Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Jeffry Fontaine on March 02, 2012, 08:46:09 AM
-
Share your ideas or comments on this aircraft type here.
Some on-line sources for the DC-3 and derivatives from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/):
Douglas DC-3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3)
Douglas C-47 Skytrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-47)
Basler BT-67 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_BT-67)
Showa/Nakajima L2D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showa/Nakajima_L2D)
Lisunov Li-2 and PS-84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisunov_Li-2)
Douglas AC-47 Spooky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_AC-47_Spooky)
Click for larger image
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/C-47.gif/300px-C-47.gif) (http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Graphics/C-47/Large/EG-0016-01.gif)
(Image source: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center - EG-0016-01 via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-47.gif))
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Something that is not found in most historical summaries for this aircraft
RC-47 Project Hawkeye
Source: [url]http://www.koreanwar.org/html/units/usaf/11trs.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.koreanwar.org/html/units/usaf/11trs.htm[/url])
On the 19th February, 1957 the RC-47 proposal was put to Far East Air Forces with the stipulation that the aircraft could only carry oblique cameras and would not perform a vertical mission. The proposal was accepted and two C-47s were assigned for modification and to commence operations in July, 1957. In fact operations did not begin until September as the two aircraft would not be ready before then.
The basic modification for the RC-47D was the installation of a K-38, 36-inch oblique camera at the rearmost window just forward of the main service door. The framework to hold the camera was easily removed so as to allow the aircraft to return to its transport function. An adjustable screw also enabled a camera angle of between 23.5 and 32 degrees to be selected. The cockpit contained the switches for the camera power and the intervalometer. The aircraft was fitted with a drift meter which was installed on the left of the aircraft as the photo flights were made from west to east.
-
RC-47 Project Hawkeye
Source: [url]http://www.koreanwar.org/html/units/usaf/11trs.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.koreanwar.org/html/units/usaf/11trs.htm[/url])
the stipulation that the aircraft could only carry oblique cameras and would not perform a vertical mission.
quote]
A vertical take-off DC-3 ?? :icon_surprised:
Here's my Russian Li-XU2 Maritime Patrol -- one of a dozen heavily modified DC-3s I'm doing ...
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/Li-XU2.jpg)
-
R-2800 or 3350 engines. A jet engine under each wing (from P2 Neptune). More streamlined B-29 or He-111 nose. B-17 chin turret. On top of Li-UX2 modifications. :)
Bill
-
curse you, Bill ... as if I don't have enough ideas bubbling up at the moment :icon_nif:
Now I'll just have to do a Strato-Dak with those 3350's & jet-pods :)
Just found this ..... DC-3 fitted with Chevy wheels (for an advert).
http://www.douglasdc3.com/chevy/chevy.htm (http://www.douglasdc3.com/chevy/chevy.htm)
(http://www.douglasdc3.com/chevy/chevy.jpg)
-
Well, there's the "Super DC-3" C-117/R4D-8 to play with for engine upgrades and the like and there was a thread over on the Special Projects site concerning a Fokker proposal for a bomber derivative (with rather less change that embodied in the B-23). I wonder how a DC-3 would do with a C-46 style nose and cockpit and full pressurization?
-
Need that extra little bit of power or speed...try the Hump Buster:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/C47hunpbuster.jpg)
-
AC-47 but use the Super DC-3 as the base aircraft instead.
-
my Jet Dakota ...
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/dsd.png)
-
I'm certain some Dakotas had Bristol made engines and were used by Coastal Command and sported the tail seen on the Super DC-3.
At least that's what my Monogram C-47 will have :icon_music: :icon_music: :icon_music:
:icon_fsm:
-
Jet-Dakota is way cool concept and doable as kit-bash. 8)
Starting with 1/72 DC-3 --- what do you think --- 1/48 F-86 or 1/72 B-66 wings used outboard of prop engines ?
Of course cutting back wing roots for correct sizing where they connect to DC-3 wing.
Then nose and tail modifications etc....
Bill
-
Centaurus engines with 5-bladed props, Daryl? That would be something different.
As something bit different, how about stretching the center section to add another engine on each side and doing a constant section stretch both ahead of and bbehind the wing to do an early iteration toward a DC-4 or a tail-dragger alternative design.
-
Funny you say that. I just today bought two Monogram C-47 Skytrains with that very concept in mind as the kit has nearly a constant section through the passenger compartment....not a DC-3, not a Super DC-3, not a DC-4, well suited to Alaska, the Yukon, Columbia, Congo, Cambodia, and an IPMS cat. 820. Kit engines, but AC-47 props, Super DC-3 tail. Nose gear optional.
Cargo?
Missileer?
Gunship?
Antishipping?
Antisubmarine?
Antarctic duties?
Beer Wagon? Geeze...paint it up with Johnnie Walker Black Label or Knob Creek Bourbon livery. Sippin' Samantha nose art.
Russian version sporting left over cowling covers and spinners from the Eduard I-16 kit.
-
Centaurus engines would be pushing it a bit from a weight standpoint, however the 600/700 series Hercules
civil engines with the rear-swept exhausts would be an interesting alternative. The Bristol Freighter series 31 and 32
used the 1,980 hp Hercules 734 with rear-swept exhausts and 'free-exit' cowling, basically open all around the rear with stub exhausts.
(http://www.ausairpower.net/Bristol-Freighter-170-ADL-1.jpg)
(http://www.enginehistory.org/Museums/WesternCanada/bristol_hercules_734_1.jpg)
(http://www.enginehistory.org/Museums/WesternCanada/bristol_hercules_734_5.jpg)
http://youtu.be/Q145LfAp3iQ (http://youtu.be/Q145LfAp3iQ)
-
I should have some spare Freighter cowlings somewhere in the stash if I can find them ---- ;)
-
A DC-3 so-equipped would end up a bit like a Vickers Valetta:
(http://www.airpixbycaz.co.uk/cazsite/galleries/as1900/1968/abingdon/abb03.jpg)
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/vickers_valetta.gif)
-
A DC-3 so-equipped would end up a bit like a Vickers Valetta:
My take on a Hercules Dakota (based on a photo by Phil Vabre). Might need a little more fin/rudder?
-
:)
-
How about an inline engined DC-3?
-
One of the ideas I've had for a while is to put either 2600's off a B-25 or a pair of 2800's on it. Reshape the wing outboard the engines to have much less sweep and put a Super DC-3 tail on it. Presumably the CG will be shifted quite a bit forward so adding some length aft the CG would also be on the docket. It'd be a lot of work but might make for an interesting variant of Puff the Magic Dragon or an early Tour Antarctica machine, somewhat in the Grab-the-JMN's style.
Now that the Ventura is out with its misshapen cowls, that aircraft would be a perfect donor methinks.
-
How about an inline engined DC-3?
One of the ideas I've had for a while is to put either 2600's off a B-25 or a pair of 2800's on it. Reshape the wing outboard the engines to have much less sweep and put a Super DC-3 tail on it. Presumably the CG will be shifted quite a bit forward so adding some length aft the CG would also be on the docket. It'd be a lot of work but might make for an interesting variant of Puff the Magic Dragon or an early Tour Antarctica machine, somewhat in the Grab-the-JMN's style.
Now that the Ventura is out with its misshapen cowls, that aircraft would be a perfect donor methinks.
I was thinking about both of these concepts but remained undecided on what engine cowling to use for the representation of engine type.
As far as using the R-2800 or R-2600 you have several source kits for the cowlings and engine. Either would be great. Perhaps scavenging a pair of R-3350 cowlings and engines from the A-1 Skyraider (yet another Douglas product) to make a Super-Duper Dakota?
-
I'd do that in a heartbeat using Tamiya Skyraider parts to make a bomber that one-upped the A-1 but the cost! :o
Daisy cutters, fuel tanks, nape etc. hung beneath the wings.
-
I'd do that in a heartbeat using Tamiya Skyraider parts to make a bomber that one-upped the A-1 but the cost! :o
Daisy cutters, fuel tanks, nape etc. hung beneath the wings.
Skip the Tamiya and go straight for CHEAP! Monogram, if you can find them. The gray plastic is much easier to work than that brittle blue stuff in the kits sold with gloss sea blue markings for Korean war versions.
The latest buzz from the critics (whiners) is that Tamiya got the cowling wrong. Maybe that can be used for leverage to lower the price :)
-
I'd thought Tamiya because of the underwing armament detail level. But that's us dentists....neurotic about details. :-\
-
For the inline option, I really don't know what specific engine but I was thinking of something that looks externally like the de Havilland Albatross arrangement:
(http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/FA_16484slarge.jpg)
(http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/Albatross.jpg)
-
I was thinking inside the box and looking for something that would match up with the existing engine nacelle. Something that did not require a lot of cosmetic surgery to make it look right. The little DH Albatross is certainly a sleek looking aircraft.
-
I was thinking inside the box and looking for something that would match up with the existing engine nacelle...
Two possibilities leap to mind. The Kestrel XVI installation from the South African Ju 86Z-3 roughly matched the nacelle shape for a P&W Hornet. And, of course, the Napier Dagger installation from the HP.53 Hereford used roughly the same nacelle as the Pegasus-powered Hampden.
Outside that box (and possible verging on the nutty), how about the Lativia multi-bank, 36-cylinder engine based on DH Gispy Six cylinder banks? That engine (never built) was intended for a 1940 Latvian fighter project, the VEF I-19. An inverted-Y, the MI-02 was predicted to put out 1,470 hp. That was a military rating and probably highly optimistic. Let's say 1,200 hp was more realistic ... perfect for the Dakota ;)
-
I was thinking inside the box and looking for something that would match up with the existing engine nacelle...
Two possibilities leap to mind. The Kestrel XVI installation from the South African Ju 86Z-3 roughly matched the nacelle shape for a P&W Hornet. And, of course, the Napier Dagger installation from the HP.53 Hereford used roughly the same nacelle as the Pegasus-powered Hampden.
Outside that box (and possible verging on the nutty), how about the Lativia multi-bank, 36-cylinder engine based on DH Gispy Six cylinder banks? That engine (never built) was intended for a 1940 Latvian fighter project, the VEF I-19. An inverted-Y, the MI-02 was predicted to put out 1,470 hp. That was a military rating and probably highly optimistic. Let's say 1,200 hp was more realistic ... perfect for the Dakota ;)
Forgot to mention that all of my C-47 kits are in 1/48th scale save for the three R4D kits that are bound for kitnut617 in the near future.
-
Airspeed proposed building the Dak under licence with either Hercules or Merlin power.
The DH Albatross was powered by the DH Gipsy King (or 12), it was over weight and only put out 450-550hp.
-
The civil PBY Super-Cat conversions switched out the P & W R-1830s for the Wright R-2600s from a B-25.
When Terry Moore built the Super-Cat from the film Always he used Monogram B-25 engines/cowlings
on the Monogram PBY. Due to the larger diameter of the R-2600 he did have to build up the nacelle aft of
the cowlings.
So as the Monogram C-47A/DC-3A kit has R-1830s, (note that DC-3s and C-47s had the Wright R-1820) do
the same thing using Monogram B-25H/J engines/cowlings. Then you can use the R-2800s/cowlings from
a Monogram A-26 to convert your engine-less B-25H to the one-off NA-98X. ;)
BTW the Monogram A-1 R-3350 cowling has long been pointed out to be undersized, so it could work as
a new design R-2800 installation. ;D
-
Merlins ....
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/dm.png)
-
:)
-
While browsing the Big H's website yesterday, the home page was advertizing a number of Russian built DC-3's (Li-2), one with skiis and the another had four large bombs under the fuselage and a dorsal turret mid-fuselage
http://www.hannants.co.uk/ (http://www.hannants.co.uk/)
-
Merlins ....
([url]http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/dm.png[/url])
Hmm, swap in the engine installation from a DC-4M North Star? Which leads to the thought of higher-performance North Stars with the Merlins replaced by Griffons (perhaps off Shackletons?).
-
Which leads to the thought of higher-performance North Stars with the Merlins replaced by Griffons (perhaps off Shackletons?).
Hey! get out of my head Evan ---- I've been thinking about Shackleton Griffons on a DC-6 to make a North Star II
-
Not in your head, it's just that great minds think alike. :D On the other hand, I wonder how a Centaurus installation on either a DC-4 or DC-6 would work? Perhaps the nice, clean cowling form the Airspeed Ambassador with five-bladed props?
-
Oh sure, now you're in my head instead! I had a whole AltHist Canadair thing worked out for Litvak's AltCanada scenario. The North Star was powered by a Bristol Canada über-Hercules, the 14-cyl Boreas (effectively a Hercules with longer-stroke Centaurus cylinders).
Canadair's follow-on was the Trans-Atlantic CL-5 Argonaut 2 for BOAC powered by 2,625 hp Centaurus 661s. Next was the more economical CL-7 North Star 3 which used the 18-cylinder Balius, a power-recovery (or turbo-compound) derivative of the parent firm's Centaurus radial.
-
Not in your head, it's just that great minds think alike. :D On the other hand, I wonder how a Centaurus installation on either a DC-4 or DC-6 would work? Perhaps the nice, clean cowling form the Airspeed Ambassador with five-bladed props?
He! He! I think these are great ideas all around. Off the top of your head Evan, what would you say would be a maximum that you could up-engine an existing airframe, like a DC-3 (power wise). To my mind, putting Centaurous' on a DC-3 would produce a seriously overpowered aircraft, apart from the weight factor on the airframe
-
That's a rather difficult question because the answer varies from airframe to airframe with the driving factor being whether you can retain control after losing an engine or engines (for 3- or 4-engined aircraft) in critical flight regimes. Case in point being the late model variants of the MU-2 where the max. power was limited by what you could handle when losing an engine on takeoff; the engines were thermodynamically capable of rather more, but takeoff power was limited. On the other hand, hot and high performance was spritely because you could hold that maximum takeoff performance to 3000 ft above sea level on an ISA +30 day. I suspect the DC-3 would be a bit more forgiving but you also need to take weight and balance considerations into account. As you might expect, aircraft design is a balancing act between a lot of requirements and choices.
In your particular example, if I put Centaurus engines on a DC-3, I would either need to extend the fuselage aft or place some balance weight aft to get the cg back where it should be (frankly, I like the idea of extending the rear fuselage with an extra frame just aft of the wing for extra capacity but putting some heavy equipment in the aft fuselage would work, too).
-
Should cost be no object, two Tamiya F4U-1's could donate their engines, exhausts, cowlings, and shortened props for a beautiful pair of 2800's. The wing would get a 1 inch extension at the root and the MLG get a bit of a stretch to allow for slightly larger props. The aft fuselage stretch would apply along with other Super DC-3 features. But suddenly one is into significant capital outlay in 1/48 before the saw hits styrene. :o :o :o
And given all the sanding that would be needed, it would, IMHO, be simpler to use the Monogram kit vs. the Trumpeter because recessed panel lines are a bugger to work with if dealing with major changes.
-
Should cost be no object, two Tamiya F4U-1's could donate their engines, exhausts, cowlings, and shortened props for a beautiful pair of 2800's. The wing would get a 1 inch extension at the root and the MLG get a bit of a stretch to allow for slightly larger props. The aft fuselage stretch would apply along with other Super DC-3 features. But suddenly one is into significant capital outlay in 1/48 before the saw hits styrene. :o :o :o
And given all the sanding that would be needed, it would, IMHO, be simpler to use the Monogram kit vs. the Trumpeter because recessed panel lines are a bugger to work with if dealing with major changes.
The Monogram kit would be a cheaper alternative for your parts unless you absolutely have to have three blade propellers for the project.
-
The Monogram kit would be a cheaper alternative for your parts unless you absolutely have to have three blade propellers for the project.
Four-blade props would look better -- the Hasegawa/Academy F4U-4 or Monogram P-47 bubbletops are cheap donors for engine-pods.
-
Four-blade props would look better -- the Hasegawa/Academy F4U-4 or Monogram P-47 bubbletops are cheap donors for engine-pods.
More blades = More Better ;)
One of my recent quests was to source a couple of six blade propellers from the Hasegawa 1/48th scale J7W Shinden just for such a purpose.
-
A Monogram A-26 would be a cheaper source for R-2800s and cowlings, and, being a Douglas aircraft, probably
much closer in appearance to what an R-2800 installation on a DC-3 airframe would have looked like in reality,
if such a thing had been done.
-
Sigh...I just walked away from a very inexpensive A-26 kit at the show yesterday. :icon_crap:
Not only could it provide the engines, it likely would have simplified construction of Super DC-3 flying surfaces. Hmmm.... (where's the facepalm emoticon? ;D)
-
There are five blade 1/48 1/72 Spitfire propeller kits at Great Models.
Interested to see R-2800 (3350?) build of a DC-3.
-
So here's a Russian variant of the Li-2:
Radar, platypus style shoved into the lower nose.
Tu-4 radial engines x 2
Long fuselage aft the main wing
Revised main wing profile reducing leading edge sweep. (Obviously I think the DC-3 wing planform looks wonky when viewed from above, every one of my proposed DC-3 variants redoes the wing sweep)
Net visual effect results in a much more Bulldoggish looking aircraft in the same vein as the Beaufighter and Grumman Skyrocket.
Role?
Who knows? Anti submarine in the Arctic circa 1960's? Eurasia transport from Moscow to the U.S.S.R east coast? Early airborne carrier of a medium range ballistic nuke? Anti narcotics policing in the 'Stans north and east of Afghanistan from 1980 to current?
-
Were the IL-12 and IL-14 derived from the DC-3/C-47?
-
Monogram C-47 with engine nacelles and spinners liberated from the noses of two Monogram P-40B's.
Aftermarket exhausts. Alternate wide blade props.
Random and sundry radars suitable for the time period.
Refueling probe similar to the one on the C-27 Spartan.
Used as a test bed for air-to-surface missiles under development at various test ranges until about 1995.
Both USAF and USN apps.
Hey, if the Brits can keep a Meteor flying to test ejection seats, why can't the US use an overbuilt sky truck too?
-
Hey, if the Brits can keep a Meteor flying to test ejection seats, why can't the US use an overbuilt sky truck too?
Considering a large amount of those planes are still in flying condition and used to this day, why the heck not?! I really like that test bird idea. Sounds like something Pax River would get a lot of use out of.
-
Well I know the RAAF have long used DC-3/C-47 aircraft as testbeds
-
ASV-III chin radar, extra fuel in the cargo bay, external depth charges, and a pod of 20mm cannons under each wing makes for an early AC-47-like aircraft to patrol for U-boats on the Atlantic Seaboard.
-
my Jet Dakota ...
([url]http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s34/hobgrot/dsd.png[/url])
Love this! wow :-*
-
Tricycle Dakota. Here you can see the origin of Il-12 and Il-14
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/dc3-tricycle.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/dc3-tricycle.jpeg.html)
-
:)
-
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/6/5/1554569.jpg)
Pretty spinners on this one. Looks like something BdB would do.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Oooo...I do like that!
-
DC-3...still kicking on:
(http://www.canadaka.net/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/funnypics/military/Fixed_Wing_SAR.jpg)
-
I see this one fairly often at YYC (Calgary International) while at work
-
Carrier based anyone? ;)
(http://oi29.tinypic.com/vs0xg6.jpg)
-
No problem attaching a tail hook but what about folding the wings?
-
No problem attaching a tail hook but what about folding the wings?
You might have to do some re-design of the flaps, to inboard and outboard ones, but the outboard wings mate with the center section just outboard of the engines and you could put your folding mechanism there; you might need to extend the center section a bit to properly fit it, but I see nothing too difficult unless you go for rotating and folding, that would necessitate addition redesign.
-
Might have to fold in four places instead of two to get it low enough to fit into the hanger deck. I believe it was the Viking that folded the wings at skewed angles to the centerline of the ac to get the wing tips to not hit each other. That might work.
-
Rotary joint and a ball joint or hinge to allow the wings to fold back along the fuselage? A secondary lock/structural load-carrying connection at the aft spar? I can see how it could be done. You'd probably need several load-carrying locks to make sure the wings stayed put in flight but it's doable.
-
Anyone know what is attached under the wings of the C-47/R4Ds parked on the deck of the carrier in the image Greg shared?
-
Well, if you look closely, those items appear to have discharge tubes on their outboard side; perhaps for spraying something or laying down some kind of vapor. They are far enough out that it looks like the discharge is intended to get mixed and blended with the wingtip vortices.
-
Anyone know what is attached under the wings of the C-47/R4Ds parked on the deck of the carrier in the image Greg shared?
Not really sure but they are supposedly from Operation High Jump:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/m96jbt.jpg)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2exc11f.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/15zr0vc.jpg)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/350rlht.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/fv8b3a.jpg)
-
Thanks Greg.
The pods appear to be the AN/APS-4 radar and not a liferaft kit as I was thinking it might be. The fuselage band had me thinking these were SAR aircraft at first and a pod with liferaft under the wing would make perfect sense. Also makes perfect sense now knowing that it is the APS-4 radar pod since the aircraft are on their way to the antarctic for the High Jump project where the radar would have been much appreciated for flights over the barren land mass.
-
Radom idea: C-47 based autogiro
-
Does anyone do a 1/48 conversion (or kit) for the XC-47C:
(https://travelforaircraft.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/blog-c-47-floats-16140434945_e0e6913f27_o.jpg)
(https://travelforaircraft.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/blog-c-47-floats-4559086713_9044aa4f85_o.jpg)
(https://travelforaircraft.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/blog-c-47-floats-4559086685_ac386b6981_o.jpg)
(https://travelforaircraft.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/blog-c-47-floats-4559716906_53d2347658_o.jpg)
(https://travelforaircraft.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/blog-c-47-floats-4559086661_67ed2bf423_o.jpg)
(https://travelforaircraft.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/blog-c-47-floats-4559086699_58d68bf2f1_o.jpg)
-
Sorry Greg I only know of 1/72 scale stuff ---- like this one of mine below.
One still exists and was still flying in 2002, not sure of it's status since though
https://img.vehiclepad.com/baacafafa5b0800661ce1a5d2c1f4269_the-aviation-anorak-douglas-xc-47c-dc-3-on-floats-douglas-xc-47c_800-465.jpeg (https://img.vehiclepad.com/baacafafa5b0800661ce1a5d2c1f4269_the-aviation-anorak-douglas-xc-47c-dc-3-on-floats-douglas-xc-47c_800-465.jpeg)
You could try contacting Khee-Kha Art Products, the owner does a lot of Edo float conversion sets. He might have something on the Edo floats that were used on the XC-47C.
http://www.mtaonline.net/~zdk/extras.htm (http://www.mtaonline.net/~zdk/extras.htm)
-
How about a BT-67 on amphibious floats?
-
How about a BT-67 on amphibious floats?
Now you're talking :)
-
How about a BT-67 on amphibious floats?
A trimotor version to kept the power-to-weight ratio up. ;D
-
Doesn't it make sense as, say, a general transport/taxi craft for Pacific islands? :-*
-
Found this over at Secret Projects: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29223.0 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29223.0)
Among the many projects to re-engine the DC-3, the Tamco (standing for Turbo-Airliner Manufacturing Co.) Turbo-Commuter was one of the more complex. As well as the RR Dart turboprops, the Turbo-Commuter was to feature a pressurized fuselage as well as the adoption of a tricycle undercarriage.
To facilitate the undercarriage layout change, it was planned to fit the main units between the centre and rear wing spars, retracting into fully covered nacelles, similar to the Super DC-3s. Attached is a profile taken from the July 24 1976 issue of Flight international.
PDF online version here: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%201348.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1976/1976%20-%201348.html)
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21587273_10214464476794865_4855128081639918730_o.jpg?oh=300ab9972f7b7fcc888286628d5fc35e&oe=5A5BA6AA)
-
I do hope they at least put generous radii on the corners of the windows. Pressurization and square windows with tight corners do not mix, as early Comets demonstrated.
-
Found this over at Secret Projects: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29223.0 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29223.0)
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/21587273_10214464476794865_4855128081639918730_o.jpg?oh=300ab9972f7b7fcc888286628d5fc35e&oe=5A5BA6AA)
Love this! Thanks for posting.
-
Fixed landing gear version - possibly trousered similar to this:
(http://www.sbap.be/events/2014/052airrace2014/091.JPG)
-
Other than a brief comment I made early on, I haven't seen this mentioned here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7869.0/all.html (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7869.0/all.html). Just think if the Soviets had been aware of this and evolved a similar Li-2 conversion.
-
Other than a brief comment I made early on, I haven't seen this mentioned here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7869.0/all.html (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7869.0/all.html). Just think if the Soviets had been aware of this and evolved a similar Li-2 conversion.
What in particular? A DC-3 bomber?
Re the Soviet and a similar Li-2 conversion, doesn't the thread you linked mention (with photos) a Li-2 bomber version?
-
Yeah, but the Soviets don't seem to have gone for the same degree of "tweaking" that Fokker played with here.
-
Fair enough. Of course, another whiff would be a Soviet B-18.
(https://media.defense.gov/2005/Dec/22/2000574748/-1/-1/0/050215-F-1234P-056.JPG)
-
But developed from a DC-3/Li-2 instead of a DC-2?
-
Maybe or perhaps just a straight purchase/lend-lease? Either way, just in Soviet scheme. If only there was a 1/48 kit...
-
Perhaps a "B-18B" with the fuselage stretched the same amount as the DC-2 fuselage was lengthened over that of the DC-2 and with DC-3 outboard wing panels. Either as a licensed DC-3 derivative or direct lend/lease.
-
Found on Facebook.
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/62197023_2300662623335466_7720626721594015744_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=05f5986998318c4f5121c6d34ea73f4a&oe=5D8D8EB9)
Douglas DC-3F powered by 2 x Allison V-1710-39 V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 1,240 hp. with wingtip extra fuel tanks and tricycle landing gear.
-
What was the Russian DC-3 look alike that had tri-gear?
-
Are you thinking of the Ilyushin Il-14 (NATO reporting name: Crate) ?
(http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/il14p_teemutuuri.jpg)
-
Yes! thanks Carl - :smiley:
-
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/62197023_2300662623335466_7720626721594015744_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=05f5986998318c4f5121c6d34ea73f4a&oe=5D8D8EB9)
Quite pretty! :-*
-
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/62197023_2300662623335466_7720626721594015744_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent.fxds1-1.fna&oh=05f5986998318c4f5121c6d34ea73f4a&oe=5D8D8EB9)
Quite pretty! :-*
Great kitbash subject !
-
Indeed
-
IIRC, there's a resin company who makes the Allison V-1710 conversion for the B-17. I think that would work just right here.
EDIT: 2C Mods is the company but it's 1/48 scale.
-
Reminds me a bit of the Tamco Turbo Commuter mentioned earlier:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner023/Copia%203%20de%20Tamco%20Turbo%20commuter%20profile%20drawing_zpsbx0ifh1v.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner023/Copia%20de%20Copia%20de%20Tamco%20Turbo%20commuter%20profile%20drawing_zpshodug9ql.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner023/Cutaway%20Tamco%20Turbo%20Commuter_zpsupektxck.jpg)
-
IIRC, there's a resin company who makes the Allison V-1710 conversion for the B-17. I think that would work just right here.
EDIT: 2C Mods is the company but it's 1/48 scale.
Yep, this one:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner025/48-xb-38-allison-engine-17-conversion_1_c12aeb3a370563ea615e7b8b2ccecbee_zpswixeufdk.jpg)
There was also this one, though I have heard bad things about it:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner024/Rebellion%20XB-38_zpseugmvwpb.jpg)
Resin2detail also supposedly have a conversion coming in 1/48:
(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/27908124_767097996814288_6097454452961463944_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=c0d999f3d39d43c1dbf425029ddc9716&oe=5D8007B9)
(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/27993490_767097990147622_6146602553493819320_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=7060bc6db7d513643d6b85879d7a8b98&oe=5D7C0899)
(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/27912755_767097980147623_5151112220071337965_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=45eb2031616ff384dfa7aabd89173324&oe=5D95BADE)
I'm not aware of any in 1/72. What you might consider though would be a Rolls-Royce Merlin powered version using something like this as the donor:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner024/TWC72019_zpsqkljnxvb.jpg)
-
Speaking further to the Tamco Turbo Commuter, there is this conversion available that could be useful:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner024/TWC72015_zpspik5ixnb.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/S6AwwIwhQ9I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/xUyT58n18CI/s1600/DartDakota.jpg)
(https://t2.thpservices.com/previewimage/gallil/5c6d649bfff8a78a55fc60e191986add/mev-11955949.jpg)
-
Other turbo Dak options:
(http://www.air-and-space.com/Conroy%20Turbo%20Mods/19720412%20Turbo-Three%20a%20l.jpg)
(http://www.air-and-space.com/Conroy%20Turbo%20Mods/19740612%20Super-Turbo-Three%20a%20l.jpg)
(http://www.air-and-space.com/Conroy%20Turbo%20Mods/19811207%20Tri-Turbo-Three%20a%20l.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner026/0421378_zpsrzrvpw2m.jpg)
-
Definitely stay far away from that Rebellion Models XB-38 conversion set. Having made the mistake of purchasing two sets sight unseen from that guy (he lives in Las Vegas, NV) and realizing it was a bad decision after receiving the two sets and inspecting the contents. There was nothing in the set that could be mated up with any other half thanks to the misshapened and mismatched castings which was compounded by insufficient resin with some parts and an overabundance of resin on others. The propeller spinners would have served better as headlights on a car model as there was no flat surface or indications for drilling to attach the propeller blades. Even Igor does a better job of casting and that is saying a lot.
-
On his Facebook page, Brian said a 1/72 XB-38 conversion would also be made available. No date given however..
-
An idea triggered by Eric's creation here: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4100.new#new: (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4100.new#new:) The Shōwa L2D and Nakajima L2D were license-built versions of the Douglas DC-3:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Showa_L2D.jpg)
The Soviet Union also produced the DC-3 under license as the Lisunov Li-2.
What if Germany also received a license to produce the DC-3 in the '30s? Perhaps as a simpler alternate to the Focke-Wulf Fw 206? Production then continues into the war instead of the Ju52...
(https://constantinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/5111_1.jpg)
(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/53/pics/2_1.jpg)
-
Reminds me of another interesting possibility, what if the Soviet Union purchased the plans Fokker had for a DC-3 based bomber and applied them to a purpose-built bomber version o the Li-2/PS-84?
-
Basler conversion applied to a Super DC-3?
-
Basler conversion applied to a Super DC-3?
About 10-15 minutes of Google time seems to indicate no C-117s have been converted.
Did find this list of Basler conversions: https://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Basler.html (https://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Basler.html)
Some data is missing but overall it appears they have only used DC-3/C-47/C-53 airframes.
-
Reminds me a bit of the Tamco Turbo Commuter mentioned earlier:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner023/Copia%203%20de%20Tamco%20Turbo%20commuter%20profile%20drawing_zpsbx0ifh1v.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner023/Copia%20de%20Copia%20de%20Tamco%20Turbo%20commuter%20profile%20drawing_zpshodug9ql.jpg)
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner023/Cutaway%20Tamco%20Turbo%20Commuter_zpsupektxck.jpg)
Love this concept!!! :-* :smiley:
-
Doing a bit of research and it appears there were not many mods attempted with the Super DC-3. Jack Conroy put Darts on one and one was converted to the experimental XC-129 and that seems to be that. Still, I see no reason why a whiffed Basler-converted Super DC-3 couldn't be modeled.
-
Good idea.
To best of my knowledge Evan, the only 1/72 Super DC-3 / C-119 /R4D-8 conversion is the vacuform from AirModel:
(https://www.airmodel.de/images/product_images/popup_images/am261_3.jpg)
https://www.airmodel.de/?cat=c17_Flugzeuge-USA-Flugzeuge-USA.html (https://www.airmodel.de/?cat=c17_Flugzeuge-USA-Flugzeuge-USA.html)
-
Now does anyone do a 1/72 Basler conversion that can be combined with it?
-
Now does anyone do a 1/72 Basler conversion that can be combined with it?
Alley Cat does. (https://www.alleycatmodels.co.uk/basler-bt-67-turbo-dakota-conversion-6495-p.asp)
Modelwolf does as well. (http://www.modellwolf.de/conversion/Basler_Turbo_BT-67_conversion_set.jpg)
-
Basler BT-67 is another tempting build.
-
A DC-3 so-equipped would end up a bit like a Vickers Valetta:
My take on a Hercules Dakota (based on a photo by Phil Vabre). Might need a little more fin/rudder?
Use Super DC-3 tail surfaces?
-
Good idea.
To best of my knowledge Evan, the only 1/72 Super DC-3 / C-119 /R4D-8 conversion is the vacuform from AirModel:
(https://www.airmodel.de/images/product_images/popup_images/am261_3.jpg)
https://www.airmodel.de/?cat=c17_Flugzeuge-USA-Flugzeuge-USA.html (https://www.airmodel.de/?cat=c17_Flugzeuge-USA-Flugzeuge-USA.html)
I did some digging in the specifications, apparently the stretch on the Basler conversion is a tad longer than the stretch that went into the Super DC-3. Real tempting to combine a Bazsler conversion kit, a stock DC-3/C-47 kit, and the Airmodel conversion. Alternatively, the AIM "Turbo-Dak" conversion in place of the Basler conversion for an earlier approach to the concept.
-
Another interesting bit I picked up in reading, we are all likely familiar with the various "Pinnocchio" C-47s modified as radar trainers for the F-104 (I know Canada, Belgium, Germany, and Italy made them) but they are not the first radar-trainer conversions, but the AMI and the RAAF converted C-47's to radar trainers for their first generation jet night fighters (Vampire or Venom). Be interesting to see a whiffy conversion to a radar trainer for the F-86K.
-
Used to have a Venom-nosed Dak (C-47) at the RAN FAA Museum at Nowra back when I worked there (early 1984).
According to Wikipedia it's still there:
ex-Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Fleet Air Arm N2-43 – C-47A modified with extended nose to house a radar system from a de Havilland Sea Venom; on static display in the Fleet Air Arm Museum at naval air station HMAS Albatross near Nowra, New South Wales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Douglas_C-47_Skytrains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Douglas_C-47_Skytrains)
This be her;
(https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/abpic-media-eu-production/pictures/full_size_02/1002014-large.jpg)
-
Sources I've read say that the RAN got four C-47s that the converted to Venom radar trainers. I have also seen a picture of at least one C-47 converted by the AMI into a radar trainer for Vampire NF radar operators.
Oh, found something interesting. Basler stretches the forward fuselage 40 inches as part of the conversion; the Super DC-3 stretched the forward fuselage 39 inches. This could make modelling a whiffy Basler conversion of a Super DC-3/C-117D a bit more practical. For bush flying, perhaps go with the dual wheel main gear installation from the YC-129 to lower ground pressure footprint.
-
Sources I've read say that the RAN got four C-47s that the converted to Venom radar trainers.
According to ADF-Serials there was only one converted RAN DC-3: N2-43. It did however serve with 851 sqn, 723, 724 and 725 Sqn's as 'NW-900', 'NW-860', 'NW-800'. It was fitted out as a Flying Classroom at one time to train Sea Venom and Gannet Observers with Sea Venom radar in the nose and Gannet radar in the rear of the aircraft protruding underneath. Its currently at the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum at HMAS Albatross.
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Dakota-N2-43/Dakota_N2_43_Nowra_November_4_1968_Photo_John_Hopton.jpg)
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Dakota-N2-43/Dakota_N2_43_1.jpg)
-
Not sure if this is the right spot to post it but here is a 1/8th scale C-47 (FAC 1123, Satena) by Andrés Acuña from Cali, Colombia.
It was this modeller's use of aluminum tape applied over balsa skinning that intrigued me. It this a common technique amongst scratch-builders?
https://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/article.php?aid=3333 (https://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/article.php?aid=3333)
He also built a 1/8th FAC T-6F Texan for the same museum - the Fénix Air Museum.
-- http://www.museoaereofenix.org/ (http://www.museoaereofenix.org/)
-
There is a product called muffler tape. It is slightly thicker than Bare Metal foil, and is also self=adhesive.
-
Yep. There's also aluminum foil tape for HVAC duct repairs. It usually comes in 2-inches wide rolls. Not all types are ideal for modelling - some tapes have epoxy resin coatings (which are less shiny) and others have waffle finished.
-
...
It was this modeller's use of aluminum tape applied over balsa skinning that intrigued me. It this a common technique amongst scratch-builders?
...
Some do use aluminium tape when recreating aluminium surfaces on flying scale models. Here's one example, with some how-to discussion too.
https://www.modelflying.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=56199&p=6 (https://www.modelflying.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=56199&p=6)
-
Thanks ... and resulting in a really nice effect on that Blackburn :smiley:
-
Some useful images:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/DC3_lijn1.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/DC3_lijn2.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/DC3_lijn3.jpg)
CFBV
-
They might be if I could see them ;)
-
They might be if I could see them ;)
Same issue for me but the image will display if I use my option to open the image in a new tab.
-
Try now
-
Yep! see it now Greg.
I've built an XC-47C and I've got plans to build an RCAF 'Pinocchio' version ---
-
I've expanded this topic to include the earlier DC-2 that led to the DC-3 as well as to more militaristic versions such as the B-18 bomber.
-
Does anyone know of a B-18 model kit in 1/48 scale?
-
Random thought: In in 1935 as part of the RAAF's modernisation program, the Avro Anson was ordered as a general reconnaissance bomber and was initially used for maritime parol duties. Deliveries of the first order of 48 aircraft began in November 1936 and were completed in September 1938. Allocated serial number A4-1 to 48 these aircraft served with Nos 2, 4, 21, 22 and 23 Squadrons on maritime patrol work. Some were fitted with ASV radar and patrolled the eastern seaboard of Australia with Nos 66, 67, 71 and 73 Squadrons.
However, back in 1934/35 then RAAF Cheif of Staff, Sir Richard Williams was extremely impressed by the Douglas DC-2 that came second behind the purpose-built de Havilland DH.88 racer Grosvenor House in the MacRobertson Air Race between London and Melbourne. What if off the back of this the RAAF either approached Douglas (or vice-versa) and an order was placed for the B-18A for the same role? Not only would they have provided a useful bomber for the RAAF, they could later be upgrade to B-18B status with Radar and MAD boom thus fulfilling the maritime patrol role even more so.
(https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/ww2planes/ww2-douglas/douglas_b_18b_bolo-91254.jpg)
-
proposed Fokker DC-2/DC-3 bomber. The silver model is the official 1938 sample shown to the Dutch Air Ministry.
-
...What if off the back of this the RAAF either approached Douglas (or vice-versa) and an order was placed for the B-18A for the same role?
I like it! Bolos instead of Ansons (and Hudsons?). Maybe a joint Douglas purchases with B-18s for the RAAF and DC-2s for Qantas?
-
I've got a Bolo vacuform in the stash to do as an RW RCAF one.
-
I've got a Bolo vacuform in the stash to do as an RW RCAF one.
The White Eagle one or the Execuform one?
Ah yes the RCAF Douglas Digby - some good photos etc here (https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/post/canadian-warplanes-3-douglas-digby).
-
I like it! Bolos instead of Ansons (and Hudsons?). Maybe a joint Douglas purchases with B-18s for the RAAF and DC-2s for Qantas?
Instead of the Ansons but probably not the Hudsons which had better performance again.
-
And to be honest, even the B-23 would probably not be worth it over the Hudson.
-
I've got a Bolo vacuform in the stash to do as an RW RCAF one.
The White Eagle one or the Execuform one?
Ah yes the RCAF Douglas Digby - some good photos etc here (https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/post/canadian-warplanes-3-douglas-digby).
Execuform
-
A big bang Bolo.
Douglas B-18 37-01 75mm M1898 gun test 3
(https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/usa/aircrafts/b-18/B-18_37-01_75mm_gun_test_3.jpg)
(https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/usa/aircrafts/b-18/B-18_37-01_75mm_gun_test_4.jpg)
More photos here: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/aircrafts-2-3/b-18/ (https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/aircrafts-2-3/b-18/)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/StateLibQld_1_163023_B-18_Digby_flying_above_the_Brisbane_River_near_Eagle_Farm%2C_Queensland.jpg)
B-18 operated by Australian National Airways on behalf of the USAAF, flying over the
Brisbane River in 1943.
Instead of an order for B-18As perhaps ex-USAAC B-18s are transferred over to the RAAF
after refurbishment and with the later more powerful dash number R-1820 engines as
used on the B-18A.
The Special Hobby B-18 kit could be used.
-
A license production deal with Douglas for the B-18 / DC2 that is extended to the DC3/C-47 and then the SB2 and A-20, and eventually the A-26 ;)