WWII combat vet C-47 moved

[tulsaboy]

FYI- For those transport fans out there...

A C-47 that was later modified into a corporate aircraft for Kerr-McGee Corporation was moved last week from the Oklahoma City Fair grounds to MetroTech in OKC. The students there are going to restore the aircraft, along with the first production Aero Commander "Blue Goose" as instructional projects. According to the plaque underneath the plane, this airframe dropped paratroopers in the Battle of the Bulge. Maybe someone out there can verify or refute this claim, but at any rate, it's a C-47 headed for a better place than a pole in a fair park.

[img]http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g204/tulsaboy/IMG_3001.jpg
[/img]
[img][img]http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g204/tulsaboy/IMG_2981.jpg[/img]



[/img]

[Airlift48]

With a passenger door? I also do not notice any skin mods to indicate that there ever was a cargo door.

Maybe purely DC-3.

Just an observation.

[TimAPNY]

Any shots of the B-47?

Sorry I can't help with the C-47, anything else there?

Tim

[Mark_Pilkington]

if this aircraft was used for paratroopers at the Battle of the Bulge it could well be an authentic C53 SkyTrooper and would not be expected to have the double cargo door of the C47 Skytrain, alternatively it could be an imressed C49, or C50, but I suspect it is a C53, a reare beast in itself.


Can the ID be confirmed?

regards

Mark Pilkington

[Matt Gunsch]

The C-47A I take care of was converted to a DC-3C after the war with the carge doors being removed and a airstair door being added and you cannot see any signs that it ever had cargo doors. So don't rely on the lack of doors, it very well could be a C-47 wearing a business suit.

[Mark_Pilkington]

According to these two DC3 websites

http://www.dc3history.org/dc_museums.htm

http://www.douglasdc3.com/wheredc3/wheredc3.htm

the aircraft is s/n 12683, former N65162,

googling N65162 finds info and a pic at the airliners.net website

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=48-92953&distinct_entry=true

a photo caption states it is marked as

"48-92953 / U7-T (cn 12683) Showing signs of wear and tear on the control surfaces. The serial is fake (and not valid!), this aircraft is ex USAF 42-92838 and later flew as N65162."

Googling 42-92838 finds the Douglas production lists

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rioolpw/douglas_longbeach_02.html



which list 42-92838 as s/n 12683

"12683 C-47A-15-DK xxx 42-92838 N65162"

so Matt gets the cigar, and this aircraft confirms his statement that the absence of double doors or lack of evidence of their removal doesnt confirm they never existed, as it appears this is indeed a C-47A that has been converted back to single door "DC-3" configuration.

but still apparantly likely to be a veteran of combat.

regards

Mark Pilkington

[RMAllnutt]

Interesting reading. Thanks for the photos. How many other aircraft are there. Looks like at least a B-47, and something blue... is that the aero commander? What will happen to the B-47 if they are removing the other two?

Cheers. Richard

[Nathan]

if this aircraft was used for paratroopers at the Battle of the Bulge it could well be an authentic C53 SkyTrooper and would not be expected to have the double cargo door of the C47 Skytrain, alternatively it could be an imressed C49, or C50, but I suspect it is a C53, a reare beast in itself.

Before I read the above comment, I thought to myself, "Gee, there are a few odd things about this C-47."

For one, that nose seems to be way to pointy then what I have seen on other C-47's. Then the wings look beefier then a C-47.....and then there is something about that rear fuselage that just doesn't look right. Then there is the cowling, seems to be longer then on a normal C-47. Maybe I am seeing things, but this is what I am making out of those pictures.

[Warhawk]

According to the plaque underneath the plane, this airframe dropped paratroopers in the Battle of the Bulge.

My understanding is that the only thing paratroopers dropped out of during the Ardennes offensive were trucks. There was no jump into that battle. There was no time for planning or training. The troopers were gathered up, told to get on trucks and in many cases did not even have weapons when they left camp. Food, ammunition and proper clothing were also in short supply or completely non-exsistant.

[tulsaboy]

Mark- I talked today with the fairgrounds guy who supervised the move and asked him about the s/n painted on the tail. He said that his understanding is that it is indeed a fake number, one that someone there just came up with the last time they painted it. He has no idea what the correct s/n is. When the MetroTech guys get into the aircraft, he's going to have them look for the data plate and has promised to get the number to me to post. Then we can all know that your research was spot on!

Richard and Tim-

There are/were a total of four aircraft at the fair park:
B-52F-105-BO s/n 57-0038
(supposedly, according to the NMUSAF, the only surviving F model)
B-47E-55-BW s/n 51-2387
The C-47 already discussed
The first production Aero Commander, called "Blue Goose". The story on this Aero Commander is that to prove the airworthiness of the aircraft, this particular airframe flew the FAA registration papers for the type to Washington DC from Oklahoma on one engine (with stops, of course) with one of the props stored in the fuselage. That's the story, at least.

The C-47 and Aero Commander, as mentioned, have been moved to MetroTech. As for the other two... the NMUSAF does own both airframes, and some things are being worked out to find them good homes. I'll have more info on that later, and will post it asap.

Does anyone want pics of the other three aircraft?

kevin

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

According to the plaque underneath the plane, this airframe dropped paratroopers in the Battle of the Bulge.

My understanding is that the only thing paratroopers dropped out of during the Ardennes offensive were trucks. There was no jump into that battle. There was no time for planning or training. The troopers were gathered up, told to get on trucks and in many cases did not even have weapons when they left camp. Food, ammunition and proper clothing were also in short supply or completely non-exsistant.

Jack Agnew of Regimental HQ Co 506th PIR, 101st Airborne Division, a friend of mine would disagree on your understanding of the Bastogne situation.

Try the following link

http://www.historynet.com/magazines/wor ... page=1&c=y


I will find the intel on the two planes that they dropped from later tonight!

[coastdef]

This airplane has seen some work over the last couple of years. There control surfaces have been "metalized" and it has its wings attached and has tires mounted. She doesn't look as rough as I would expect for all the time she spent on a pole. It does concern me that she isn't tied down at all as we enter the tornado/high wind season in Oklahoma. She is still in the parking lot at Metro Tech, just outside Will Rogers World Airport.









Regards,

Andy

[Jesse C.]

So, did anyone ever find out if she is or isn't a combat vet?

[tulsaboy]

Andy,

thanks for the photos! I'm now in Tulsa and no longer in OKC, so I haven't seen that bird in a long time. Did anyone ever get in the aircraft to look at the data plates? When it was on the pole at the OKC fairgrounds, you could still see curtains hanging in some of the windows, so several of us were speculating that it still had its executive transport interior installed. Would be neat to find out if that's still the case. Did you ever find out what the plans are for this C-47?

kevin

[daveymac82c]

Looking at those last pictures got me thinking.

My museum's DC-3 was used as an airliner before being pressed into USAAF operations. It most likely would have had a cargo door installed right? Or maybe not, considering it could have been more of a VIP transport not needing cargo capabilities.

In any case, our DC-3 has the passenger door on the starboard (right) side; opposite to that of the DC-3/C-47 in question.

Weren't all DC-3 that were originally built for civilian use built with the passenger door on the right side, as opposed to being on the left side?

I'd assume that the plane in question maybe had the smaller 'passenger' door installed where the gaping hole of the cargo door used to be, instead of patching up the cargo door and then ripping a new hole in the appropriate side to be accurate.

Just my two cents.

David McIntosh