Video Trans Northern DC3 Engine Failure - Safe Return to Land

Scuttlebutt is the bad engine came out of feather, and when they hit the runway they were still full tilt boogie on the good engine.

Pretty amazing feat of airmanship. There’s a video circulating around of the plane flying abeam downtown anchorage below the tops of the buildings.
 
I'm not going to second guess anyone who was there. The pilot's first job is making sure everyone walks away from the end of the flight. Oh, I know people have killed themselves and their passengers trying to stretch an approach too far or make a too high angle turn. But, normally the better condition the aircraft is in at the end of the flight the better condition of the passengers. I was taught that when you were faced with making a belly landing-- and especially when ditching-- you should un-feather the prop on the inoperative engine if practicable shortly before touch down. Because windmilling it will more readily strike, dissipate energy, and deform rather than dig in and transmit the force unevenly into the engine mount and one wing. The primary goal is maintaining lateral control as you belly land / ditch.
 
Glad they got it down, but it looks like the bird is done, unless they can find another wing, the right wing hit the runway. You can see the damage on the leading edge at 1:30 of the video. Probably damaged the spar beyond repair.
 
Warren Dunes said:
I'm not going to second guess anyone who was there. The pilot's first job is making sure everyone walks away from the end of the flight. Oh, I know people have killed themselves and their passengers trying to stretch an approach too far or make a too high angle turn. But, normally the better condition the aircraft is in at the end of the flight the better condition of the passengers. I was taught that when you were faced with making a belly landing-- and especially when ditching-- you should un-feather the prop on the inoperative engine if practicable shortly before touch down. Because windmilling it will more readily strike, dissipate energy, and deform rather than dig in and transmit the force unevenly into the engine mount and one wing. The primary goal is maintaining lateral control as you belly land / ditch.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how that would work. Con you explain it better? How is a windmilling engine going to help you? The explanation you gave still doesn’t compute to me.
 
Technically it is a Super DC3 you can tell by the tail.
 
If I ever have to plane a plane gear up, the DC-3 is high on my list. The landing gear while retracted still sticks out of the bottom of the engine nacelle and will roll. It's about the best unless you're talking about some of the high mounted engine flying boats (Seabee, SeaRay) or high wing twins like the MU-2. (The latter three have all geared up outside my window over the past few years).
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I don’t understand how that would work. Con you explain it better? How is a windmilling engine going to help you? The explanation you gave still doesn’t compute to me.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I've never. Ever. Heard anyone mention unfeathering the failed prop before touching down. It sounds like a silly idea; why on earth would you want to reintroduce the drag that you got rid of by feathering the damn thing in the first place?

But, I've only been flying multiengine ships for 33 years now, perhaps I haven't had the chance to fly with just the right misguided MEI yet...
 
flyingron said:
If I ever have to plane a plane gear up, the DC-3 is high on my list. The landing gear while retracted still sticks out of the bottom of the engine nacelle and will roll.
Click to expand...

Looks like this one was a "Super" with the added gear doors though.
 
DavidWhite said:
Scuttlebutt is the bad engine came out of feather,
Click to expand...
FYI: Don't know if the case here, but some props have "design" features where after you feather it in flight then attempt a restart and the start fails the prop can become stuck between the unfeathered and the feathered positions. Regardless, they did an excellent job.
 
flyingron said:
If I ever have to plane a plane gear up, the DC-3 is high on my list. The landing gear while retracted still sticks out of the bottom of the engine nacelle and will roll. It's about the best unless you're talking about some of the high mounted engine flying boats (Seabee, SeaRay) or high wing twins like the MU-2. (The latter three have all geared up outside my window over the past few years).
Click to expand...
Tarheelpilot said:
I don’t understand how that would work. Con you explain it better? How is a windmilling engine going to help you? The explanation you gave still doesn’t compute to me.
Click to expand...
IF you can, IF you have speed after you have committed to land gear-up or ditch un-feathering turns the blade so the impact is along the longer, weaker (easier to deform and bend) dimension, rather than the shorter, stronger (more likely to dig in and act as a plow) dimension of the propeller. My MEI had been a B-17, B-29, and B-50 pilot-- maybe its an older way of thinking. It was never put out as a "must" just a preferable. I was also told to always ditch tail in the water first (again to maintain control).
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: Don't know if the case here, but some props have "design" features where after you feather it in flight then attempt a restart and the start fails the prop can become stuck between the unfeathered and the feathered positions. Regardless, they did an excellent job.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the old electric feathering mechanisms on the Wright were fun.
 
Warren Dunes said:
IF you can, IF you have speed after you have committed to land gear-up or ditch un-feathering turns the blade so the impact is along the longer, weaker (easier to deform and bend) dimension, rather than the shorter, stronger (more likely to dig in and act as a plow) dimension of the propeller. My MEI had been a B-17, B-29, and B-50 pilot-- maybe its an older way of thinking. It was never put out as a "must" just a preferable. I was also told to always ditch tail in the water first (again to maintain control).
Click to expand...
I had a guy tell me he was working on a system to install two stall warning systems. One for each wing. They would have car horns for the audible alarm. Two different car horns. That way he could tell which wing was stalling first to make it all work as a spin warning system in addition to stalls.

Somehow this reminded me of that conversation.
 
Warren Dunes said:
IF you can, IF you have speed after you have committed to land gear-up or ditch un-feathering turns the blade so the impact is along the longer, weaker (easier to deform and bend) dimension, rather than the shorter, stronger (more likely to dig in and act as a plow) dimension of the propeller. My MEI had been a B-17, B-29, and B-50 pilot-- maybe its an older way of thinking. It was never put out as a "must" just a preferable. I was also told to always ditch tail in the water first (again to maintain control).
Click to expand...


considering they hit full power and barely cleared some airplanes at the edge of the field I highly doubt they decided to unfeather the engine intentionally.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I had a guy tell me he was working on a system to install two stall warning systems. One for each wing. They would have car horns for the audible alarm. Two different car horns. That way he could tell which wing was stalling first to make it all work as a spin warning system in addition to stalls.

Somehow this reminded me of that conversation.
Click to expand...

thats a neat concept!
 
Warren Dunes said:
I was taught that when you were faced with making a belly landing-- and especially when ditching-- you should un-feather the prop on the inoperative engine if practicable shortly before touch down. Because windmilling it will more readily strike, dissipate energy, and deform rather than dig in and transmit the force unevenly into the engine mount and one wing. The primary goal is maintaining lateral control as you belly land / ditch.
Click to expand...

Unfeathering the propeller would dissipate energy for one revolution of it, after that the blades are bent and don't contact the runway.

It seems like a really dangerous move with essentially zero benefit.
 
Birds of that era were built to be repaired. The part 135 carrier I us to work for would rebuild wings from Beavers and Otters. Skin off, replace ribs and spars, skin on, fly away..
 
Warren Dunes said:
Tough old birds...

https://cnac.org/aircraft02.htm Creating a DC 2 1/2: CNAC fits the right wing of a DC-2 to a damaged DC-3, May 1941, by Zigmund Soldinski.
Click to expand...

AKBill said:
Birds of that era were built to be repaired. The part 135 carrier I us to work for would rebuild wings from Beavers and Otters. Skin off, replace ribs and spars, skin on, fly away..
Click to expand...

While it's obviously possible to replace the wing with an undamaged one, there's probably a challenge in finding a donor. I have no idea if salvageable wings are available, but I suppose there's a possibility a C-47/RD4/DC-3 junkyard exists.

Douglas and other manufacturers made over 12,000 C-47/RD4/DC-3 aircraft, but the airframe underwent many changes and modifications over the production run. Finding one that is a compatible replacement is likely impossible.
 
Pretty nice flying... Whatever led them to have the airplane not too heavy to do that was a pretty good thing, too.
 
3393RP said:
I suppose there's a possibility a C-47/RD4/DC-3 junkyard exists.
Click to expand...
Used to be a big one in Villavicencio (Columbia SA), there also used to be a big DC-4 junkyard at FAI.
3393RP said:
Douglas and other manufacturers made over 12,000 C-47/RD4/DC-3 aircraft, but the airframe underwent many changes and modifications over the production run. Finding one that is a compatible replacement is likely impossible.
Click to expand...
I have no idea about the economics, but with that many made, I'd find it hard to believe that a compatible replacement couldn't be found.
 
I want that guy flying me. Everywhere.

3393RP said:
While it's obviously possible to replace the wing with an undamaged one, there's probably a challenge in finding a donor. I have no idea if salvageable wings are available, but I suppose there's a possibility a C-47/RD4/DC-3 junkyard exists.

Douglas and other manufacturers made over 12,000 C-47/RD4/DC-3 aircraft, but the airframe underwent many changes and modifications over the production run. Finding one that is a compatible replacement is likely impossible.
Click to expand...

A donor is one possibility, but I'd imagine they can also work the metal back into place.

hindsight2020 said:
cool party trick. Now let's try it in the summer. :D
Click to expand...

Eh, summer in Anchorage still ain't that warm.
 
N1120A said:
A donor is one possibility, but I'd imagine they can also work the metal back into place.
Click to expand...

No. The DC-3 wing has three spars, and the fracture in the leading edge is a clear sign the front spar is damaged, and the other two might be as well. Elongation of the bottom spar cap and compressive buckling of the upper cap render it unrepairable. That metal will not respond to rework, it has deformed past the elastic limit.

There are just over 200 C-47/RD4/DC-3s still flying worldwide. Are there spare outer wing panels out there? Don't know.
 
The Super 3/R4D-8 wing is different than a regular 3 wing. Flush riveted, square tipped with a 411 gallon fuel tank. There were only 4 built and 100 converted from navy R4Ds. So not too many spare wings around.
 
3393RP said:
Glad they got it down, but it looks like the bird is done, unless they can find another wing, the right wing hit the runway. You can see the damage on the leading edge at 1:30 of the video. Probably damaged the spar beyond repair.
Click to expand...

I must be missing something here. I looked at the image at 1:30 of the video, and it appears that only the leading edge fairing is damaged. I don't see any indication of main spar damage. There may be other, more severe wing damage, but I just don't see evidence of it in this video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top