Douglas DC-3 (N472AF)

superised you missed this @John Giambone, the astrodome marks this as the C-47 variation of the DC-3 airframe

Hey A. Mentor, thanks for the sarcastic constructive criticism and condescending attitude about it. Look, I know it's a "C-47" You know it's a "C-47" Everyone else here knows the difference as well. Did you ever consider that perhaps I just don't care.? A C-47 is still basically a DC-3 underneath it all. Just in case you didn't know that. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do.

For those of you who like straining on gnats, from the FAA Registry - (so I guess that would kind of make it "official" huh)? Thetechnical listing for this aircraft show's it identified as: 1944 built Douglas DC3C-S1C3G C/N 13485 N472AF with P&W R-1830 engines. Two of them. But hey, if you can't take the FAA's word for it, feel free to check it out for yourselves! Maybe you can contact the manufacturer, er, wait, I think they are no longer in business (Douglas) so perhaps you can check with Boeing, since they bought Douglas, they'd have the paperwork (stating the obvious).!

Nice Shot John, remember these birds from the 50's in the UK. Love the basic (untitled) RCAF colour scheme from when it flew as KG668 later re-serialled when the RCAF just a part of the CAF as 12942. The original serial KG668 of course came from its original owner the RAF obtained via lend/lease via the US Army Air Force receiving the serial 42-93560 which kinda puts paid to the FAA data that it was built in 1944. Also it was built as a Model DC.3A-456 part of a batch of 2,300 C-47A-DK built by Douglas at Oklahoma City. Hope of some interest.

Alan, thank you for the additional background i formation on this bird, Very interesting and much much appreciated! I did read elsewhere on the internet about the information you provided. I am really curious why in some places they show her being built in 1942 yet the FAA registry shows 1944. I decided to go with that since i figured would most likely be the correct date. I agree with you on her color scheme. Looked spectacular in person. She was immaculate and pristine. The photos do not do her justice. Looks like she just rolled out of the paint shop. Her owners have her spit shined up very nicely. Anyway, great info. Thank you.

Sorry John to have offended you. I meant no disrespect or sarcasim. Many make this mistake unknowingly and truly surprised by your identification.

@a mentor. Apology accepted. I was not offended by your comment. It's just that your comment came across to me as very passive aggressive. I gladly accept folks pointing out my errors, especially if what I am posting is factually inaccurate information and provide the correct info. I have no problem with that, and in fact, I appreciate it. I am always up for learning something new. You know the old saying "it's not what you say - but how you say it" Anyway, thanks for reaching out and it is now behind us. Wishing you all the best.