Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DC-10 Fire Tanker  
User currently offlinePillowTester From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 245 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20051 times:

Fox News has been showing lots of coverage of a new DC-10 modified to fight fires in California or wherever it is. It looks really awesome in action!

Any pics of it here on A.net?


...said Dan jubilantly.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20044 times:

Quoting PillowTester (Thread starter):
Any pics of it here on A.net?

Yes..............



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineA300605R From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20037 times:

It's dropping water, so you can't see too much of the plane...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bernard Charles

BTW, try to use the search engine first...  Wink

[Edited 2006-09-25 01:31:18]


300 319 320 321 332 733 734 735 738 753 763 F27 M83
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5337 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 19993 times:

What sucks is that the Evergreen Supertanker, which is a 747 and was developed first, is still being stonewalled by the various authorities, for no reason that makes any sense.

User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19934 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 3):
What sucks is that the Evergreen Supertanker, which is a 747 and was developed first, is still being stonewalled by the various authorities, for no reason that makes any sense.




Water Tanker - video powered by Metacafe


User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 708 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 19882 times:

Do you think we'll ever see a 767-200 fire-bomber? There's quite a number of 762's sitting in the desert at the moment.

User currently offlineRomeoKC10FE From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19635 times:

Hey guys, I was watching the ABC World News tonight, they were doing a story about the wild fires in southern California. Well to my surprise they showed the DC-10 water bomber being used to help fight the fire, they didn't go into detail but did acknowledge that it was a wide body airliner converted to fight fires. All I can say is that it's about time, we all know Evergreen Intl. has their 747 water bomber and have been waiting to get it certified and also to get a contract signed with the Forestry Service, meanwhile the country just burns up! Evergreen demoed the plane here in my hometown of Sacramento, CA back in the summer but I missed it, I was out flying a mission for the Air Force in the pacific. Pics of both aircraft can be found here on A.net, oh, and the ground crews fighting the fire said that the DC-10 absolutely saved a small town that was in the fires path. Are their any fellow A.netters down in that area where it's being used, I would to see some posted pics of it in action!

User currently offlineVirgin747 From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19593 times:

I hate to be a sales person.... But if any state government people who read these threads has a large amount of forest in their region.... may i suggest this....

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?...ang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_0.html


User currently onlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19556 times:

There was an editorial bit on one of the local channels (I live within sight of the "Day Fire" now burning for its 4th week in southern California) last week about how the cost of fighting the "Day fire" had surpassed $20 million that day and that we should be using widebody tankers if they would help. It was stated that the resistance to using them is said to be cost (over $26,000 per hour) but given the now excessive cost of this fire (even having burned no structures), we should do more. Not more than 2 days later I heard unusual amounts of air traffic and looked up and saw the DC-10! Pretty impressive videos of the retardant drops have been on the news, but I'm having a hard time finding a link.

User currently offlineGreg3322 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19488 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 8):
Pretty impressive videos of the retardant drops have been on the news, but I'm having a hard time finding a link.

I found this link:

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/video/?track=nav

On the news video section, scroll down to:
"9/25 - Calmer Winds Helping Crews Fight Day Fire"

After the commercial, it is about 40 seconds into the video and they show a couple of passes.

Greg


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2187 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19441 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 3):
What sucks is that the Evergreen Supertanker, which is a 747 and was developed first, is still being stonewalled by the various authorities, for no reason that makes any sense.

I can't speak to the certification of the 747 Supertanker. But, politics aside, the main reason most government officials in charge of managing the wildland against unwanted fire are hesitant to use either large airtanker is due to the exorbitant cost with limited effectiveness. Both types have now been used in real missions in addition to tests & demonstrations. The evidence I have seen to date indicates that the coverage level of the retardant on the ground is less than adequate, perhaps due to its excessive (800' AGL) drop height rather and its high forward speed. I believe they drop at around 160 KIAS or so; at that speed, retardant tends to shear immediately after departing the tank (DC-10) or nozzle (747) attached to the aircraft. 120-140 KIAS is optimal.

Yes, each plane carries a lot of retardant. Yes, each plane flies to the fire at a great rate of knots. But the logistical hassles (suitable airfields), high operating costs, huge fuel burn at low altitudes and its limited ability to drop at low level in rugged terrain weigh heavily against using such aircraft for extended fire suppression operations.

It promises to be interesting...



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
User currently offlineMtnWest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 19351 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 10):
Both types have now been used in real missions in

So when was the 747 used in a 'real mission'?



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offline757dc10fltmech From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19291 times:

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 10):
The evidence I have seen to date indicates that the coverage level of the retardant on the ground is less than adequate

"Testing with loads showed that Tanker 910 provided appropriate coverage on the ground."

From this CDF Press Release: http://www.fire.ca.gov/php/newsrelea...ownloads/2006archive/DC10Facts.pdf

"The tanker left "very impressive coverage - a very long line of retardant" - in the area in which it dropped, Estrada said."

From The Desert Sun:
http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbc...060717/NEWS0806/607170326/0/TOPICS




Video from the CDF

Scroll to the bottom of the page
http://www.fire.ca.gov/php/about_photosection.php

Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 11):
So when was the 747 used in a 'real mission'?

 checkmark 



CAN DO!
User currently offlineAA61Hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 19274 times:

Take a look at the current Airways magazine. It has a big article on these fire tankers.


Go big or go home
User currently offlineWN230 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 341 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19212 times:

Quoting Virgin747 (Reply 7):

VNY has some of these amphibious watter droppers (I've seen them) which could easily reach the fire(s).

quoting myself . . . "which could easily reach the fire(s)"
is it just one fire or multiple fires?



Judas Priest North American tour in '08 . . . cannot wait!!!
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5337 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 19172 times:

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 10):
But the logistical hassles (suitable airfields), high operating costs, huge fuel burn at low altitudes and its limited ability to drop at low level in rugged terrain weigh heavily against using such aircraft for extended fire suppression operations.

Sounds like the arguments that the Fire-O-Crats have been making from Day 1, even before testing began. The actual testing results seem to belie what the Fire-O-Crats are saying. In fact, I wonder if the concern is that once they get one in use, the media and others will demand that they be used even more, taxing a budget or requiring fewer men on the ground.

There's something going on here that's keeping the Supertanker from being used, and it's not just technical. It's bureaucratic.


User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1909 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 19006 times:

Latest Airways has a big article:




- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18860 times:

Quoting WN230 (Reply 14):
VNY has some of these amphibious watter droppers (I've seen them) which could easily reach the fire(s).

I assume the Canadairs are in action; they base down at VNY every fire season.

Personally, I don't understand why the 146th ANG wing (which has a boatload of C-130's) isn't fully tasked to handling this on an annual basis. It just seems like they could do it -- right now, they only become engaged post-fact. I honestly think they should have several Hercs ready to roll all the time so they could just hammer the heck out a fire early before it gets too big.

That seems like a good use of my tax dollars!  Smile

Steve


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2187 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18832 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 15):
Sounds like the arguments that the Fire-O-Crats have been making from Day 1, even before testing began. The actual testing results seem to belie what the Fire-O-Crats are saying. In fact, I wonder if the concern is that once they get one in use, the media and others will demand that they be used even more, taxing a budget or requiring fewer men on the ground.

And the testing confirmed many of their points. The coverage level sure looks impressive in Dixie cups in the desert or on a paved runway, but add burning California chaparral in a thirty knot wind and try to tell me that even a coverage level 8 (the highest level) dropped from 500-800' AGL will be effective.

If ever the ground crew component of firefighting disappears from the scene, all the DC-10's in the desert couldn't put out a fire. No aircraft could.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 15):
There's something going on here that's keeping the Supertanker from being used, and it's not just technical. It's bureaucratic.

Agreed. The level of bureaucracy is indeed staggering when dealing with the USFS and fires. And it ain't limited to the 747. Talk to the operators of the more established piston tanker types.

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 17):
Personally, I don't understand why the 146th ANG wing (which has a boatload of C-130's) isn't fully tasked to handling this on an annual basis. It just seems like they could do it -- right now, they only become engaged post-fact.

Perhaps because the US military has a few other minor commitments that are deemed higher priorities at the moment. The retardant delivery system on the MAFFS-equipped Herc aircraft, like that on the Evergreen 747, is not extremely well-suited to effective coverage level on the ground either. The bottom-mounted tank (like on the DC-10) is much better. But that's a topic for another forum.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DC-10 Fire Bomber Grounded After Grazing Tree Tops posted Tue Jun 26 2007 20:32:18 by FATFlyer
DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal posted Thu Jun 14 2007 23:59:09 by Laxintl
DC-10 Air Tanker Aids Washington Fires posted Fri Sep 1 2006 14:52:19 by 757dc10fltmech
NW DC-10 Engine Fire @ NRT posted Wed Nov 24 2004 03:17:26 by AMS
NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire.. posted Tue Sep 7 2004 21:52:55 by Radelow
Was An Ansett Tristar/DC-10 Ever At Duxford? posted Fri Sep 28 2007 14:37:48 by VS773ER
DC-10 At BNE Now! posted Fri Sep 28 2007 05:42:41 by TruemanQLD
Old Northwest DC 10's At SAT? posted Mon Sep 24 2007 06:36:03 by Ndalsteve
The Last DC-10...where Is She Now? posted Sat Sep 22 2007 21:50:54 by FlagshipAZ
Flight Tracker Help Needed. FedEx Dc-10@KCHO 8/22 posted Wed Aug 22 2007 23:53:34 by DesertJets
NW DC-10 Engine Fire @ NRT posted Wed Nov 24 2004 03:17:26 by AMS
NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire.. posted Tue Sep 7 2004 21:52:55 by Radelow
Was An Ansett Tristar/DC-10 Ever At Duxford? posted Fri Sep 28 2007 14:37:48 by VS773ER
DC-10 At BNE Now! posted Fri Sep 28 2007 05:42:41 by TruemanQLD
Old Northwest DC 10's At SAT? posted Mon Sep 24 2007 06:36:03 by Ndalsteve
The Last DC-10...where Is She Now? posted Sat Sep 22 2007 21:50:54 by FlagshipAZ
Flight Tracker Help Needed. FedEx Dc-10@KCHO 8/22 posted Wed Aug 22 2007 23:53:34 by DesertJets
DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal posted Thu Jun 14 2007 23:59:09 by Laxintl
DC-10 Air Tanker Aids Washington Fires posted Fri Sep 1 2006 14:52:19 by 757dc10fltmech
NW DC-10 Engine Fire @ NRT posted Wed Nov 24 2004 03:17:26 by AMS
NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire.. posted Tue Sep 7 2004 21:52:55 by Radelow
Was An Ansett Tristar/DC-10 Ever At Duxford? posted Fri Sep 28 2007 14:37:48 by VS773ER
DC-10 At BNE Now! posted Fri Sep 28 2007 05:42:41 by TruemanQLD
Old Northwest DC 10's At SAT? posted Mon Sep 24 2007 06:36:03 by Ndalsteve
The Last DC-10...where Is She Now? posted Sat Sep 22 2007 21:50:54 by FlagshipAZ
Flight Tracker Help Needed. FedEx Dc-10@KCHO 8/22 posted Wed Aug 22 2007 23:53:34 by DesertJets
DC-10 Fire Bomber Grounded After Grazing Tree Tops posted Tue Jun 26 2007 20:32:18 by FATFlyer
DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal posted Thu Jun 14 2007 23:59:09 by Laxintl
DC-10 Air Tanker Aids Washington Fires posted Fri Sep 1 2006 14:52:19 by 757dc10fltmech
NW DC-10 Engine Fire @ NRT posted Wed Nov 24 2004 03:17:26 by AMS
NW DC-10 Diverts For Suspected Cargo Fire.. posted Tue Sep 7 2004 21:52:55 by Radelow
Was An Ansett Tristar/DC-10 Ever At Duxford? posted Fri Sep 28 2007 14:37:48 by VS773ER
DC-10 At BNE Now! posted Fri Sep 28 2007 05:42:41 by TruemanQLD
Old Northwest DC 10's At SAT? posted Mon Sep 24 2007 06:36:03 by Ndalsteve
The Last DC-10...where Is She Now? posted Sat Sep 22 2007 21:50:54 by FlagshipAZ
Flight Tracker Help Needed. FedEx Dc-10@KCHO 8/22 posted Wed Aug 22 2007 23:53:34 by DesertJets