DC-3, C-47, Dakota, and all license built or copies

[Jeffry Fontaine]

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. 

[rallymodeller]

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?

[jcf]

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

[ysi_maniac]

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

Love this!

[Nick]

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?

[Radish]

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.

[Nick]

Clucking Bell. Spherical objects. Excrement.

I spotted these kits on Friday. 
Realised what I could do with one on Monday.
Got to the shop today and all 3 of the kits had gone.

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.

[PR19_Kit]

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

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!

[kitnut617]

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

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.

[PR19_Kit]

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!

[kitnut617]

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.

[Taiidantomcat]

Wow! learn something new everyday.

[kitnut617]

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.

[kitnut617]

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.

[kitnut617]

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 -------