Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Looping A Water Bomber Hard On The Airframe?  
User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6275 times:

Regarding the water bomber in this photo:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Farrugia


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?
Ed

[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.
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6702 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6268 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.


wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6249 times:

Unless it's a stunt, what would be the point of releasing the water in a loop?

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6222 times:

It is a stunt. http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...zione%20Civile&distinct_entry=true


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6220 times:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 2):
what would be the point of releasing the water in a loop?

Do it at sufficient altitude to dive back under the falling water. Easy way to wash the airplane.  Smile

I recall an F-8 Crusader shooting itself down by firing a burst in a climb, then diving under it and accelerating.

Kind of a "duh" when you think about it, but "learning curve" is a nicer way of putting it.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineLoggy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6118 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 .


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6084 times:

A tanker is probably so overbuilt that it could handle the flight stresses, particularly after it "Lightens up"

I wouldn't try that with a converted airframe though.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6063 times:

What would be the Water carrying capacity on this CL-415.
Whats the Highest Capacity type available for water bombing purposes.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6048 times:

Quoting Loggy (Reply 5):
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 ?

The two waterbombers that went down had structural failure during routine firefighting maneouvres.



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6020 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).


User currently offlineElectech6299 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6014 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...  banghead 
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
User currently offlineKerberos From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6000 times:

I imagine this one would have a hard time doing a loop...




This is your captain speaking. I’ve turned off the no-smokin’ sign. Hell, if the plane is smokin' why can't you?
User currently offlineSabenaboy From Belgium, joined Feb 2001, 187 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5976 times:

Guys,

I do not believe this picture. There is absolutely no reference to the horizon in the picture.
I think it's fake. Probably just a tilted camera or tilted picture.

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.

[Edited 2005-10-07 12:41:13]

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5924 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.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 12):
do not believe this picture. There is absolutely no reference to the horizon in the picture.
I think it's fake. Probably just a tilted camera or tilted picture.

LINK
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5839 times:

Mel, I think he's talking about the picture in the original post, not the Evergreen 747 tanker...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineSabenaboy From Belgium, joined Feb 2001, 187 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5819 times:

Quoting USAFHummer (Reply 15):
Mel, I think he's talking about the picture in the original post, not the Evergreen 747 tanker...

I was indeed thinking about the picture in the original post.  Wink


User currently offlineT prop From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1028 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5758 times:

I think it's real. Same airplane, same place, different photog and an extreme angle.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen J Muscat



T prop.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5675 times:

Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 16):
I was indeed thinking about the picture in the original post.

Since it was below the Evergreen pic I presumed it was that.....Use the Qoute option  Smile

Even the Initial pic.It looks real.Remember the Camera Angle will add to the effect.
Look at the rest in the Batch.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Farrugia
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen J Muscat



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Polidano
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Azzopardi



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Phil Jones
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Tonna



regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5663 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.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5629 times:

Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 12):
Just turn the picture 180°, and you can see the plane in a dive with right bank.



Quoting FredT (Reply 19):
If you rotate the initial picture 90 degrees right it does make a whole lot more sense

I've written to Mark.His reply should clarify things.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKey From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 99 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5604 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.

Erik



... slides!
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5584 times:

Can someone please explain to me why in this image the last sprays of water are NOT being thrown up, following the aircraft climbing attitude:



but on this image the last sprays of water are so SEVERELY being thrown up:



In both cases the flying attitude is the almost the same, going up.

Also, if this was at a public airshow, certanly there were thousands of people attending, does anyone knows of other photos on the internet showing this moment?

Luis


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3303 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

TIS



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
User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5548 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

while in loop there is centfugal force in play.

shouldn't water then be going away of the aircraft



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
25 FredT : Uhm, no, that it does not prove. It indicates that the aircraft is following a curved trajectory.
26 Key : This plane is not pulling up 20-30° more in about its own fuselage length of flying distance, plus the above is only true if you rule out gravity. S
27 SlamClick : There is no such thing in physics as centrifugal force, you have only Newton's laws of motion which explain the appearance of the spray quite well. T
28 Post contains images Kukkudrill : Not entirely sure I understand you but if you're saying this aircraft can't pull tight maneouvres, I saw this aircraft perform on the Saturday (Mark
29 Key : All too right of course. However, the 'jet' of water in the right of the pic traveled approximately straight upward meaning that would have had to be
30 9A-CRO : actualy water should have a speed component due to "centrifugal (inertial)" force. Water is accelerated during loop in the tanks as it wants to keep
31 Post contains links SlamClick : NOTE Those of you who question whether this photo is "real" or "rotated" should kno there is a thread about this in the Aviation Photography forum whi
32 Post contains images HAWK21M : Good Find Slamclick......Interesting. regds MEL
33 Kukkudrill : There is now a reply from the photographer in the thread mentioned by SlamClick.
34 Post contains images HAWK21M : His reply & Photos settle the debate finally. regds MEL
35 Sovietjet : There is centripetal force not centrifugal force. Centripetal force acts towards the center of the loop/circle not away from it.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is Looping A Water Bomber Hard On The Airframe?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is This Lump On The 737? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 13:18:37 by Monteycarlos
What Is This On The Archer? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 21:16:22 by Sushka
What Is This On The A330 Above The Door? posted Sun Aug 28 2005 15:56:20 by Aerlingus330
What Is This Green Coating On The Aircraft? posted Thu Feb 24 2005 22:41:24 by Bio15
What Is This For (On The Bae 146) posted Sun Aug 15 2004 15:47:02 by DeltaWings
What Is This 'thingy' On The A340 posted Sun Aug 15 2004 10:21:32 by Nwfltattendant
What Exactly Is, "Flying On The Step"? posted Sun Mar 21 2004 20:41:05 by Msllsmith
Is This An Intake Or Exhaust On The 777? posted Sat Feb 21 2004 00:07:02 by Mr Spaceman
What Is That On The Wing? posted Fri Nov 14 2003 00:44:54 by KYIPpilot
Why Is The Wing's LE/TE Dist. Shorter On The Tip? posted Wed Sep 10 2003 19:40:34 by Bio15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format