Favorite Plane???

[DizZa]

Light aircraft: Donno
Military: F-15C Eagle.
Warbird: P-51D
Helicopter: AH-64D and 'Littlebird'.
Commercial:
DC-9
MD80
MD87
MD88
MD90
Boeing 717. There is no plane which is in the same class which compares to the 717 in sound, safety, looks, efficiancy and payload. None. It's simply the best plane.

The only reason it didn't get many orders was it was to late, to small and lacked the range (Wasn't intended for the anyway).

[Jakemaster]

Jake, you are far too partisan to the DC-3. Let's face facts. The aircraft is primarily used as a cargo type, the 747 is a extremely large passenger jet, the difference in the numbers of people on board both are uncomparable. As for it still being airbourne today, yes it's a great achievement but, in all honesty, it doesn't do the most demanding tasks does it. Spitfires, Mustangs etc are still flying today and they are not much younger than the DC-3 except in their lives they have, and still do carried out a lot more stressful manoeuvres on the airframe, so surely that makes them as 'great' as the DC3?

Demanding tasks?  What do you mean it doesnt do demanding tasks?  The DC-3 airframe is different.  A fighter is built to take that stress, a DC-3 isnt.  DC-3s fly into unimproved strips, short strips, carrying a large amount of cargo that adds stress.  

I don't care that its flying today, its that its WORKING.  A spit isnt fighting anymore, just flying around.  A DC-3 still carries passengers and cargo (yes BOTH, in some places they are still used for pax transport).   Many DC-3s that carry cargo in the Caribbean or in South America are more than 50 years old, and yet they still work hard and manage to survive day after day of STRESS caused by unimproved airstrips, adverse weather, and heavy lifting.  

I know that I am OBSESSED with the DC-3, but for good reason!  What amazes me is that a 70 year old design still has lots of use today.  A spitfire, a mustang, any fighter is USELESS except for remembering the past and reliving history.  Ya they are great aircraft and engineering masterpieces, but theywhere quickly out dated, replaced by better aircraft.  The DC-3 has been replaced by some governments (some still have some) but they haven't been wiped out and pushed back to airshow duty.  There are still a significant number out there that are flying day in and day out to help people, to bring supplies to remote places, to carry people from A to B.  DC-3s have seen other aircraft of the same general category come and go.  The DC-3, as you refer to it as a CARGO aircraft, was working when the C-141 Starlifter went into service (doing the same jobs as the DC-3) and is STILL working after the last C-141 was retired!

The fact of the matter is the DC-3 SHOULD be considered the greatest aircraft of all time because of what it did and what it has done.  It has helped win wars, save lives, and generally made air transportation possible.

Oh, and about those silly stresses - during WWII I can think of at least one instance (and there were a few others) where a C-47 took a DIRECT HIT from a Kamikaze and managed to survive and fly home.  If a silly fighter took a hit like that it would be GONE.  Heck if a BOMBER took a hit like that it probably would have gone down too.

Wow I really got excited there.  Just a friendly warning...DO NOT get me started on the DC-3!!!!

[Tweek]

The DC-3, as you refer to it as a CARGO aircraft, was working when the C-141 Starlifter went into service (doing the same jobs as the DC-3) and is STILL working after the last C-141 was retired!

Hardly a fair comparison. I can't imagine a C-141 landing in some of the strips a DC-3 may have to, operated by small companies! Plus, the Air Force had something bigger and more capable than the C-141 come along, in the form of the C-17. And even then, with the C-17's STOL capabilities, it's not going to be able to operate out of remote dirt strips that the DC-3 can, simply because it is far too big/heavy and far too fast. Yes, the DC-3 maybe the best cargo/PAX aircraft related to certain aspects of that kind of flying (as you say, e.g. flying from and into unimproved airstrips), but that doesn't make it superior to all aircraft of that type, simply because it's been doing it longer!

The Canberra was only retired from the RAF in 2006, after more than 50 years of service (first flight in 1949, even), simply because the RAF had nothing else for photo-reconnaissance duties. Even now, there are talks of the RAF leasing the aircraft back from civilian operators, so that it can be used again!
The point being, was the Canberra a bomber at one point in it's career? Yes, but it was replaced by something better. The RAF have Tornado GR4s, Jaguars and Harriers for that, now. So in the same vain as the DC-3, does it make it the greatest aircraft of all time? Possibly.

Yes, I agree with "The fact of the matter is the DC-3 SHOULD be considered the greatest aircraft of all time", although I don't agree with "The DC-3 is my favorite and should be everyones favorite.

Believe me, I'm not bashing the DC-3, I'm merely sticking up for other great aircraft!

[DizZa]

[quote]

Oh, and about those silly stresses - during WWII I can think of at least one instance (and there were a few others) where a C-47 took a DIRECT HIT from a Kamikaze and managed to survive and fly home.

[dcunning30]

[Woodlouse2002]

Jake, you are far too partisan to the DC-3. Let's face facts. The aircraft is primarily used as a cargo type, the 747 is a extremely large passenger jet, the difference in the numbers of people on board both are uncomparable. As for it still being airbourne today, yes it's a great achievement but, in all honesty, it doesn't do the most demanding tasks does it. Spitfires, Mustangs etc are still flying today and they are not much younger than the DC-3 except in their lives they have, and still do carried out a lot more stressful manoeuvres on the airframe, so surely that makes them as 'great' as the DC3?

Demanding tasks?

[Jakemaster]

Jake, you are far too partisan to the DC-3. Let's face facts. The aircraft is primarily used as a cargo type, the 747 is a extremely large passenger jet, the difference in the numbers of people on board both are uncomparable. As for it still being airbourne today, yes it's a great achievement but, in all honesty, it doesn't do the most demanding tasks does it. Spitfires, Mustangs etc are still flying today and they are not much younger than the DC-3 except in their lives they have, and still do carried out a lot more stressful manoeuvres on the airframe, so surely that makes them as 'great' as the DC3?

Demanding tasks?  What do you mean it doesnt do demanding tasks?  The DC-3 airframe is different.  A fighter is built to take that stress, a DC-3 isnt.  DC-3s fly into unimproved strips, short strips, carrying a large amount of cargo that adds stress.  

I don't care that its flying today, its that its WORKING.  A spit isnt fighting anymore, just flying around.  A DC-3 still carries passengers and cargo (yes BOTH, in some places they are still used for pax transport).   Many DC-3s that carry cargo in the Caribbean or in South America are more than 50 years old, and yet they still work hard and manage to survive day after day of STRESS caused by unimproved airstrips, adverse weather, and heavy lifting.  

I know that I am OBSESSED with the DC-3, but for good reason!  What amazes me is that a 70 year old design still has lots of use today.  A spitfire, a mustang, any fighter is USELESS except for remembering the past and reliving history.  Ya they are great aircraft and engineering masterpieces, but theywhere quickly out dated, replaced by better aircraft.  The DC-3 has been replaced by some governments (some still have some) but they haven't been wiped out and pushed back to airshow duty.  There are still a significant number out there that are flying day in and day out to help people, to bring supplies to remote places, to carry people from A to B.  DC-3s have seen other aircraft of the same general category come and go.  The DC-3, as you refer to it as a CARGO aircraft, was working when the C-141 Starlifter went into service (doing the same jobs as the DC-3) and is STILL working after the last C-141 was retired!

The fact of the matter is the DC-3 SHOULD be considered the greatest aircraft of all time because of what it did and what it has done.  It has helped win wars, save lives, and generally made air transportation possible.

Oh, and about those silly stresses - during WWII I can think of at least one instance (and there were a few others) where a C-47 took a DIRECT HIT from a Kamikaze and managed to survive and fly home.  If a silly fighter took a hit like that it would be GONE.  Heck if a BOMBER took a hit like that it probably would have gone down too.

Wow I really got excited there.  Just a friendly warning...DO NOT get me started on the DC-3!!!!

My boat is 116 years old and is still being used for the task it was made for. Does that make it better than a DC-3?

Not unless its a flying boat

I know some things I said were a little over the top.  he comment on tradegies between the 747 and DC-3 was just meant to sorta say that the number of crashes really isn't indicative of how good the plane is.  And when I said it should be everyones favorite that was just my DC-3 pride getting the better of it.

Everyone has their own favorites, but as far as influence on aviation and success of a design go, the DC-3 ranks way up there on the aircraft ladder, if not at the top.

[an-225]

dcunning* is there anything you haven't seen?

An-225 for me. Plane beautiful. Carries quite a load. And its Russian!

[NDSP]

I think that more lives have been taken in a 747, but there has been many many many less incidents. So the 747 is the safer plane. The only reason that more people were killed was because newer 747 models can hold 500 people.

Would u rather go KJFK-EGLL knowing your in a modern and safe plane,

or

go KDFW-KORD with worrying that the old DC-3 your flying in might fall apart???

Actually, i dont even know if the DC-3 can make it from KDFW to KORD lol

Nick

[NDSP]

carry people from A to B

A 747 could carry people from A to Z and mabi even beyond Z

By the way, arent the DC-3 & the C-47 the same plane, just one is airforce and the other is commecial??

Nick

[dcunning30]

dcunning* is there anything you haven't seen?

I confess, I found that pic courtesy of google images.  But I'd surely love to see one of those.  The Dornier is definately my all-time favorite plane!   8-)

[Jakemaster]

I think that more lives have been taken in a 747, but there has been many many many less incidents. So the 747 is the safer plane. The only reason that more people were killed was because newer 747 models can hold 500 people.

Would u rather go KJFK-EGLL knowing your in a modern and safe plane,

or

go KDFW-KORD with worrying that the old DC-3 your flying in might fall apart???

Actually, i dont even know if the DC-3 can make it from KDFW to KORD lol

Nick

The 747 is NOT a safer plane just because its had fewer incidents.  Its had fewer incidents because it is 30 years younger than DC-3 and  there are a signifigant number LESS 747s than DC-3s.  More than 10,000 DC-3s were built and they have been around for 71 years, OF COURSE its had more incidents.  A DC-3 is safe and reliable.  Why do you think companies still fly them?  Ive read about companies that do things like skydiving that have chosen to keep their DC-3s instead of buying a turboprop because a DC-3 is more reliable and easier to maintain because it doesn't break down. THey are not unsafe, that's part of why I like them so much, it truly is an AMAZING design.

I'm pretty sure a DC-3 can make it from KDFW to KORD, thats only 700 miles.

[Jakemaster]

carry people from A to B

A 747 could carry people from A to Z and mabi even beyond Z

By the way, arent the DC-3 & the C-47 the same plane, just one is airforce and the other is commecial??

Nick

C-47 is the most common military variant.  

DC stands for 'Douglas Commercial' BTW

[Jakemaster]

Oh, and about those silly stresses - during WWII I can think of at least one instance (and there were a few others) where a C-47 took a DIRECT HIT from a Kamikaze and managed to survive and fly home.  If a silly fighter took a hit like that it would be GONE.  Heck if a BOMBER took a hit like that it probably would have gone down too.

A Embraer Legacy took a DIRECT hit from a Boeing 737-800 and survived! A DC-3 would of gone down, a fighter, a bomber a B52 would of ALL gone down.

The Embraer legacy is obviously the most strong plane in the world  :o

Only joking. But you have to renember thousands of Dc-3's were built, and when a few thousand are retired from Airlines they're going to go somewhere. IMO the B-52 is one of the best planes, it's staying in service till what? 2044?

I bet in 2044 there will be at least one DC-3 still doing its job somewhere in the world.  Honestly it would be no surprise if a few are around for their 100 year anniversary in 2035.

[Jakemaster]

ATTENTION MISTER SAFETY!

I just crunched the numbers.  ACCORDING to airdisasters.com, there have been 34 civilian 747 incidents.  Also, according to the same site, there have been 207 DC-3/C-47 Civilian incidents.  According to Wikipedia, 10,655 DC-3s were produced, and 393 747s have been produced.

With those numbers, 8.65 percent of the 747s produced crashed in civilian accidents.  Comparitively, only 1.94 percent of DC-3s built crashed in civilian accidents.

SO...although the DC-3 has crashed MORE TIMES than the 747, compared to the 747, the DC-3 has a lower PERCENTAGE rate of accidents in the civilian market.  Therefore, the DC-3 is SAFER than the 747.

Also, since 1970, the year the 747 entered commercial service, only 36 DC-3's were involved in civilian accidents, compared to 34 747s.  Keep in mind the DC-3 was already 35 years old in 1970 while the 747 was brand new.

I rest my case.  I feel MUCH safer on a DC-3