I would assume that it is designed to take heavy airframe loads due to the fact that it is a water bomber, but a manuever like this seems like it might not be one you would want to do that often. Thoughts?
[Edited 2005-10-06 16:50:48]
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6577 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6108 times:
You might not, but the aircraft shouldn't notice since it's not really a high-g manoeuvre.... the plane just can't go fast enough. It will probably suffer more from scooping up the water and taxying over rough ground.
Loggy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5958 times:
I'm no expert but didn't one of those water bombers break in two because of a similar maneuver in the states last year ?. Maybe that photo isn't quite at the right angle ? . If it is then i would like to have seen it for real !.
Just my own thoughts .
LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5860 times:
"Routine" firefighting maneuvers aren't all that routine, and I would expect them to be harder on the airframe than a customarily-performed loop. The firebombers get thrown around a lot.
Also, the two firebombers that shed their wings about a month apart were not CL-215/415's. They were converted aircraft. The first was a 1957 model C-130A. The second was a 1945 model P4Y (A B-24 variant).
Electech6299 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5854 times:
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2): what would be the point of releasing the water in a loop?
It's too late in the evening for me to look this up...
I recall reading about waterbomber maneuvers, and as LeanOfPeak alluded to, some extreme techniques are used for more effective use. Dropping water from a plane is pretty expensive already, so they try to get the maximum use out of it. As anyone who has tried to put out a campfire knows, just pouring water on it is not the most efficient...it takes a lot of water. So IIRC, they try to drop the water in specific patterns to suffocate the fire. Dropping in a vertical climb makes the water both land in a more concentrated location, and fall as slowly as possible so that more evaporates on the way down to increase the density of the air. I can't put all the specifics into my head tonight, if I get the time I'll try to research the article or post a link...
BTW, that's one pilot job I would love to have, but won't take because I have kids... (The same reason I don't ride a motorcycle)
Send not to know for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 69
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5764 times:
Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 12): Just turn the picture 180°, and you can see the plane in a dive with right bank.
Also the water coming out looks just fine then.
This airplane is pointed almost directly at the sun. Shadows are not distinct, but perceptible at the trailing edges of the wings, nacelles etc. A better cue is the sunflares on the nose and other surfaces pointing in that direction.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5503 times:
If you rotate the initial picture 90 degrees right it does make a whole lot more sense. Also noteworthy is that only one photographer, of the many submitting pictures of this display, has submitted pictures of the aircraft inverted - which would have been the highlight of the display.
I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
Key From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 99 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5444 times:
Quoting FredT (Reply 19): If you rotate the initial picture 90 degrees right it does make a whole lot more sense.
Absolutely! There are some very interesting physics going on in this photo, like water shooting upwards by itself. Look at the jet in the far right, or the spray just coming out. To have this kind of momentum the plane would have to be in a loop far more tight than it is capable of to 'eject' the water (or literally eject it by pumps or the likes, which it doesn't). Actually, it is flying approximately in a straight line which you can tell by the trailing pattern as a whole.
About the flying, doing a loop is something quite different from a barrel roll with different forces on the airframe and systems. I do not know if the 215/415 is capable of looping but I doubt it.
Noteworthy also is that the sky is darker on the lower right, and brighter on the upper left. I believe this pic shows the aircraft in a steep climb and is rotated CCW to perhaps a max of about 90°. The only thing that might save the day is if this has actually been shot at say 50° camera angle and the photog made the 'wrong' choice as how to position it.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3289 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5406 times:
Take a look at MIRAGE's post. While it does not tell us exactly whether or not the plane is inverted, it does prove that it is in the process of changing its angle of attack (implying that it could verifyably be in a loop). The water, in theory, should leave the aircraft in the direction of its velocity at that instant (right before gravity acts severely on it). The fact that the angle of the water with the aircraft keeps changing means it is raising its nose.
And MIRAGE, in the first picture, it's the angle that makes it seem like the water is not being thrown up. If you crop the second picture right behind the second arrow from the left, you see the same effect.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4