Talk:Douglas DC-3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has been selected for the Aviation Portal selected aircraft queue. Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

According to one disambig page, this aircraft was also known as the "Gooney bird." If this bit of trivia is accurate, should it not be incorporated into the article? Kevyn 13:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 10,000 ft/min climb rate? 2 Hmm 3 Banking right picture 4 Infobox 5 Famous People Who Died in the DC-3? 6 Comparing A380 to DC-3 and 747 7 lead image 8 licenced built vs variants

[edit] 10,000 ft/min climb rate?

Am I reading this right? There's no way a DC-3 could climb 10,000 ft/min. --ScottJ 23:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, that can't possibly be right. Good eye. -eric ✈ 01:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Great catch, ScottJ. I misread the statistic when I first entered the specs. It was actually 9.6 minutes to climb to 10,000. That works out to a slightly lower number than what you used, but you specified "initial", which I would expect to be a bit higher than the average over 10k feet. Dabarkey 04:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It really is important to distinguish between rate and time-to-climb anyway; if you've got both, put both in. What I've been doing lately (using information from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII) is the following:

• Rate of climb: 2,300 ft/min (11.7 m/sec); 9.6 min to 20,400 ft

That way, we get both initial rate and time-to-altitude information. -eric ✈ 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

I'm concidering adding an extra bit to this article but the problem seems to me that it's specifically about the plane and not any events that has taken place with it. Hmm... Dead-Inside 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banking right picture

It's a thumbnail Adrian, it's not supposed to be a high-res background. Intersofia 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but we don't normally have "thumbnail pics only" unless a good large one can't be found so that's not a good reason for the pic to be there. Loads of readers will click on it to enjoy the full size pic (as I always do) and be disappointed (and probably irritated as well). Quality pics of the DC-3 are easy to find so no need for this one. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 08:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I think this article needs an Aircraft infobox.

Yup, but there is a strong opposition to adding infoboxes to articles on aircraft and I doubt the WikiProject guys would let you do that. I tried once, but this was not very pleasant... //Halibutt 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous People Who Died in the DC-3?

Is this an encyclopedia article or a People magazine article? This sort of thing does not seem to be germane to the article and isn't a topic that's recommended in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. I think it should be deleted or at least moved to a separate article. Anyone else have a comment? Dabarkey 04:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone put work into it, so move rather than delete. Meggar 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone worked on it does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. However, I won't act unilaterally, and no-one else has exptressed an opinion as of now.Dabarkey 02:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved to its own List of... where interested parties may defend it against deletion. Meggar 03:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing A380 to DC-3 and 747

I don't think we should descripe A380 being a revolutionizing aircraft in the same scale of 747 or DC-3. "generally regarded as one of the most significant transport aircraft ever made (also see Boeing 707 and Boeing 747)" Altough the A380 is somewhat bigger than 747, it can hardly be considered a step forward in the scale of DC-3 or 747, being an advanced competitor to 747 rather than being something totally new.

Not only that, but the jury is still out on the A380; at this point, it could be a dog, where as the DC-3 or 747 were inarguably game changers. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro needs improvement. "The Douglas DC-3 is a fixed-wing, propeller-driven aircraft, which revolutionized air transport in the 1930s and 1940s..." Back up this 'revolutionized' claim with some fact, e.g. "The Douglas DC-3 is a fixed-wing, propeller-driven aircraft. The DC-3 revolutionized air transport in the 1930s and 1940s with reliability and economy that surpassed rival aircraft of the time." (This is an example, I'm not claiming this as fact, as I don't know). -- CraigKeogh 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"...generally regarded as one of the most significant transport aircraft ever made" is point of view. Give me the facts, and I'll determine if it is significant or not.-- CraigKeogh 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead image

A quick google of "Portuguese air force 6157" reveals that the lead image is not a DC-3 but a C-47A Skytrain; how do we feel about mixing the aircraft between articles? ericg ✈ 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose it, and will remedy the situation on the commons. I only added it because I felt it was the most illustrative picture available. I will also change the caption in this article.

Should you decide to find another image, feel free. As I said, the fact that it isn't actually a DC-3 is a concern for me as well. Karl Dickman ^talk 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] licenced built vs variants

There is a difference between "licence-built" and "variant" and "clone". The Lisunov Li-2 is a metric variant with metric 9-cyl Shvetsov ASh-62 engines. There's nothing interchangeable between the DC-3 and the Li-2 even tho they look identical at 10 paces. Thus, the Li-2 really deserves its own separate page, just as the Tupolev Tu-4 (metric clone of the B-29) has its own page. Also what's worth telling is the story of the frantic and desperate cloning process that the Soviets used to try to catch up to the Yanks. BomberJoe 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Lisunov Li-2 was built with the permission of Douglas (hence it was license-built), while the Tu-4 was an out-right stolen, illegal copy. To label them both simply as "metric clones" is highly misleading. The Soviets further developed the Tu-4, and the aircraft gave significant service to the Soviet air force. These all combine to make up enough content to warrant having its own page. If there is enough verifiable content to warrant the Li-2 having its own page, then I'm all for it. But if it's just going to be a stub, then leave it here for now. In print, the Li-2 is hardly ever covered on its own, unless perhaps in a book on Soviet aircraft. - BillCJ 19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree on the basics. One problem is to find a term that describes an aircraft that is neither a copy nor a clone, but looks identical from 10 paces. We don't use that sort of design method, so we don't have a word to describe the result. Here's a quote from Yefim Gordon's book promo on Amazon: "Suitably adapted to make use of Russian engines and structural materials, the DC-3 entered production as the PS-84; and gradually the design drifted further apart from the US original." BomberJoe 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the term usually used in such situations is a "license-built derivative". Take the Westland Wessex (S-58) and Westland Sea King: Both were highly modified by Westland for British and export service, and differ significantly from the original Sikorsky models. This often happens with license-built aircraft, and is fully legal under the terms of the license. The Li-2 seems to fall into this category, while the Tu-4 certainly does not.

I would certianly be interested in whatever info you find on the Li-2, and if it's sourced properly, go ahead and put it into the article. WHen the Li-2 section starts to overwhelm the other models, then I'd be for splitting it off, provided we have some good photos and specs to go along with it. - BillCJ 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)