Warbird Information Exchange

between and DC 2 and a DC 3? Thanks

_________________
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone!

Although they look similar the DC-3 is larger in nearly every dimension with a longer and wider fuselage (to allow sleeper berths and more passengers), longer wings of different shape, increased weights and more powerful engines among other refinement.

DC-2 is recognizable by its slab-sided fuselage; the DC-3 has a circular cross-section.

Originally, Douglas hoped for 85% parts commonality between the two.
It ended up at 10%.


If you are a identification novice, in addition to the details already mentioned...the slab sides and smaller dorsal fin-less vertical stabilizer....look at the nose. The DC-2 has landing lights there.


In the early 1970s, I was travelling with my family from the Northwest to the Midwest.
On the return, I talked them into doing a lunch stop near the Missoula airport.
This was in the waning days of the famed Johnson Flying Service. Sadly, there weren't any B-17s or Fords on the ramp, but there were DC-3s and PVs. I had only a couple of minutes to get my shots, it was point and shoot time.
It was only when I had my transparencies developed did I realize one of the aircraft was their DC-2!

Fifteen years later I saw the same aircraft, now painted in TWA colors, at the Santa Monica museum.

Recently I have come to know one of the pilots who flew it for its current owner, The Museum of Flight in Seattle. Sadly it is grounded now.

So, small world...

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

The DC-3 was an enlarged DC-2 with 7 rows of 3 seats vs 7 rows of 2 seats.





Other "visual aides" to distinguishing between the DC-2 and DC-3:

The DC-2 has the pitot masts located further forward under the nose.
The DC-2 cabin windows have rounded corners.
The DC-2 exhaust manifold is hidden under the skin of the nacelle.





C2j

1 obviously.

Hardly any difference at all:
http://www.douglasdc3.com/dc2half/dc2half.htm

Ernest K. Gann wrote that the DC-2 was particularly difficult to put on the ground, due to its stiff landing gear. And that it had a phenomenal ability to carry ice and stay in the air.

Gannis's early chapters in Fate is the Hunter probably did more to increase the world's knowledge about the DC-2 than anything else.

The only competition it has is the chapter in Gann's later Flying Circus book, and in terms of pop culture, an American Airways DC-2 Flagship being the "Good Ship Lollipop" in the 1934 Shirley Temple film "Bright Eyes".
Although I doubt if anyone under the age of 50 has heard of her.
The Temple film has some nice ground shots of the DC-2.

Likewise, the 1937 film Lost Horizon starts with a private DC-2 being hijacked to deliver the hero to the utopia in Tibet. Some nice shots of it there as well as a pretty accurate studio mock-up.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

As someone who's read the phrase "slab-sided" about a hundred times, but it never really stuck, this means the sides are flat. I know this might be obvious to most people, but for some reason it didn't occur to me until I stared at enough pictures of DC-2s. It isn't perfect, but here's a comparison of the cross sections of both fuselages:


There's a blog post with a picture of a DC-2 and DC-3 flying in formation that illustrates the difference pretty well. (It's coincidentally very similar to a picture of a Beech 18 and Lockheed Electra from the same angle useful for distinguishing between those two.)

One other recognition feature is dual landing lights in the nose. Not all DC-2s have them, but I believe only DC-2s have them.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Worked on that one at VNY.

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

The DC-3 has a dorsal fillet, the DC-2 does not.
The DC-3 has a much broader fin, although there are two variations of fins for the DC-2 (the original shape was found to be lacking in the directional stability department).
The rudder/fin demarcation line on the DC-2 is mostly vertical (with a small offset in the middle), on the DC-3 the center part of this line is vertical but it is angled both at the top and bottom.
On a DC-2, the tailwheel is mounted on a vertical post, on a DC-3 the whole assembly is slanted backwards.

AFAIK only the DC-2 had the nose mounted landing lights, but as has been mentioned, not all of them had these.

I think only the DC-3 ever had de-icing boots, but I'm not sure about this one.

Edit: just found this article but I don't know if it will be visible, it could be behind a paywall for some: https://www.key.aero/article/what-diffe ... 2-and-dc-3

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

Here's a DC-2 1/2.
The C-39 was essentially a DC-2 with a DC-3 tail.
The nose does not have the landing lights, nor the small door seen on '3s and C-47.

Take a look at the one held by the NMUSAF.
Just a quick look and you'll see how much the 2 differs considerably from the 3.
Flat fuselage sides, smaller cargo doors which are further forward and in the side view (#4) the different (not as rounded) wingtips.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit ... glas-c-39/

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.