Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Would This 747 Dump Water?  
User currently offlineCumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15763 times:

Came across this on LiveLeak, it's not a fuel dump so what is it??




What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePapanovember From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 473 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15754 times:

It's a fire tanker to combat forest fires.

User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15755 times:

It's for fighting fires.

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/faq.html

[Edited 2008-07-08 08:18:33]

User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15769 times:

That is a fire fighting plane! I do not know if it is in use but that is why it is dumping water.  Smile

User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10488 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15749 times:

Are they using it to fight wildfires?


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15749 times:

It is no longer being used from the information I can find.

In 2007 a DC-10 was used in California

EDIT

The DC-10 may be in use in Calfornia in 2008

http://firebomberpublications.blogspot.com/

This fellow seems to be on top of the situations.

[Edited 2008-07-08 08:22:34]

User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3363 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15720 times:

From the Evergreen website:

Quote:
We are pleased to announce that the Evergreen Supertanker will be available to fight fires in the summer of 2008. Evergreen has invested over $50M and 20,000 engineering hours to introduce and deploy this exciting technology during this fire season, with a strong focus on effectiveness, safety, and operational efficiency.



User currently offlineNickstyro From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15720 times:

the 2nd small video at the bottom is your answer

User currently offlineClassic707 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 548 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15698 times:

Evergreen has a 747 that is used as a flying water tanker to drop water on fires. I know it has a red tail even this one does not. Maybe it is a promo or test video? Sorry I am watching this at work with no sound so I can't tell what if anything the video says.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Lockett



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mario J Craig



User currently offlineAcelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 840 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 15698 times:

nice way of fighting fires, but how quick can it land full up and drop another load?

Was there not a DC10 also converted?



from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
User currently offlineCumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15600 times:

Surely though looking at that clip, it looks at least 20,000ft AGL. Doesn't the water evaporate long before it gets to the ground? A more's the point, the configuration of the aircraft denotes high speed, if water was to be dumped on a fire a low speed profile would be adopted?

Cumulus.
Who Knows Nothing About Firefighting Aircraft!



What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15540 times:



Quoting Cumulus (Reply 10):
Surely though looking at that clip, it looks at least 20,000ft AGL. Doesn't the water evaporate long before it gets to the ground? A more's the point, the configuration of the aircraft denotes high speed, if water was to be dumped on a fire a low speed profile would be adopted?

There was a long thread last year on the DC-10.

The basic is that the drops are done at relatively low altitude and low speed, but slightly higher than some of the smaller aircraft.

A King AIr leads the big tanker in as a guide and to spot turbulence.

The turnaround time of the big tanker is actually very good when compared to other tankers.


User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15516 times:

From the link I posted http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/faq.html:
How can a plane the size of a Boeing 747 fly low enough to be an effective firefighting tool?
Current firefighting aircraft use a gravity drop system. Quite simply, this means they have tanks with doors that open and discharge the aircraft’s contents. This type of system requires an aircraft to fly very low, around 200 ft. It is very dangerous work; especially since the majority of air tankers used in the U.S. are vintage World War II era aircraft designed for high altitude bombing missions.

Evergreen’s Supertanker utilizes a new type of pressurized system allowing the aircraft to fight fire from higher altitudes. Depending on mission requirements, the Supertanker’s versatile application system can disperse retardant under high pressure, for an overwhelming response, or drop retardant equivalent to the speed of falling rain. The system was designed to allow the Evergreen Supertanker to fly at a very safe altitude, 400 to 800 ft, and within its design envelope. Also, the Evergreen Supertanker’s tank system allows segmented drops. This means that the aircraft can drop its 24,000 gallons at multiple intervals while in flight.


What is the Evergreen Supertanker’s drop speed over the fire?
At no time in flight will the Evergreen Supertanker operate outside the Boeing 747’s normal operating parameters. The drop speed is approximately 140 knots. This provides a 30% cushion over the Boeing 747’s stall speed. During a retardant drop, the Evergreen Supertanker is configured as if it were approaching for a landing and is well within all the typical speed parameters that a Boeing 747 would normally be in when approaching an airport for a landing.


User currently offlineCirrusdriver From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15303 times:

It's a fire tanker.......Gosh, I can't believe no one has said that yet!!! Big grin

User currently offlineCumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14853 times:

Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to the amount of water that is dropped in that clip and the weight?

To loose that weight so quickly must change the characteristics and trimmed attitude of that 747 fairly quickly!!!



What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
User currently offlineSFOnative From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14448 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5):
The DC-10 may be in use in Calfornia in 2008

And is, last I heard the DC-10 was helping fight the wildfire in the southern part of the Los Padres National Forest near the Goleta / Santa Barbara area just this weekend!

Here is the first google search result I found.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...SrT7-LciDlr1tYmyE9e19oX9QD91OBTB80


User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4446 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14386 times:



Quoting SFOnative (Reply 15):
And is, last I heard the DC-10 was helping fight the wildfire in the southern part of the Los Padres National Forest near the Goleta / Santa Barbara area just this weekend!

Actually I saw a clip on CNN, and Headline News twice in the last couple of days. It is really cool to see a DC-10 flying low and dumping some red fluid. By the way, CNN identified it as DC-10. They get it right sometimes you know.


User currently offlineSFOnative From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 14368 times:



Quoting TK787 (Reply 16):
Actually I saw a clip on CNN, and Headline News twice in the last couple of days. It is really cool to see a DC-10 flying low and dumping some red fluid. By the way, CNN identified it as DC-10. They get it right sometimes you know.

As a matter of fact, I needed to look no further than the local news to find an awesome pick of this classic bird hard at work!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object...=0&f=/g/a/2008/07/08/wildfires.DTL


User currently offlineMedAv From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 14240 times:

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5):
It is no longer being used from the information I can find.

It has actually never been used, yet. The ac is supposed to be fire-fighting ready and FAA approved sometime in July, per the Evergreen website. Whether the US forest service will approve it is another question. There seems to be lotsa politicking on this; a sad state of affairs given the half million acres already burned in California alone. Not that this plane will solve it all, heck, we don't even know if it will be effective in real time, but it's certainly worth a try.

Quoting Cumulus (Reply 10):
Doesn't the water evaporate long before it gets to the ground?[/quote]



This is a video of a flight test. They plan to drop on fires from about 800 feet.

Quoting Cumulus:
A more's the point, the configuration of the aircraft denotes high speed, if water was to be dumped on a fire a low speed profile would be adopted?

Naturally, flaps and all.

Quoting Cumulus (Reply 14):
To loose that weight so quickly must change the characteristics and trimmed attitude of that 747 fairly quickly!!!

Not different than a C-130 dropping a 15,000 lb MOAB, or the DC-10 and it's load. It's quite safe and manageable.

Edited to answer more questions and to work on my anet HTML skills, which apparently needs much practice

[Edited 2008-07-08 15:47:58]

[Edited 2008-07-08 15:48:45]

[Edited 2008-07-08 15:50:38]

[Edited 2008-07-08 15:51:45]

User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1452 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13969 times:

Since I now work for the engineering firm responsible for the SuperTanker redesign, I can share some inside info on this system.

The aircraft (N470EV, Tanker 947) and the public videos are of the original system designed for a 747-200C. This was STC approved in 2006, but suffered from system weight problems which prevented it from carrying a full load of retardant that the USFS demanded. Therefore, it could only successfully carry water which is less effective.

Apparently, Mr. Smith, the owner of Evergreen, was so upset over this after spending many $ millions that he fired everyone in his employ responsible as well as all of the vendors and the engineering firm that designed it in late 2006 and disbanded the SuperTanker subsidiary. Unfortunately, it was just ended abruptly with no further design vetting or attempt to make it better. Aircraft N470EV was completely de-modified and has reverted to a freighter. The only remnants are its red tail and old tanker number, but it no longer is an air tanker.

The system is basically made up of 10 retardant tanks in pairs in the main deck cargo hold which are interconnected to 8 pressurized air tanks. The entire load is forced out of four 16" nozzles in the aft fuselage belly just aft of the wing to body fairing.

Jump to late 2007, another engineering firm out of southern CA was hired by Evergreen to redesign the existing system to reduce the system weight to allow a full retardant load of 25,000 gallons. The redesign consists mostly of a new aluminum tank design that replaces the rather crude steel tanks used previously. Also, the system is to be installed on 747-100F aircraft instead as the prior design was only STC approved for the 747-200C series. Another difference is that this will be a permanent modification and not removable as was with the previous design. The desire is to use 747-100F aircraft that are nearing the end of their commercial service lives and permanently modify them to air tanker configuration.

The Evergreen SuperTanker division has been resurrected and the new 747 SuperTanker will be aircraft N479EV and its Tanker number is 979. This aircraft is painted and currently being modified in MZJ for a completion and STC issuance next month. It will go through some flight testing and USFS testing with a plan for it to go on contract yet this year.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 12453 times:

One word: chemtrails!!

Don't believe the "firefighter plane" posts -- they're all paid by Them!  Wink

(For the record: I'm kidding...)


User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11552 times:

Does anyone know why the 747 was flying at such a high angle of attack? Is that some sort of a weight & balance measure?


Blank.
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11391 times:



Quoting Cumulus (Reply 10):
Surely though looking at that clip, it looks at least 20,000ft AGL. Doesn't the water evaporate long before it gets to the ground? A more's the point, the configuration of the aircraft denotes high speed, if water was to be dumped on a fire a low speed profile would be adopted?

Has it occured to you it might be a test or demo flight with a chaser plane videoing the whole episode?



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3625 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11134 times:

Wow they must have served a lot of booze on that flight! AheioaetypawehnsgjaRHY.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10411 times:



Quoting Cumulus (Reply 10):
Surely though looking at that clip, it looks at least 20,000ft AGL. Doesn't the water evaporate long before it gets to the ground? A more's the point, the configuration of the aircraft denotes high speed, if water was to be dumped on a fire a low speed profile would be adopted?

Probably just a PR video.

Quoting Diamond (Reply 21):
Does anyone know why the 747 was flying at such a high angle of attack? Is that some sort of a weight & balance measure?

The slower you fly, the higher the angle of attack you have to have to maintain altitude.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 Cumulus : I was thinking that, and when that kind of weight is discharged from it it would naturally want to adopt a lower nose attitude so I imagine the boys
26 VH-BZF : This is an amazing aircraft, I have a DVD of its capability! It can drop water or other fire retarding materials! THIS IS BIG: They are also in R & D
27 Seafleet : I was in fact talking to some firemen yesterday who had come back for a few days rest [just working the local fire station] and they told me they are
28 Boston92 : Tanker 910 has worked both the Gap Fire (Santa Barbara/Goleta) and Basin Complex Fire (Big Sur) for the past few days. It started in Victorville, dro
29 Wjcandee : They said 20-30 minutes. I had heard that one problem with the previous design was that the FAA didn't like the idea of it being "convertable". This,
30 Pope : Any insight on what the cost per drop works out to be? Obviously a tool like this needs to be justified on a cost benefit standpoint. Of course, if l
31 TZTriStar500 : I do not think the convertable element was a concern as this prior design was STC approved. The problems with the system was more on its lack of capa
32 Boston92 : On the revenue side for Tanker 910 (the DC10), the state of California pays the operating company $5,000,000 just for the exclusive use of the a/c. T
33 Pope : Is the hourly cost all inclusive? Aircrew, fuel, repairs, etc . . . ?
34 Boston92 : From what I have heard, they get $41,000 per day (x 122 days of fire season equals the $5M). I would assume that goes toward paying the salaries of t
35 RaginMav : Has anyone heard feedback from the fire lines yet? Does it work as well as one may expect, or would they prefer several smaller aircraft instead?
36 Boston92 : I personally watched it drop its 12,000 gallons of retardent a few times over the past few days, and I think it is very effective. The smaller planes
37 Cumulus : Jesus, that's nigh on 45500 kilos!!!
38 Wjcandee : The Fire-O-Crats took FOREVER to decide how and whether even to use this tool; it took the Governator basically ordering them to find a way to use it
39 Post contains links ONTFlyer : I was all over SoCal last year during the October firestorms. Including the Witch Fire in San Diego and Green Valley Fire near Lake Arrowhead. Believ
40 Mirrodie : Very cool and something to look forward seeing!
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...
Why Is SEX Written On This 747? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 10:56:26 by Kevin
747: Would This Be Possible? posted Wed Apr 7 2004 17:38:34 by Henpol747
Why Was There A 747-200 Over Water? posted Tue Mar 30 2004 06:46:34 by Kevin752
Why Would We See This B747 @ LGW...? posted Wed Jul 2 2003 06:50:55 by Boeing727
Anyone Any Clue Why This 747 Is Completely Yellow? posted Sat Dec 28 2002 19:17:51 by PW100
Why Is This Northwest 747 At Las? posted Wed Jul 11 2001 19:41:13 by N521NA
Why Does This Message Show Up On My Confirmation? posted Sat Apr 19 2008 19:04:03 by BAKJet
Why Is This 777 So Dirty? Problems With The Flaps? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 03:00:15 by Witticism
Why Would IAH Use 26L + 15R For Takeoffs? posted Fri Jan 4 2008 01:33:30 by Ikramerica
Why Would An E-ticket Turn Into A Paper Ticket? posted Mon Dec 3 2007 17:48:04 by Lincoln
Why Is This Northwest 747 At Las? posted Wed Jul 11 2001 19:41:13 by N521NA
Why Does This Message Show Up On My Confirmation? posted Sat Apr 19 2008 19:04:03 by BAKJet
Why Is This 777 So Dirty? Problems With The Flaps? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 03:00:15 by Witticism
Why Would IAH Use 26L + 15R For Takeoffs? posted Fri Jan 4 2008 01:33:30 by Ikramerica
Why Would We See This B747 @ LGW...? posted Wed Jul 2 2003 06:50:55 by Boeing727
Why Was There A 747-200 Over Water? posted Tue Mar 30 2004 06:46:34 by Kevin752
Anyone Any Clue Why This 747 Is Completely Yellow? posted Sat Dec 28 2002 19:17:51 by PW100
Why Is This Northwest 747 At Las? posted Wed Jul 11 2001 19:41:13 by N521NA
Why Would We See This B747 @ LGW...? posted Wed Jul 2 2003 06:50:55 by Boeing727
Why Does This Message Show Up On My Confirmation? posted Sat Apr 19 2008 19:04:03 by BAKJet
Anyone Any Clue Why This 747 Is Completely Yellow? posted Sat Dec 28 2002 19:17:51 by PW100
Why Is This 777 So Dirty? Problems With The Flaps? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 03:00:15 by Witticism
Why Is This Northwest 747 At Las? posted Wed Jul 11 2001 19:41:13 by N521NA
Why Does This Message Show Up On My Confirmation? posted Sat Apr 19 2008 19:04:03 by BAKJet
Why Is This 777 So Dirty? Problems With The Flaps? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 03:00:15 by Witticism
Why Would IAH Use 26L + 15R For Takeoffs? posted Fri Jan 4 2008 01:33:30 by Ikramerica
Why Would IAH Use 26L + 15R For Takeoffs? posted Fri Jan 4 2008 01:33:30 by Ikramerica
Why Is This Northwest 747 At Las? posted Wed Jul 11 2001 19:41:13 by N521NA
Why Does This Message Show Up On My Confirmation? posted Sat Apr 19 2008 19:04:03 by BAKJet
Why Is This 777 So Dirty? Problems With The Flaps? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 03:00:15 by Witticism
Why Would IAH Use 26L + 15R For Takeoffs? posted Fri Jan 4 2008 01:33:30 by Ikramerica