KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11909 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7238 times:
I thought both the firefighting DC-10-10 and the EV B-747-200 were still tied up in an FAA Expermential certification. Is that not true anymore for the DC-10? Is the B-747 still in fliyable storage
Great news for the DC-10, but it seems that this year has been very active with wildfires, on both coasts of the US. I have believed the B-747 and DC-10 could have really helped in both Florida, Georgia, and California. Next month we will start to enter the grass fire season in Texas and Oklahoma, too.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6992 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7215 times:
Great news the Dc 10 is one of my favorite aircraft and I love to hear that although it is disappearing from regular service some will continue to serve with ATA, as freighters and as firefighters.
DC Jets are build to last........
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23540 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7191 times:
I believe the Evergreen B747 Supertanker program is dead.
Quote: 747 SUPERTANKER HEADS INTO THE SUNSET
Shocking news came out of Evergreen Aviation today: A stop work order has been issued for their multi-million dollar 747 firefighting aircraft and the Supertanker organization within Evergreen is being dismantled. An internal memo (not for publication) stated that "I regret to advise you that the Evergreen Supertanker program and Evergreen Supertanker Services Inc. have been given a "Stop Work" order from the Evergreen Corporate Headquarters... As of close of business, Tuesday, 21 March 2007, the Evergreen Supertanker office in Marana, AZ. will be closed for business."
Big story a few days ago here in SoCal. Seems like all the major news stations carried a story. One of the firefighters was quoted as saying they have the touchdown-refill-airborne sequence down to 10-12 minutes.
DC-10s are Jumbos under the original way people thought of jumbo jets (widebodied)
Personally, I think they need to bring the Super Scooper turboprops back, as those have the same functionality as helicopters in not having to go back to an airport to pick up water but carry a bunch more than the choppers
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Flyboy97502 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 102 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6735 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 12): Personally, I think they need to bring the Super Scooper turboprops back, as those have the same functionality as helicopters in not having to go back to an airport to pick up water but carry a bunch more than the choppers
Some helo's are very capable of fighting a fire with quite a load of water for a helicopter, and being much more versatile in its turn around time.
To name such, Erickson Air-Crane comes to mind with the "E" and "F" Helitanker models, able to fight with a 2,650 gallon (~10,000 litre) tank drops water, retardant, or foam mix, and A snorkel can draw water from any water source 18 inches (45 cm) or deeper as fast as 45 seconds, or a scoop hydrofoil allows the Helitanker to refill from fresh water and sea water sources in less than 45 seconds.
But it would be awesome to see some CL 215's working the lines! I saw one in action over in italy working on contract with the Forestale' and it was something to watch!
SKYHIGH Airlines- It's important that we get the SkyHigh message out there. That message? Thank you for your money.
Algoz From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6709 times:
I believe this DC10-10 is MSN 46942, which started life with National Airlines in 1974! It then went to Pan Am (N69NA - Clipper Star Light), followed by American Airlines, then Hawaiian, then Omni Air, then to his assignment!
She has served well!
I believe they are using former USAF air refueling pumps (converted to handle water and retardent) from the few scrapped KC-135As. Each of these hydraulic driven pumps can deliver 900 gallons per minute. I believe they bought 1.5 sets of A/R pumps (6 total), four pumps are normally used, two are ready spares.
EV did the same for their B-747 SuperTanker, but got 12 pumps (3 complete sets).
Threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2099 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6638 times:
To address and perhaps clarify a few questions above:
The DC-10 has a bottom-mounted external tank underneath the fuselage which is filled with a liquid retardant concentrate & water mixture (the red stuff you see being dropped over wildland fires). It is able to but will likely not carry a water or water & foam mixture only. The DC-10 airtanker is intended to operate over fires well inland or otherwise separated from suitable scooping sources, so the use of the CL-415 waterbomber (an otherwise excellent firefighter) is inefficient in vast areas of the western US. Use of the CL-415 in coastal areas or relatively flat terrain with many lakes remains a very sound firefighting strategy.
The Evergreen 747 had several pressurized internal tanks that carried retardant, which was delivered through an aft-mounted high-pressure nozzle aimed downwards from the aircraft. This is a similar method by which USAF Hercules aircraft deliver retardant, and I can assure you is inconsistent at best in terms of coverage and effectiveness on the ground. Coupled with the fact the 747 drops at 800' AGL, making much of the load susceptible to drift after release, it became evident that the effectiveness did not justify the expense. In my opinion, common sense prevailed over the 'bigger is better' mentality.
Both widebodies suffer from the inability to operate from all but a handful of airports, which may be a great distance from the fires. Even if you have sufficient runway length and apron space, you need the loading equipment installed at each location. A ground turn of 12 minutes is not accurate - that's the loading time. Allow at least double that for taxiing and manoevering prior to takeoff and after landing.
Regardless of the effectiveness of each airplane type, it must be said that the key to successful aerial firefighting is in the way the aircraft are managed. The USFS and some state land agencies still employ some grossly inefficient and wasteful tactical and strategic resource management practices that any number or type of aircraft will not overcome. But that my friends, is a topic for another site.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
SANChaser From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6577 times:
Living in SoCal and with a hot and dry summer here already, this is welcome news!
I am curious about other types like the BE-200 - wouldn't something like that be very effiective for the southwest - each trip would deliver around 3100 gallons of water. The claim is to deliver 270 tons without refuelling?
It would have the additional capability of refilling from a lake or the ocean, something that the supertankers could not. I guess the logistics of suporting an entirely new type from Russia would be too expensive?
Threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2099 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6321 times:
Quoting SANChaser (Reply 17): I am curious about other types like the BE-200 - wouldn't something like that be very effiective for the southwest - each trip would deliver around 3100 gallons of water.
The trouble in the US southwest is the lack of ocean and suitable lakes close to most of the fires. Water & foam requires quick aircraft turnaround times...anything above 10 minutes with typical summertime temps and humidities will render anything but chemical retardant ineffective.
Quoting SANChaser (Reply 17): I guess the logistics of suporting an entirely new type from Russia would be too expensive?
Not more so than supporting any NA-built aircraft. I'd imagine FAA certification for the Beriev is the chief hurdle.
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 18): Not true. With the evergreen solution, all you need is a fire hydrant. Everything else travels with the aircraft.
I doubt the liquid concentrate retardant travels in the 747. Which is my point - you'd need tanks of it plumbed to connect with the hydrant water supply on an apron designed to accommodate a 747-sized aircraft at an airport capable of handling said aircraft. I could probably count the likely aerodromes with installed facilities on two hands at the moment. All a moot point anyway, as the 747 program is dead or critically ill at the moment.
The DC-10 is a much better idea than the 747, but give me four 3000-gallon airtankers over one 12,000-gallon airtanker any day. I can say this with authority as a longtime aerial firefighter.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.