tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7686 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 1): wasn't it parked in a dessert boneyard ? looked retired
Evergreen's home base is Marana, Arizona...which is also a boneyard. The fact that the tankers are in a boneyard doesn't tell you much for this specific case.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7661 times:
I went to Marana in January and talked with one of the employees, the Supertanker was officially retired due to it's age/life/cycles and Boeing not re-ceritifying it for flight anymore.
I note that they refer to it as a B747-100, which is presumably N479EV. However, I thought that B747-200 N470EV had been converted to the Tanker role.
So if N479EV is now retired, will it's place be taken by N470EV. If so, I assume the specialist equipment will be transferred from N479EV, and the latter broken for spares.
Alternatively, I suppose that Evergreen could either simply convert another B747, that is assuming that the project was deemed to be a success.
tztristar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7182 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 3): I went to Marana in January and talked with one of the employees, the Supertanker was officially retired due to it's age/life/cycles and Boeing not re-ceritifying it for flight anymore.
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 4): I note that they refer to it as a B747-100, which is presumably N479EV. However, I thought that B747-200 N470EV had been converted to the Tanker role.
So if N479EV is now retired, will it's place be taken by N470EV. If so, I assume the specialist equipment will be transferred from N479EV, and the latter broken for spares.
Alternatively, I suppose that Evergreen could either simply convert another B747, that is assuming that the project was deemed to be a success.
Not correct. Its stored because without a long-term contract to be maintained at ready status, its too expensive to maintain the crews and infrastructure to use it on a 'call when needed' basis. Evergreen has not been successful to get anyone to pay for this and why it sits. It was a noble concept and I am proud to have been part of the engineering effort, but think it now has limited use except for very large fires plus quite expensive to operate.
To clarify, 747-273C, N470EV, was the first version of the Supertanker as Tanker 947. It was too heavy and could not carry a full load of retardant so was grounded and the effort disbanded. The original design was to be modular and convertible to roll on and off using the existing cargo system.
Several years later, the company I contracted with was tasked with a redesign of the system to reduce weight and make it a permanent modification to the aircraft. For this effort, 747-132, N479EV, was used. The concept was the same and most of the original system reused from N470EV except for the 10 retardant tanks which were fabricated out aluminum sections fastened together and it was permanently attached to the floor. It went through several post mods to perfect the system including higher pressures and nozzle mods to reduce blow by where it left excessive retardant in the last few tanks.
The plan was to convert more, but that never materialized without a contract to operate them.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
aztrainer From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 400 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7041 times:
Quoting tztristar500 (Reply 5): To clarify, 747-273C, N470EV, was the first version of the Supertanker as Tanker 947. It was too heavy and could not carry a full load of retardant so was grounded and the effort disbanded. The original design was to be modular and convertible to roll on and off using the existing cargo system.
Is this why they now have a DC-10 for the Super Heavy Tanker role?
I know that the DC-10 returned from Australia three days ago as was at AZA/IWA waiting to be position in Utah, but they were having trouble with an airfield the 10. I would this this would be even worse for a 741
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4956 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7009 times:
Quoting aztrainer (Reply 6): I know that the DC-10 returned from Australia three days ago as was at AZA/IWA waiting to be position in Utah, but they were having trouble with an airfield the 10. I would this this would be even worse for a 741
I believe it's called "10 Tanker," and right now it's at AZA. Someone with PHXSpotters posted a picture of it there and I think it's going to be/has been used up north taking care of the fires.
tztristar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7005 times:
Quoting aztrainer (Reply 6): Is this why they now have a DC-10 for the Super Heavy Tanker role?
I know that the DC-10 returned from Australia three days ago as was at AZA/IWA waiting to be position in Utah, but they were having trouble with an airfield the 10. I would this this would be even worse for a 741
The DC-10 was developed in 2006 after the first Supertanker and is a much simpler design (basic gravity drop) than the very complex pressurized 747 system though it carries less ~ 12,000 gal of retardant. I had heard it was also not fully approved by the USFS IATB so they do not consider it a regular part of their arsenal. It is largely on a call when needed basis by the states and localities (no federal land) and I understand 10 Tanker Air Carrier only has one crew though they have two aircraft Tanker 910 (DC-10-10, N450AX) and Tanker 911 (DC-10-30, N17085).
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6573 times:
Quoting tztristar500 (Reply 5): Not correct. Its stored because without a long-term contract to be maintained at ready status, its too expensive to maintain the crews and infrastructure to use it on a 'call when needed' basis. Evergreen has not been successful to get anyone to pay for this and why it sits. It was a noble concept and I am proud to have been part of the engineering effort, but think it now has limited use except for very large fires plus quite expensive to operate.
Okay, well, as I said I actually talked to one of the employees and got the information directly from them...where/what are your sources? As you can see from this pic in Feb of this year, the engines are being removed etc...
threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4765 times:
As noble a concept as the 747 tanker was, it's main Achilles heel was the fact it had a pressurised retardant delivery system. The gravity-drop system is infinitely preferable for a number of reasons for aerial product delivery. This is not a direct comparison between the 747 and DC-10; the C-130 MAFFS (II) and BAe 146 airtankers with pressurized retardant delivery are also, in my professional opinion, not well suited to the airtanker role, no matter how capable the platform itself may be.
More threatening to the success of many of the aforementioned aircraft is the ongoing debacle surrounding the federal airtanker fleet management, modernisation strategy (despite the announced contract awards of June 13) and rules of engagement over fires. Many seemingly bright minds just haven't been able to create a functioning, sustainable firefighting airtanker program.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
toobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 673 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4596 times:
Evergreen Tanker has not been retired. Listened to KXL station here in Portland today and they had the owner of Evergreen Aviation on, saying how dissappointed he is that the US government isnt utilizing the aircraft for contract flying to fight fires.
threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4435 times:
The owner of the 747 shouldn't be too disappointed. The airplane has consistently underperformed and has not been able to deliver near its stated capacity on missions, nor has the pattern of product on the ground met any reasonable expectation of the required quality or coverage levels. It was a grand idea, best left to table napkin scribbles.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2863 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4223 times:
USFS has awarded contracts for new jet tanker capability in 2012 and 2013, based on the BAE-146 and MD-87. One of the contracts went to Aero Air, which is based at HIO, not far from Evergreen's headquarters in McMinnville.
The USFS is not putting Evergreen's 747 under contract.
threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4004 times:
Quoting flashmeister (Reply 15): USFS has awarded contracts for new jet tanker capability in 2012 and 2013, based on the BAE-146 and MD-87.
Check the thread on this subject. Note that one of the aircraft types awarded is the RJ-85, a BAe146 derivative with a better margin of performance.
Notably, no turboprop airplanes were granted a contract (one operator submitted a bid for the Dash 8-400 and another for the C-130).
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
twinotter4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 213 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3887 times:
Well at least we will still see some old metal down in California in the form of the Martin Mars. It is piston,but it is old, not retired and performs pretty well. Quite a sight to behold .
tztristar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3660 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 10): Okay, well, as I said I actually talked to one of the employees and got the information directly from them...where/what are your sources? As you can see from this pic in Feb of this year, the engines are being removed etc...
My sources? I worked for the company that converted it and Boeing doesn't certify it for flight. There is a flight cycle limit on the -100, but this airframe had several thousand cycles left though in the firefighting role though there was a severity factor applied so it counted upwards of two cycles per mission. Also, aircraft can be stored without engines and are not considered permanently retired.
Quoting threepoint (Reply 12): BAe 146 airtankers with pressurized retardant delivery are also, in my professional opinion, not well suited to the airtanker role, no matter how capable the platform itself may be.
The Tronos/Neptune design is not quite pressurized, but cabin pressure assisted gravity.
Quoting threepoint (Reply 14): The airplane has consistently underperformed and has not been able to deliver near its stated capacity on missions, nor has the pattern of product on the ground met any reasonable expectation of the required quality or coverage levels.
The original design did (Tanker 947), but the redesign (Tanker 979) was able to carry a full load did have better results than you speak. Yes, it never did get full USFS IATB approval, but neither did the DC-10.
[Edited 2012-06-14 20:02:54]
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3347 times:
Quoting tztristar500 (Reply 19): My sources? I worked for the company that converted it and Boeing doesn't certify it for flight. There is a flight cycle limit on the -100, but this airframe had several thousand cycles left though in the firefighting role though there was a severity factor applied so it counted upwards of two cycles per mission. Also, aircraft can be stored without engines and are not considered permanently retired.
That's interesting on the 2 cycles per mission! Do you know that tail was being used for troop transport and military cargo charters in between the fire missions? [That would have raised it's cycles and hours closer to it's limits.]
I do know that they remove engines etc while the acft are not "retired" to use for the other airframes if needed.
I asked about your sources because your initial response was very direct, but had no fact based links or "proof" of "not correct".
threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (11 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3197 times:
Quoting twinotter4ever (Reply 17): Well at least we will still see some old metal down in California in the form of the Martin Mars.
I very much doubt you will see the Martin Mars in California.
Quoting g38 (Reply 18): I thought the Mars' had been retired. Are they still being flown, and if so, both or just one?
One (Hawaii) is still airworthy and the other (Philippines) would be quickly brought to airworthiness if a contract were forthcoming, but is at present not airworthy.
Quoting tztristar500 (Reply 19):
The Tronos/Neptune design is not quite pressurized, but cabin pressure assisted gravity.
I had forgotten that - thank you.
Quoting tztristar500 (Reply 19): The original design did (Tanker 947), but the redesign (Tanker 979) was able to carry a full load did have better results than you speak. Yes, it never did get full USFS IATB approval, but neither did the DC-10.
Thanks for the clarification on the 747. I thought the DC-10 received full IATB approval?!? If not, oh well, neither has the BAe146 (Tanker 40) in service now, but that doesn't seem to make any difference. The feds are so desperate for capacity they seem to be cutting a few administrative corners.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
tztristar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3017 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 21): That's interesting on the 2 cycles per mission! Do you know that tail was being used for troop transport and military cargo charters in between the fire missions? [That would have raised it's cycles and hours closer to it's limits.]
The second replacement Supertanker N479EV (Tanker 979) was a permanent mod so was never used for anything but firefighting after its modification. You are probably talking about N470EV (Tanker 947) that was the first Supertanker and the system could be rolled off the cargo system so the aircraft could and was used again as a freighter. Neither ever flew military troops, they were freighters.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
g38 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
I say this partially in jest, but only partially, perhaps we're not looking in the right place for a replacement. What about some Il-76s or perhaps An-32s... Be-200? Seriously though, the Russians, don't seem to be having a problem with their firebomber fleet.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 25, posted (11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
Quoting tztristar500 (Reply 23): Neither ever flew military troops, they were freighters.
Interesting... 947 (with it's bright red tail) sat parked on our mobility ramp at our deployed location and I watched the troops unload...are you sure it NEVER did this?
That aircraft was originally a convertible with World Airways but only a freighter with Evergreen. Also, Evergreen hasn't done passenger ops for probably 20 years and has not been a supplier of troop transport to the AMC during that time, only cargo.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 27, posted (11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2141 times:
Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 26): That aircraft was originally a convertible with World Airways but only a freighter with Evergreen. Also, Evergreen hasn't done passenger ops for probably 20 years and has not been a supplier of troop transport to the AMC during that time, only cargo.
Interesting, because I saw that one in 2008 at our deployed location unloading troops, and in 2006 in Korea doing the same. It's amazing the information you have when you have witnessed things.
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1419 posts, RR: 9 Reply 28, posted (11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2061 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 27): Interesting, because I saw that one in 2008 at our deployed location unloading troops, and in 2006 in Korea doing the same. It's amazing the information you have when you have witnessed things.
If you are insinutating that I'm 'full of it', then you are free to believe as you wish, but this particular aircraft (N470EV, ex-N749WA) hasn't had a passenger interior in about 25 years and passengers or troops cannot be carried in a Class E cargo compartment of a freighter.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 29, posted (11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 28): If you are insinutating that I'm 'full of it', then you are free to believe as you wish, but this particular aircraft (N470EV, ex-N749WA) hasn't had a passenger interior in about 25 years and passengers or troops cannot be carried in a Class E cargo compartment of a freighter.
Well, the information you are posting is incorrect. I have witnessed what you say has "never" happened... I know what I saw (repeatedly).
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2006, 167 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6356 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4956 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 673 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
