pillowtester
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:44 am

DC-10 Fire Tanker

Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:10 am

Fox News has been showing lots of coverage of a new DC-10 modified to fight fires in California or wherever it is. It looks really awesome in action!

Any pics of it here on A.net?
...said Dan jubilantly.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:16 am

Quoting PillowTester (Thread starter):
Any pics of it here on A.net?

Yes..............
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
A300605R
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:11 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:20 am

It's dropping water, so you can't see too much of the plane...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bernard Charles

BTW, try to use the search engine first...  Wink

[Edited 2006-09-25 01:31:18]
300 319 320 321 332 733 734 735 738 753 763 F27 M83
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:49 am

What sucks is that the Evergreen Supertanker, which is a 747 and was developed first, is still being stonewalled by the various authorities, for no reason that makes any sense.
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:31 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 3):
What sucks is that the Evergreen Supertanker, which is a 747 and was developed first, is still being stonewalled by the various authorities, for no reason that makes any sense.




Water Tanker - video powered by Metacafe
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
warreng24
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:06 am

Do you think we'll ever see a 767-200 fire-bomber? There's quite a number of 762's sitting in the desert at the moment.
 
romeokc10fe
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 3:45 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:55 am

Hey guys, I was watching the ABC World News tonight, they were doing a story about the wild fires in southern California. Well to my surprise they showed the DC-10 water bomber being used to help fight the fire, they didn't go into detail but did acknowledge that it was a wide body airliner converted to fight fires. All I can say is that it's about time, we all know Evergreen Intl. has their 747 water bomber and have been waiting to get it certified and also to get a contract signed with the Forestry Service, meanwhile the country just burns up! Evergreen demoed the plane here in my hometown of Sacramento, CA back in the summer but I missed it, I was out flying a mission for the Air Force in the pacific. Pics of both aircraft can be found here on A.net, oh, and the ground crews fighting the fire said that the DC-10 absolutely saved a small town that was in the fires path. Are their any fellow A.netters down in that area where it's being used, I would to see some posted pics of it in action!
 
virgin747
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 1999 12:20 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:22 am

I hate to be a sales person.... But if any state government people who read these threads has a large amount of forest in their region.... may i suggest this....

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?...ang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_0.html
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:36 am

There was an editorial bit on one of the local channels (I live within sight of the "Day Fire" now burning for its 4th week in southern California) last week about how the cost of fighting the "Day fire" had surpassed $20 million that day and that we should be using widebody tankers if they would help. It was stated that the resistance to using them is said to be cost (over $26,000 per hour) but given the now excessive cost of this fire (even having burned no structures), we should do more. Not more than 2 days later I heard unusual amounts of air traffic and looked up and saw the DC-10! Pretty impressive videos of the retardant drops have been on the news, but I'm having a hard time finding a link.
 
greg3322
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:35 pm

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:36 am

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 8):
Pretty impressive videos of the retardant drops have been on the news, but I'm having a hard time finding a link.

I found this link:

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/video/?track=nav

On the news video section, scroll down to:
"9/25 - Calmer Winds Helping Crews Fight Day Fire"

After the commercial, it is about 40 seconds into the video and they show a couple of passes.

Greg
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:02 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 3):
What sucks is that the Evergreen Supertanker, which is a 747 and was developed first, is still being stonewalled by the various authorities, for no reason that makes any sense.

I can't speak to the certification of the 747 Supertanker. But, politics aside, the main reason most government officials in charge of managing the wildland against unwanted fire are hesitant to use either large airtanker is due to the exorbitant cost with limited effectiveness. Both types have now been used in real missions in addition to tests & demonstrations. The evidence I have seen to date indicates that the coverage level of the retardant on the ground is less than adequate, perhaps due to its excessive (800' AGL) drop height rather and its high forward speed. I believe they drop at around 160 KIAS or so; at that speed, retardant tends to shear immediately after departing the tank (DC-10) or nozzle (747) attached to the aircraft. 120-140 KIAS is optimal.

Yes, each plane carries a lot of retardant. Yes, each plane flies to the fire at a great rate of knots. But the logistical hassles (suitable airfields), high operating costs, huge fuel burn at low altitudes and its limited ability to drop at low level in rugged terrain weigh heavily against using such aircraft for extended fire suppression operations.

It promises to be interesting...
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
mtnwest1979
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:23 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:34 am

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 10):
Both types have now been used in real missions in

So when was the 747 used in a 'real mission'?
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
 
757dc10fltmech
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:25 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:48 am

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 10):
The evidence I have seen to date indicates that the coverage level of the retardant on the ground is less than adequate

"Testing with loads showed that Tanker 910 provided appropriate coverage on the ground."

From this CDF Press Release: http://www.fire.ca.gov/php/newsrelea...ownloads/2006archive/DC10Facts.pdf

"The tanker left "very impressive coverage - a very long line of retardant" - in the area in which it dropped, Estrada said."

From The Desert Sun:
http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbc...060717/NEWS0806/607170326/0/TOPICS




Video from the CDF

Scroll to the bottom of the page
http://www.fire.ca.gov/php/about_photosection.php

Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 11):
So when was the 747 used in a 'real mission'?

 checkmark 
CAN DO!
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:02 am

Take a look at the current Airways magazine. It has a big article on these fire tankers.
Go big or go home
 
WN230
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:41 pm

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:22 am

Quoting Virgin747 (Reply 7):

VNY has some of these amphibious watter droppers (I've seen them) which could easily reach the fire(s).

quoting myself . . . "which could easily reach the fire(s)"
is it just one fire or multiple fires?
Judas Priest North American tour in '08 . . . cannot wait!!!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5129
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:07 pm

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 10):
But the logistical hassles (suitable airfields), high operating costs, huge fuel burn at low altitudes and its limited ability to drop at low level in rugged terrain weigh heavily against using such aircraft for extended fire suppression operations.

Sounds like the arguments that the Fire-O-Crats have been making from Day 1, even before testing began. The actual testing results seem to belie what the Fire-O-Crats are saying. In fact, I wonder if the concern is that once they get one in use, the media and others will demand that they be used even more, taxing a budget or requiring fewer men on the ground.

There's something going on here that's keeping the Supertanker from being used, and it's not just technical. It's bureaucratic.
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:04 am

Latest Airways has a big article:

- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:55 am

Quoting WN230 (Reply 14):
VNY has some of these amphibious watter droppers (I've seen them) which could easily reach the fire(s).

I assume the Canadairs are in action; they base down at VNY every fire season.

Personally, I don't understand why the 146th ANG wing (which has a boatload of C-130's) isn't fully tasked to handling this on an annual basis. It just seems like they could do it -- right now, they only become engaged post-fact. I honestly think they should have several Hercs ready to roll all the time so they could just hammer the heck out a fire early before it gets too big.

That seems like a good use of my tax dollars!  Smile

Steve
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: DC-10 Fire Tanker

Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:15 am

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 15):
Sounds like the arguments that the Fire-O-Crats have been making from Day 1, even before testing began. The actual testing results seem to belie what the Fire-O-Crats are saying. In fact, I wonder if the concern is that once they get one in use, the media and others will demand that they be used even more, taxing a budget or requiring fewer men on the ground.

And the testing confirmed many of their points. The coverage level sure looks impressive in Dixie cups in the desert or on a paved runway, but add burning California chaparral in a thirty knot wind and try to tell me that even a coverage level 8 (the highest level) dropped from 500-800' AGL will be effective.

If ever the ground crew component of firefighting disappears from the scene, all the DC-10's in the desert couldn't put out a fire. No aircraft could.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 15):
There's something going on here that's keeping the Supertanker from being used, and it's not just technical. It's bureaucratic.

Agreed. The level of bureaucracy is indeed staggering when dealing with the USFS and fires. And it ain't limited to the 747. Talk to the operators of the more established piston tanker types.

Quoting Sllevin (Reply 17):
Personally, I don't understand why the 146th ANG wing (which has a boatload of C-130's) isn't fully tasked to handling this on an annual basis. It just seems like they could do it -- right now, they only become engaged post-fact.

Perhaps because the US military has a few other minor commitments that are deemed higher priorities at the moment. The retardant delivery system on the MAFFS-equipped Herc aircraft, like that on the Evergreen 747, is not extremely well-suited to effective coverage level on the ground either. The bottom-mounted tank (like on the DC-10) is much better. But that's a topic for another forum.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.

Who is online