Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal  
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25168 posts, RR: 48
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8181 times:

Aircraft to be based at Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA).

Quote:
Jumbo Jet Poised To Fight Wildfires In Southern California

VICTORVILLE, Calif. -- A DC-10 firefighting air tanker capable of dropping 12,000 gallons of water or fire retardant is ready for Southern California wildfire missions.

A $15 million, three-year contract with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection takes effect Friday and continues through Oct. 15.

The Victorville-based jumbo jet, which debuted last year with a limited evaluation contract, won praise in fighting six wildfires in California and one in Washington.

The contract means the jet will be available immediately, rather than on a call-when-needed basis.

http://www.knbc.com/news/13503815/detail.html


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7567 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7918 times:

Is it a DC10 or a Jumbo  Smile

User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7843 times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRfXfjeKUuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQxVUzkDPLw&mode=related&search=

Glad California is getting the plane.

Very interesting to say the least.

M


User currently offlineMighluss From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 948 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7812 times:

I'm curious...

What is the turnarround time between each drop?



Miquel.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7742 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.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7719 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
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25168 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7695 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."

http://firebomberpublications.blogsp...supertanker-heads-into-sunset.html



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7567 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7652 times:

Are they dismantling the Supertanker plane as well?

User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7541 times:

Quoting Mighluss (Reply 3):
I'm curious...

What is the turnarround time between each drop?

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.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5155 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7385 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 6):
I believe the Evergreen B747 Supertanker program is dead.

This article suggests that it is not dead, quoting someone at Evergreen Supertanker at the end.

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_6136026


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25168 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7344 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 7):
Are they dismantling the Supertanker plane as well?



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 9):
This article suggests that it is not dead, quoting someone at Evergreen Supertanker at the end.

N470EV has been converted back to its regular cargo configuration. Matter of fact it was at JFK on Friday operating a flight.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6417 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7325 times:

Quoting Echster (Reply 8):
One of the firefighters was quoted as saying they have the touchdown-refill-airborne sequence down to 10-12 minutes.

Woah.. They must have super pumps!

Could it be filled with the orange flame retardant used in drops from smaller aircraft?



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7306 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Is it a DC10 or a Jumbo

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
User currently offlineFlyboy97502 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7239 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.
User currently offlineAlgoz From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7213 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!


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7200 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 11):
They must have super pumps!

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).


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2130 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7142 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.
User currently offlineSANChaser From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7081 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?


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5155 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6933 times:

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 16):
Even if you have sufficient runway length and apron space, you need the loading equipment installed at each location.

Not true. With the evergreen solution, all you need is a fire hydrant. Everything else travels with the aircraft.

As to it being "converted back to freighter", I think it was flying freight missions all winter, as planned. The tanker equipment loads on pallets.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2130 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6825 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.
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 Tanker posted Mon Sep 25 2006 01:10:36 by PillowTester
DC-10 Air Tanker Aids Washington Fires posted Fri Sep 1 2006 14:52:19 by 757dc10fltmech
Are There Any DC-10 Still Serving In JAL? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 13:28:47 by Lf278
NW DC-10-40 Back In Pax Service posted Thu Nov 7 2002 01:12:07 by PSU.DTW.SCE
NWA DC-10 In GRB Today posted Sun Nov 26 2006 15:55:59 by Legacytravel
Iberia DC-10 In Lima! What Is It? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 11:45:43 by RootsAir
8 Abreast In Y On DC-10 posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:15:35 by Coyoteguy
Biman Bangladesh DC-10-30 In YUL posted Sun May 14 2006 04:03:26 by Aircanada333
Northwest DC-10 Arriving In MKE posted Sat Apr 22 2006 19:44:49 by CO777-200ER
Any Interior Pics Of AA 767/DC-10 In 1980's? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 01:47:33 by CalAir