, 12:13:13 PM
Speaking of the Dak, has anyone heard about a 1:35 DC-3/C-47 kit coming out?
Regards,
Greg
Hmm. OK, what's the British glider used on D-Day? I think it's the British glider, not the CG-4 then. I'll have to look & see if I can find the post.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on April 01, 2010, 03:35:18 PM
Quote from: famvburg on April 01, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
Also a Hadrian (why not a CG-4?)
CG-4A = Hadrian
Aha! Here it is. It's Masterbox & a Horsa. I knew it started with an H! Taken from rec.models.scale.
Masterbox is in the process of developing a 1/35 scale styrene model
kit of both the C-47 and the Horsa glider. Each kit is planned to be
released as either a British or US aircraft and will even have the
appropriate flight crew for each aircraft. Pretty soon we will be able
to model drop-zones or possible even descending paratroopers. With the
British Paratroop figures sets already available from both Dragon and
Masterbox plus the forth coming Dragon Welbike kits and also with a
converted jep to airborne we will be able to model a very interesting
deop zone.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on April 01, 2010, 03:35:18 PM
Quote from: famvburg on April 01, 2010, 12:58:26 PM
Also a Hadrian (why not a CG-4?)
CG-4A = Hadrian
Now, a Hamilcar would make an interesting model for a WWII drop zone. 1/35 would though, be a little large. Anybody do a Tetrarch to go with it? Then there were the stripped down Morris 11 CWTs, the Universal Carriers and 6 & 17 Pdrs for them to tow.
Quote from: famvburg on April 01, 2010, 04:58:35 PM
I knew it started with an H! Taken from rec.models.scale.
Hehe, but then
ALL the gliders used by British forces started with an H! :lol:
Hadrian, Horsa, Hotspur, Hengist, Hamilcar etc. and every one named for various Greek gods I think. (classics wasn't/isn't my string point...)
A 1/35 Dak and ANY glider have got to be just HUGE! And expensive too I bet, but a modelling tour de force nonetheless.
I can't find the picture anymore but someone took the front of a DC 3 fuselage and stuck wheels on each corner and turned it into a van/bus
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 02, 2010, 03:26:15 AM
Quote from: famvburg on April 01, 2010, 04:58:35 PM
I knew it started with an H! Taken from rec.models.scale.
Hehe, but then ALL the gliders used by British forces started with an H! :lol:
Hadrian, Horsa, Hotspur, Hengist, Hamilcar etc. and every one named for various Greek gods I think. (classics wasn't/isn't my string point...)
A 1/35 Dak and ANY glider have got to be just HUGE! And expensive too I bet, but a modelling tour de force nonetheless.
No, classics doesn't appear to be one of your "string" points. They were named after Ancient generals/commanders.
Quote from: rickshaw on April 02, 2010, 04:00:44 AM
No, classics doesn't appear to be one of your "string" points. They were named after Ancient generals/commanders.
Works for me, but then I can tune a 3-stage servo-valve and I bet Hengist couldn't.......... -_-
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 02, 2010, 04:25:51 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on April 02, 2010, 04:00:44 AM
No, classics doesn't appear to be one of your "string" points. They were named after Ancient generals/commanders.
Works for me, but then I can tune a 3-stage servo-valve and I bet Hengist couldn't.......... -_-
Well, you're doing better than me as well. I can though tune a Unix server... :lol:
The last time I saw a pic of it, or one if there are others, it was 20 odd years ago & was painted like the Space Shuttle.
Quote from: tigercat on April 02, 2010, 03:37:15 AM
I can't find the picture anymore but someone took the front of a DC 3 fuselage and stuck wheels on each corner and turned it into a van/bus
Space Shuttle RV
http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0507005
Aussie DC-3 camper
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/04/Douglas-DC-3-van.jpg
QuoteQuote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 02, 2010, 10:32:00 PM
Mike West, who is Lonestar Models, posts regularly on Hyperscale and has indicated that he is releasing a firebomber version of the F-15A,
in both 1/48th and 1/72nd.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1276833548/More+fire+bomber+aircraft+on+the+way
Quote from: GTX on July 03, 2010, 12:46:40 PM
Thanks guys!
His planned Bassler BT-67 conversion for the C-47 also sounds tasty!
Regards,
Greg
From the comments in the link provided by Jon:
Quotehttp://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1276833548/More+fire+bomber+aircraft+on+the+way
Next year the Bassler BT-67 conversion for the C-47 will be available in both 1/72 and 1/48."
Nice to see someone taking this on. Wonder if he will be including the fuselage plug for the conversion or an entire fuselage?
I will get one of the Basler conversions when avail too -- will probably do it as a gunship but prefer the tri-motor version. I note that the Sth American turbo dak uses different engines & has a flat "ramp" shape behind the engines with twin exhaust stacks sticking up.
Currently re-drawing a Russian Dak with glazed bomber-nose, bombay & twin-tail.
I've got one of each of these 1/72 scale conversions you can get from Heritage Aviation
http://www.heritageaviationmodelsltd.com/dart-dakota-97-p.asp
http://www.heritageaviationmodelsltd.com/turbo-dakota-saaf-113-p.asp
Haven't read the whole thread but ı know a glider version was planned . Are there any illustrations of that project ?
tahsin
The glider version wasn't only planned, it was actually built and tested under designation XCG-17. You can see some photos here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/glider/xcg17.html (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/glider/xcg17.html).
Thanks , for the info and the link . Though I would have supposed the engine pods would have been eliminated alltogether . Anyhow , my basic idea was putting one or two of these Skywagons behind a Skytrain .
An interesting thought, that occured with mention of the engine nacelles remaining. As gliders are for the most part single-use, could the CG-17 program be a way to use worn out C-47s? A new build CG-17 would seem to be quite expensive compared to CG-4, with no real advantage.
Quote from: royabulgaf on July 09, 2010, 04:59:42 PM
An interesting thought, that occured with mention of the engine nacelles remaining. As gliders are for the most part single-use, could the CG-17 program be a way to use worn out C-47s? A new build CG-17 would seem to be quite expensive compared to CG-4, with no real advantage.
Apart from increased cargo capacity and improved range while under tow. The C-47 was a significantly better flyer than most other gliders? Remember, the the CG-17 was designed for cargo carrying not assault purposes. It was intended to be a means of increasing capacity over "the hump", not to carry troops or material into an LZ.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi148.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs34%2Fhobgrot%2FLi-X.jpg&hash=0e36f2a3fd8f183003e7a5fe51b63bc0368bd1c2)
A former civil PS-84 (licence-built DC-3) built by Gaz it was converted to a Li-2 in 1942 then to a Li-2VV Bomber with twin fins in 1943 at the Pet. factory.
The Li-2 was given the NATO name "Cab" but the Soviet Lisunov Li-2VV Bomber version was named "Parrotbeak".
It incorporated a glazed nose with defensive mg, upper turret and bombay with doors. The ground attack / tank-busting version was another major conversion ....
Interesting. One assumes the size of bomb that could be carried internally was limited by the problem of the mainspar, like the B-17s was? Did they stow them horizontally or vertically, like the He111?
Rickshaw -- I didn't think of that problem until after I added the twin-fins. Probably the small to medium size Russian bombs.
I'll tell you once I've spoken to my man in Qantas who use to repair the DC-3s in Papua (mostly replacing corroded spars after horses & pigs **** on them).
Will try & get 2 Italeri kits to do this & a Tank-Buster version in plastic.
Li 2 bombs stowed horizontally internally and under the wing:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wunderwaffe.narod.ru%2FMagazine%2FAK%2F2005_03%2FPictures%2F21.jpg&hash=7b30238d67e5933d4115801361bc646ada00351e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wunderwaffe.narod.ru%2FMagazine%2FAK%2F2005_03%2FPictures%2F23.jpg&hash=5a5d279a9fa426bd277b09154cf4ae039be032c6)
More Li-2 stuff here:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AK/2005_03/Pictures/page_01.htm
Fokker proposals for DC-2 and -3 bombers here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7869.30.html
Quote from: raafif on July 12, 2010, 08:16:42 PM
I'll tell you once I've spoken to my man in Qantas who use to repair the DC-3s in Papua (mostly replacing corroded spars after horses & pigs **** on them).
Think I've flown on that airline ;D
Those Li-2 bomb rack pics are interesting, thanks :thumbsup:
Yes, I was right. Looks like it might be with that load a bit nose heavy with the load forward of the spar like that. I wonder what they use to balance it in the stern? Fuel cells most probably.
Quote from: rickshaw on July 13, 2010, 06:10:58 PM
Yes, I was right. Looks like it might be with that load a bit nose heavy with the load forward of the spar like that.
Not exactly as the DC-1, 2, 3 and derivatives don't have a main spar, they all used Jack Northrop's multi-cellular construction
which doesn't use spars per se.
does anyone have any images of the 'Dakota's used during filming of 'a bridge too far', i recall seeing images at the time of various nationalities 'DC.3's all finished in 'invasion colours' and at times with their own national insignias applied, eg. Netherlands, Belgium, etc.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Denmark---Air/Douglas-C-47A-Skytrain/0290902/L/&sid=33b8aa0ab751de33268d30c8d559f248
http://www.territorioscuola.com/youtube/view.php?video=dDC8aF_X9Fg&feature=youtube_gdata&title=A+Bridge+Too+Far+%281977%29+-+Theatrical+Trailer+-+%C2%A9+United+Artists
cheers, Joe
have the photos of the Fokker-Douglas Bomber model been removed from here ? -- http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7869.0.html
Can someone post them here ?
The site doesn't recognise my password anymore so I can't see any pictures.
That aircraft sounds like a very interesting & practical proposal.
Made a few changes (tail-plane dihedral) & put it in a maritime scheme for hunting U-boats in the Barents Sea & along the ice-shelf.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi148.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs34%2Fhobgrot%2FLi-XU.jpg&hash=d5832e3f179bb8cb3e3d651937925f8133f710c9)
Scheme is the same "Iceberg" as British RN ships & trawlers were painted for the Murmansk Convoys. The crewman of one of these trawlers said that the Russian ships that came out from Archangel to escort their devastated convoy in were painted in an even more bizarre scheme with fantastic colours -- anyone know what those were like ?
Quote from: raafif on July 15, 2010, 03:53:57 PM
have the photos of the Fokker-Douglas Bomber model been removed from here ? -- http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7869.0.html
Can someone post them here ?
The site doesn't recognise my password anymore so I can't see any pictures.
That aircraft sounds like a very interesting & practical proposal.
The images are still there. I'm at work now, but I'll see if I can't download a few and repost them here when I get off in another five hours or so.
Okay, here are the first batch of photos, originally said to have been taken with a crappy digital camera.
These are from the second batch, including an underside shot showing the bomb bay location.
Last is some original Fokker artwork, showing this version as well as a second proposal.
thanks, Jschmus !
Interesting but I can't help but say "what was that "designer" thinking !! -- way too drag-inducing ! What was wrong with a prone gunner & bombardier ? I thought it would have a regular gondola much like the FW-200.
I like the retractable turrets -- look identical to those on some late 1930's US bombers.
The DC-2 version seems far better & excellent for an emergency program for KLM's airliners.
Modified 3-tone Iceberg scheme for the Russian Li- Maritime bomber
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi148.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs34%2Fhobgrot%2FLi-XU2.jpg&hash=30effcdd6ccda978b3f609ebe3dca117390268f9)
Love the twin tail variants.
Found a picture of an interesting Dak ( in a museum in Iran) a little while ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mervbhx/7152128947/
I've done a bit of looking around, but I can't work out what's been done with the engines. Very odd cowlings and spinners, which I haven't seen on a Dak before. Can anyone shed any light?
The landing gear door arrangement looks like it came from an R4D-8 Super Dak, but the engine nacelle has a much larger radius than the standard Dak.
The cowling and spinner remind me of those on DHC-4 Caribous.
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 04, 2012, 01:45:51 PM
Found a picture of an interesting Dak ( in a museum in Iran) a little while ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mervbhx/7152128947/
I've done a bit of looking around, but I can't work out what's been done with the engines. Very odd cowlings and spinners, which I haven't seen on a Dak before. Can anyone shed any light?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 04, 2012, 01:52:57 PM
The landing gear door arrangement looks like it came from an R4D-8 Super Dak, but the engine nacelle has a much larger radius than the standard Dak.
I think a few hybrid conversions were under taken from standard C-47's with the u/c and engines from the R4D-8.
there are more photos of that dak here (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cx=partner-pub-8297169501225184%3Aa05n2n-tzky&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=EP-TWB&sa=Submit&search_active=1&search=&sheadline=&search_field=datedesc&submit=&siteurl=www.airliners.net%2F&ref=&ss=6230j6278886j11).
Quote from: pyro-manic on July 04, 2012, 01:45:51 PM
Found a picture of an interesting Dak ( in a museum in Iran) a little while ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mervbhx/7152128947/
I've done a bit of looking around, but I can't work out what's been done with the engines. Very odd cowlings and spinners, which I haven't seen on a Dak before. Can anyone shed any light?
It looks to me like an early cowling from a C-119A
Alley Cat Basler BT-67 conversions:
Straight-forward engine and airframe mods: http://www.alleycatmodels.co.uk/basler-bt-67-turbo-dakota-conversion-6495-p.asp (http://www.alleycatmodels.co.uk/basler-bt-67-turbo-dakota-conversion-6495-p.asp)
All the above plus guns, sensors and windshields to make a Colombian Air Force AC-47T Fantasma gunship: http://www.alleycatmodels.co.uk/basler-ac47t-fantasma-latin-american-af-gunship-bt67-6525-p.asp
South African Turbo-Dak (which is different from the Basler): http://www.alleycatmodels.co.uk/south-africa-c-47tp-turbo-dak-conversion-6530-p.asp
The landing gear doors were available from Douglas as a mod for any DC-3/DC-3A/C-47 etc., several
post-war operators installed them on their aircraft.
From Flight archives for 1951, Sabena were investigating an underslung Pallas turbojet for boosted take-offs in Congo.
No diagram unfortunately.
They also considered more 'traditional' RATO bottles but those would cost about £50 per take-off, at that time.
im amazed the Fokker was developing troop transport and floatplane versions of ther DC-3, long before the US developed the C-47 (which came 3 years later). the bomber variant is very interesting, i have a spare 1/72 DC-3 in the stash, i might have a go at this variant ;D
nice to see someone from the Ice Pilots NWT cast make a reference to the Secret Projects forum :mellow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3PsacBVxmk