MCMINNVILLE -- A giant aircraft tanker developed by Oregon-based Evergreen International Aviation to carry 20,000 gallons of water has been cleared to fight wildfires.
The federal government granted the Boeing 747 Supertanker approval to fly during the upcoming wildland firefighting season.
Evergreen, which has supplied firefighting aircraft for decades, spent $50 million to develop the plane.
The jet can fly 600 mph. The company says that's twice as fast as any tanker currently used.
The company also says the aircraft has a pressurized system that can disperse water at a high pressure or at the speed of falling rain, making it safe for low-visibility, nighttime runs.
Should be neat to see this beast alongside the DC-10!
[Edited 2009-03-26 10:17:33]
View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 13949 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13984 times:
I'm sure it's somewhere, but how is it loaded with retardant and how long does it take to load it?
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 745 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13984 times:
Quote: The company also says the aircraft has a pressurized system that can disperse water at a high pressure or at the speed of falling rain, making it safe for low-visibility, nighttime runs.
Um, can someone fill me in on how the ability to shoot the water out fast or slow makes it safe for low-vis nighttime runs?
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 10903 posts, RR: 27 Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13937 times:
This is good news. Definitely one of the coolest planes currently flying. This thing will probably end up helping a lot of people.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2434 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13941 times:
Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 2): Um, can someone fill me in on how the ability to shoot the water out fast or slow makes it safe for low-vis nighttime runs?
Low-visibility = harder to hit the right spot = more likely to dump water over firefighters.
I am sure I don't need to explain the difference between hitting firefighters with 20,000 gallons of water all at once or in rain-like pattern.
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 745 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13877 times:
Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 4): I am sure I don't need to explain the difference between hitting firefighters with 20,000 gallons of water all at once or in rain-like pattern.
They're firefighters...they can handle it.
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20319 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13804 times:
Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 5): They're firefighters...they can handle it.
Well, they can be knocked out and then killed by the fire burning around them...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Atnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 569 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13751 times:
Quoting KPDX (Thread starter): The jet can fly 600 mph. The company says that's twice as fast as any tanker currently used.
Quoting KPDX (Thread starter): Should be neat to see this beast alongside the DC-10!
Good news, the only question I have in relation to the above text is, the DC-10 taker can only fly at 300 mph? Could someone please share more information.
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 745 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13729 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): Well, they can be knocked out and then killed by the fire burning around them...
...I was clearly being facetious...
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 18502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13715 times:
The question is who is going to hire it?
California has said it wont, and is already debating the merits canceling its 3 year contract of using the Omni DC-10 tanker as its cost is simply to exorbitant even when on stand by.
From the State Legislature independent budget analyst report just two weeks ago:
"While the DC-10 tanker has added to Cal Fire's fire protection capabilities, the department has not shown that the use of this asset has improved its fire protection response in a cost-effective manner."
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 991 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13448 times:
Quoting KPDX (Thread starter):
The jet can fly 600 mph. The company says that's twice as fast as any tanker currently used.
2 things:
1) Why does it really matter how fast a tanker can fly?
2) As was already brought up, this statement is false, a DC-10 does not fly 300 MPH
KPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2440 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13427 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 10): 2 things:
1) Why does it really matter how fast a tanker can fly?
2) As was already brought up, this statement is false, a DC-10 does not fly 300 MPH
I agree, and I hope your not directing those questions towards me as it is directly from a news article. And besides, what do you expect from a non-aviation writers standpoint?
View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 991 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13365 times:
Quoting KPDX (Reply 11): I agree, and I hope your not directing those questions towards me as it is directly from a news article.
They were not directed at you, my apologies if it came off that way.
Quoting KPDX (Reply 11): And besides, what do you expect from a non-aviation writers standpoint?
Sadly that is about what I expect. It just amazes me that the last 5 articles about aviation related things that I've read have had lines like this that are just untrue.
The worst part is that this isn't the writers fault, as the direct quote is "The company says that's twice as fast as any tanker currently used" meaning that a company that makes tankers doesn't know how fast their competition is.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4874 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13351 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 10): 1) Why does it really matter how fast a tanker can fly?
Quicker to the fight, quicker back to base to reload, unless the fire is small enough that one load will do the job, the a/c has to return to base to reload.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13171 times:
At the other end, how slow will it be able to fly once it gets there with 80 tons of water in it's belly?
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 18502 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13085 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 13): Quicker to the fight, quicker back to base to reload, unless the fire is small enough that one load will do the job, the a/c has to return to base to reload.
Speed is not much an issue as planes are forward based for major fires.
For instance here in Southern California the DC-10 tanker was staged out of VCV during last fall's fire storms with distance only about 50miles to the fires. Very short sorties, often reaching only maximum cruise altitudes of 8,000ft and certainly always below the FAA 250kt speed limitation below 10k.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 339 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12913 times:
Just a thought, and I could be wrong~ but is the difference in speed due to the DC-10's under-slung tank compaired to the 747 carrying everything inside the jet???
Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1331 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12589 times:
I can add some to this discussion as I worked on this beast last summer as part of the engineering design firm Evergreen hired. This is actually the second generation of the Supertanker and according to the USFS performed better in grid testing than any other tanker they have tested.
The company I work for was hired about a year and a half ago to re-design the system to be able to handle a full retardant load and to integrate it on a 747-100 aircraft. The initial version was designed to be removable and for a 747-200C aircraft only, but was too heavy and ineffectual to carry retardant so could only carry water.
We re-designed portions of the system to save weight and allow a full 20,000 gal retardant load in addition to making it a permanent installation. The current and only aircraft is Tanker 979 (N479EV) at this point. It is currently undergoing a heavy check in MZJ and will be ready for this season.
I believe the USFS approval is interim pending its actual use this this season and if all goes well, further aircraft will be modified.
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 1): I'm sure it's somewhere, but how is it loaded with retardant and how long does it take to load it?
I'm not certain how long it takes to load, but it has a central hose reel in the fwd cargo hlod that drops down an access port in the bottom of the fuselage. Since it is a pressurized system, it also has pneumatic servicing adjacent to the fwd and aft cargo doors.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9): The question is who is going to hire it?
California has said it wont, and is already debating the merits canceling its 3 year contract of using the Omni DC-10 tanker as its cost is simply to exorbitant even when on stand by.
From the State Legislature independent budget analyst report just two weeks ago:
"While the DC-10 tanker has added to Cal Fire's fire protection capabilities, the department has not shown that the use of this asset has improved its fire protection response in a cost-effective manner."
CALFire is not the only customer. The USFS has approved for its use and I believe that clears it to operate on any federal lands. Also, the DC-10 needs some further modifications to make it more effective and I had heard it lost its USFS Air Tanker Board approval because they did not make the necessary changes.
Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 16): Great news! Always admired that piece of engineering! Is the red 947 tail still flying? I've spotted her once or twice, at AMS and JFK.
The first Tanker 947 (N470EV) was completely de-moded and is back to a freighter configuration only. I am not sure if its still flying around with the red tail and tanker number but it does not have the Supertanker titles.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
Falcon790 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12062 times:
To my understanding, speed becomes important if the aircraft ever has to fly 2/3 of the way across the country to save people's lives/homes...
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12010 times:
Twinotter4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 212 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11719 times:
I wonder how the 747 tanker compared to the Martin mars as far as drop pattern goes. The Mars would definitely have an advantage on the turnarounds (15mins) to fire with it skimming capability, as well as obvious low speed maneuverability advantages, which may help help with its 7600 gallon drops + foam additive. Never really heard too much (negative or positive) about how they fared. Lots of plane watcher for them though.
FVTu134 From Russia, joined Aug 2005, 156 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11350 times:
so here is my question...
20.000 USG as far as I know is about 75 tons of water. Looking at the photo the water exits the aircraft about 2/3 of the lenth of the aircraft.. I am just wondering what this "Cargo move" does with the aircraft's C/G position during the discharge.
Anybody have any ideas on that?
FVTu134
who decided that a Horizon should be HORIZONtal???
Adam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 386 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10850 times:
Quoting KPDX (Thread starter): The jet can fly 600 mph. The company says that's twice as fast as any tanker currently used.
Quoting KPDX (Thread starter): Should be neat to see this beast alongside the DC-10!
Quoting Atnight (Reply 7):
Good news, the only question I have in relation to the above text is, the DC-10 taker can only fly at 300 mph? Could someone please share more information.
As others have clearly said, this information about flying twice as fast as current tankers is puzzling. Is there really a speed advantage this great in terms of fire-fighting 747 tankers vs DC-10 tankers, or is this just referring to the individual company stating that perhaps it doesn't fly jet tanker aircraft? or is it just the writer being under the impression that there aren't currently jet fire fighting tanker aircraft?
FlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 607 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9547 times:
What they need now is a hose deployable while airborne to suck up water from lakes and rivers during a low pass ... yes I am joking but wouldn't you love to see that?!
...are we there yet?
25 Zkpilot: I'd imagine that the internal tanks are configured such that they are evenly distributed about the aircrafts CoG. Meaning that emptying 75t has littl
26 Birdbrainz: I read an article stating that quite a bit of thrust is comes from the water being dumped so fast, so the throttles go back to very low power while i
27 Adam42185: One would also presume that those tanks would be emptied simultaneously and evenly as opposed to emptying one tank and then another and then another,
28 Jcf5002: Does anyone know where the video went of the initial test drops from the 747? It was a couple minutes long and I can't find it for the life of me... G
29 TZTriStar500: There is no need to be hostile and I don't speak for Evergreen. The CA report is speaking of the DC-10 which is less effectual than the 747ST and the
30 TZTriStar500: There are 10 total water tanks in a dual tandem configuration and they are emptied fairly evenly, but if the drops are segmented, any remaining fluid
31 Par13del: The speed of the a/c is a deployment issue only, as in how fast the a/c can be deployed, in my opinion, it would have no effect on the actual water d
32 Adam42185: Thank you both for that information, makes much more sense to me now!
33 Lightsaber: California is broke. The state will use any excuse not to spend money right now. But trust me, the first major fire season will suddenly find that th
34 Nomadd22: I would have thought they'd empty them one or two at a time. If you had to cut off the drop half way through and manuever, I'd hate to have 40 tons o
35 LAXintl: I don’t have the exact figure in front of me, but the proposed EV hourly lease rates were obscene, including the hourly stand-by rate whose clock w
36 Lightsaber: Fair enough if the 'fire folks' question the costs. I still believe this is political infighting. But I watched the DC-10 stop a fire heading towards
37 Threepoint: With the drop pattern from approximately 800' AGL, there is little likelihood of a drop injuring a person on the ground. However, if the airplane mak
38 Zkpilot: I disagree. Sure the fires would have happened anyway, but the extent and degree of the fires would have been much less in your scenario...In the rea
39 Wjcandee: These tankers will ALWAYS save more in prevented fire damage than they cost. But unfortunately that's not how Fire-O-Crats do the calculations. If an
40 LAXintl: Well here is the cost information for the current CAL Fire DC-10 tanker contract: $41,000 per day stand-by cost for a minimum of 122 days annualy. + $
41 Threepoint: All I can say is that you are completely wrong. To a layman, it is always conceptually feasible to 'win' with a big airplane carrying a big load of r
42 Zkpilot: Firefights are eventually won...otherwise fires would just continue to burn until there was nothing left. The speed at which they are controlled and
43 Lightsaber: I appreciate your detailed reply, very informative. Yikes. Those are a bit pricier that I thought... As an aviation enthusiast, I love seeing them...
44 Gsosbee: Are we sure the firefighters know how to effectively use the large airplanes? A $20 million annual price tag can be offset by saving 10 $2 million str
45 LAXintl: Lets take our aviation enthusiast hats off, and look at the bigger picture. Since such air assets have most commonly been used in California, lets loo
46 Wjcandee: $136 million. Okay. And what was the replacement cost of just the structures (not to mention the contents) destroyed in wildfires in California last y
47 TZTriStar500: To say this, you are assuming that the only reason the large tankers came to fruition was based solely on a 'bigger is better" philosophy, which is s
48 LAXintl: No its still in place. There is a push to cancel the contract effective June'09 which marks the commencement of the 3rd year. Unless it has changed m
49 GARUDAROD: Tristar 500 I wonder, during the certification process, was there a Rejected MAX takeoff test? And what happened with all that water sloshing around d
50 Lightsaber: Of course. Thank you for the numers. I would like to know the 'current numbers.' Obviously if this solution is cost effective, go for it. I admit to
51 2707200X: We can certainly use the 747 as the wild fire season around Southern California is year round.
52 Threepoint: You're of course assuming that there was somebody in place to identify and prioritize the emerging issues, request the airtanker to the specific loca
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2440 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 4874 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1340 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 212 posts, 
From Russia, joined Aug 2005, 156 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
