BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5810 times:
In some cases, it was turbine conversion DC-3s; some with a stretch. Definitely having your cake and getting to eat it too!
More recently, about 10 years ago in the skydiving industry they were replaced with Twotters mostly and a bit with King-Airs as well. King Air doesn't seem logical with less than half the capacity of the DC-3 but given much faster climb rates is pretty close to a one for one replacement.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8237 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5721 times:
Of course I'm biased - look at my Username - but it is a fact that the predecessor of BA on shorthaul routes - British European Airways - replaced its DC-3 Pioneer Class aircraft with the Vickers Viscount 701 and 802 / 806. This aircraft was also ordered and flown by Air France, KLM and Lufthansa amongst leading European airlines, Capital, Northeast and United in the US (although United inherited their aircraft) and Trans Australian Airlines, Ansett and New Zealand Airways in Australasia.
DC3CV3407AC727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5671 times:
other than the proverbial" another DC-3" which has a lot of truth to it,in the non-sched freight industry in the states,the 24 hour ,7 day a week on call freight dogs,2 airplanes replaced the venerable 3, 1. the Cessna Caravan, good for almost 3000lbs of lift, cruised at the same anemic speed(maybe a bit faster) ,had one crew member up front, and a single thrifty,RELIABLE,pt-6 up front,instead of 2 thirsty 100 gals per hour PW 1830s, that were blessed to make TBO. 2. the Falcon 20 freighter, a jet that could take three standard bins at 6000 lbs (the DC-3s max load ,and still carry enough gas to fly anywhere),and deliver them at over 400kts,in less than 1/2 the time it took the Douglas racer. Up till '97 the 0ld girl was still the cheapest way to move 6,000 lbs ,500 air miles. When reliabilty and speed became an issue, her days were numbered. In terms of natural evolution though, the Convair liners,240/340/440 were the natural successors and replacements to the DC-3 on many routes worldwide. featuring pressurization,radar, and 200 kt + cruise speeds ,plus the reliability of the superb R2800 engine,the Convairs were an evolutionary step forward from the tailwagging,good old diesel 3.
the rumble of round engines is like music to me,likewise the thunder of thr JT8D
In my view, no ac has ever replaced the DC-3.
As the DC-3 was produced by the thousands during the war, it came cheap and handy after the war.
Almost all airlines used it.
Any replacement at the time had to be better, i.e. different (more power, turbos, more load, more comfort,...).
A real replacement of the DC-3 in terms of performances (25 pax, 2-3t payload depending on the range) came later in the shape of the Short SC-7 Skyvan and the Nord 262. But they were not mass produced and they were not cheap.
All the others, Handley-Page Herald, Vickers Viscount, Fokker F-27/Fairchild-Hiller F-227, Convair 240 to 640, Hawker-Siddeley 748, NAMC YS-11, Antonov An-24, had at least twice as much passengers as the DC-3
Legacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5604 times:
Please don't forget, in it's days, the DC-3 was a Mainliner and not a bush plane. Wasn't it AA painting "Mainliner" on it's DC-2's and DC-3's?
The DC-3 was "the" short- and medium haul airliner of the late 30ties, the 40ties and the 50ties before the Convairs arrived and took over. If we go on in evolution we will struggle over the Caravelle, early 737's the DC-9 and end up at 737NG and A320's. So the replacement could be called Airbus and Boeing
Sure, other birds as the Caravelle, Viscounts, Vanguards etc. fully disappeared in the meantime, since the DC-3 always found new users. This, I guess, because it's a simple, cheap and "relatively" reliable design. Under those aspects, probably the F27's or from the newer designs the DHC-8 and the SAAB 340 may be the real replacements.
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 4087 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 5525 times:
A few decades ago, the Aerospatiale Nord 262 was voted 2nd best replacement aircraft for the DC-3 (I don't know by what standard and I don't know by whom...), but it didn't help the sales, only 111 were built, and mostly for the french air force.
It is a formidable aircraft though, and that I can say since I have about 800 hours on it in airline service. They flew impeccably for 30+ years old a/c, carrying very decent payloads, with honorable performance and they were extraordinarily sturdy and reliable. We operated them from unprepared runway, as they had decent STOL capacity and a solid trailing link main landing gear.
They also were pretty fuel efficient (for their time), as they only burned about half the fuel a F-27 would, and carrying more than half the payload.
Maintenance was also easier (Any Mech that had to deal with a leaky compressed air system can relate...).
The French air force still uses those, mainly for maritime surveillance, training and as light transport.