Wikipedia

Talk:Douglas DC-3/Archive 2

< Talk:Douglas DC-3
Latest comment: 4 years ago by The Huhsz in topic Influence on adoption of imperial units
Archive 1 Archive 2

607 were built, More than 400 were in use in 2011?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I guess that the built number is only for the model of DC-3, but the in-use number includes C-47, which had >10,000 planes built in WW II. This should be clarified in the article. DBPZ (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

All the C-47s, C-53s, R4Ds etc. that made it into civil service would have had to be converted to DC-3s for them to get a Cerificate of Airworthiness, hence the discrepancy in numbers. I don't think that there are more than a handful of pre-December 7 1941-built DC-3s still flying and only a couple of dozen survivors. YSSYguy (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

DC-3 compared to the C-47

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The C-47 is not a substantially different plane from the DC-3. It has its own article, but that article mainly describes the DC-3's war-time use, not how it is different as an aircraft. For instance, see Boeing's website article on the C-47 here: http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/skytrain.htm

It says: "A reinforced fuselage floor and the addition of a large cargo door were the only major modifications. Other changes [to the DC-3] included the fitting of cargo hooks beneath the center wing section and the removal of the tail cone to mount a hook for towing gliders." PatrickCarbone (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

They are changes to the design, they didnt actually convert DC-3s to C-47s. The C-47s were built as C-47s which is why they have a different page. After the war some (well lots) C-47s were used by civvys and sometimes called DC-3s (although a lot kept the Dakota name) but they didnt modify them back to stock DC-3 condition nearly all of them retained the cargo door. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
If they were called DC-3's then that is probably because they were considered quite similar. They don't give a Cessna 172 a separate page every time they change a trim option or paint scheme. PatrickCarbone (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
They look similar but they had different engines, systems and equipment fits, as for 172s we have a Cessna T-41 Mescalero. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Really? Where have you found references saying they have different engines? PatrickCarbone (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As MilborneOne says, no DC-3s were converted to C-47s etc. A number of aircraft built as DC-3s were commandeered by the military post-Pearl Harbor and given the designations C-48, C-49, C-50 etc., because they were different to C-47s and C-53s. The C-47s/C-53s/R4Ds etc. that entered into civilian service post-war were renamed DC-3s because they underwent modifications to make them comply with civil airworthiness standards, such modifications including (but not limited to) replacing the engine firewalls, adding fire warning systems and fire extinguishing system mods. There were big differences in empty weights and MTOWs. Presumably the cargo doors were kept because they were more useful than the ordinary pax doors of DC-3s. As far as the engines go, most (but not all) of the DC-3s had Wright Cyclones but none of the aircraft built for the military did. YSSYguy (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Super DC-3 in Variants section

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it is misleading to mention the 100 military conversions to DC-3S standard in this article. It has the potential to lead readers to believe that these were all Super DC-3s, when this is not the case. Only those that went on to civilian careers and were converted to civil standard should be considered as Super DC-3s. YSSYguy (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Interior photos

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wish there were some interior photos of the passenger space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Douglas DC-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Douglas DC-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nicknames

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have just undone a recent edit by an IP that inserted [I paraphrase] "also knicknamed Dakota" into the Lead sentence. The aircraft is of course known by many other names such as "Dak", "Dizzy Three", "the Douglas" and "Gooney Bird". Sourcing these and other nicknames is not a problem, but should we mention them at all? YSSYguy (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless the aircraft is known prominently by it's nickname (like the A-10 is known as "Warthog"), I don't see much value in adding nicknames. Sario528 (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the British assigned the name "Dakota" to the C-47 military models. - BilCat (talk)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Douglas DC-3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Final winding down of DC-3s?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Actually this is in connection with a crash in Ohio. The story mentioned that the airport still had a few DC-3s in service, but it seems like the last of them are going out of service and the article should include something about how the last ones are being retired (hopefully without any more crashes (which killed two people in this case)). Shanen (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

They are still a fair number of Douglas DC-3/C-47s still being operated it is unlikely that they will ever be retired soon. MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

On the number built

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As of today, the article claims the number of the DC-3 aircraft built to be 607. This seems to only apply to a small subset of the aircraft, originally manufactured for civilian use. I believe that the number should be changed to the total amount manufactured of all DC-3 variants, so as to properly reflect the aircraft's relevance. Furthermore, the exact number built seems to be unclear. The English-language article claims that number to equal 16,079, while the Polish-language article, quoting http://web.archive.org/web/20120627073219/http://airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0512008, assumes the amount of 17,276 airframes manufactured total. If anybody here is convinced of the authority of their sources, it would be nice if they checked that value. 159.205.199.153 (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Influence on adoption of imperial units

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I thought I would discuss this edit; while this would be fascinating if it was true, there doesn't seem to be any reference to it in any online source that I can access, nor in any of the hundreds of aviation books I have read. I think it would definitely need a source, and having sat tagged as unsourced since 2010 I don't think that per WP:V it can or should remain there for another 9 years. Here is an interesting and well-informed article about the subject; it makes no mention of the C-47. Nor does any that I can see. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree about this particular point (which I must admit I did not notice when I reverted. But what about the first part of the paragraph?
Thousands of surplus C-47s, previously operated by several air forces, were converted for civilian use after the war and became the standard equipment of almost all the world's airlines, remaining in frontline service for many years. The ready availability of cheap, easily maintained ex-military C-47s, both large and fast by the standards of the day, jumpstarted the worldwide postwar air transport industry
Surely there must be a few references for this part? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the first part should be easy to source and return to the article. It's the second part I am struggling with. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll return it then - with a cn tag. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
When it only takes a few minutes, it's easier to return them with a source. I've done so. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_DC-3/Archive_2&oldid=1055947754"