LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:59 am

Aircraft to be based at Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA).

Quote:
Jumbo Jet Poised To Fight Wildfires In Southern California

VICTORVILLE, Calif. -- A DC-10 firefighting air tanker capable of dropping 12,000 gallons of water or fire retardant is ready for Southern California wildfire missions.

A $15 million, three-year contract with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection takes effect Friday and continues through Oct. 15.

The Victorville-based jumbo jet, which debuted last year with a limited evaluation contract, won praise in fighting six wildfires in California and one in Washington.

The contract means the jet will be available immediately, rather than on a call-when-needed basis.

http://www.knbc.com/news/13503815/detail.html
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
bennett123
Posts: 7424
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:08 pm

Is it a DC10 or a Jumbo  Smile
 
ChiGB1973
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:39 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:44 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRfXfjeKUuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQxVUzkDPLw&mode=related&search=

Glad California is getting the plane.

Very interesting to say the least.

M
 
User avatar
mighluss
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 12:11 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:15 pm

I'm curious...

What is the turnarround time between each drop?
Miquel.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:31 pm

I thought both the firefighting DC-10-10 and the EV B-747-200 were still tied up in an FAA Expermential certification. Is that not true anymore for the DC-10? Is the B-747 still in fliyable storage

Great news for the DC-10, but it seems that this year has been very active with wildfires, on both coasts of the US. I have believed the B-747 and DC-10 could have really helped in both Florida, Georgia, and California. Next month we will start to enter the grass fire season in Texas and Oklahoma, too.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:44 pm

Great news the Dc 10 is one of my favorite aircraft and I love to hear that although it is disappearing from regular service some will continue to serve with ATA, as freighters and as firefighters.
DC Jets are build to last........
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:01 pm

I believe the Evergreen B747 Supertanker program is dead.

Quote:
747 SUPERTANKER HEADS INTO THE SUNSET

Shocking news came out of Evergreen Aviation today: A stop work order has been issued for their multi-million dollar 747 firefighting aircraft and the Supertanker organization within Evergreen is being dismantled. An internal memo (not for publication) stated that "I regret to advise you that the Evergreen Supertanker program and Evergreen Supertanker Services Inc. have been given a "Stop Work" order from the Evergreen Corporate Headquarters... As of close of business, Tuesday, 21 March 2007, the Evergreen Supertanker office in Marana, AZ. will be closed for business."

http://firebomberpublications.blogsp...supertanker-heads-into-sunset.html
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
bennett123
Posts: 7424
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:30 pm

Are they dismantling the Supertanker plane as well?
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting Mighluss (Reply 3):
I'm curious...

What is the turnarround time between each drop?

Big story a few days ago here in SoCal. Seems like all the major news stations carried a story. One of the firefighters was quoted as saying they have the touchdown-refill-airborne sequence down to 10-12 minutes.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5120
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 6):
I believe the Evergreen B747 Supertanker program is dead.

This article suggests that it is not dead, quoting someone at Evergreen Supertanker at the end.

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_6136026
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:32 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 7):
Are they dismantling the Supertanker plane as well?



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 9):
This article suggests that it is not dead, quoting someone at Evergreen Supertanker at the end.

N470EV has been converted back to its regular cargo configuration. Matter of fact it was at JFK on Friday operating a flight.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:13 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 8):
One of the firefighters was quoted as saying they have the touchdown-refill-airborne sequence down to 10-12 minutes.

Woah.. They must have super pumps!

Could it be filled with the orange flame retardant used in drops from smaller aircraft?
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:36 pm

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Is it a DC10 or a Jumbo

DC-10s are Jumbos under the original way people thought of jumbo jets (widebodied)

Personally, I think they need to bring the Super Scooper turboprops back, as those have the same functionality as helicopters in not having to go back to an airport to pick up water but carry a bunch more than the choppers
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
flyboy97502
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:24 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:51 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
Personally, I think they need to bring the Super Scooper turboprops back, as those have the same functionality as helicopters in not having to go back to an airport to pick up water but carry a bunch more than the choppers

Some helo's are very capable of fighting a fire with quite a load of water for a helicopter, and being much more versatile in its turn around time.

To name such, Erickson Air-Crane comes to mind with the "E" and "F" Helitanker models, able to fight with a 2,650 gallon (~10,000 litre) tank drops water, retardant, or foam mix, and A snorkel can draw water from any water source 18 inches (45 cm) or deeper as fast as 45 seconds, or a scoop hydrofoil allows the Helitanker to refill from fresh water and sea water sources in less than 45 seconds.

But it would be awesome to see some CL 215's working the lines! I saw one in action over in italy working on contract with the Forestale' and it was something to watch!
SKYHIGH Airlines- It's important that we get the SkyHigh message out there. That message? Thank you for your money.
 
Algoz
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:58 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:44 pm

I believe this DC10-10 is MSN 46942, which started life with National Airlines in 1974! It then went to Pan Am (N69NA - Clipper Star Light), followed by American Airlines, then Hawaiian, then Omni Air, then to his assignment!
She has served well!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:59 pm

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 11):
They must have super pumps!

I believe they are using former USAF air refueling pumps (converted to handle water and retardent) from the few scrapped KC-135As. Each of these hydraulic driven pumps can deliver 900 gallons per minute. I believe they bought 1.5 sets of A/R pumps (6 total), four pumps are normally used, two are ready spares.

EV did the same for their B-747 SuperTanker, but got 12 pumps (3 complete sets).
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:39 am

To address and perhaps clarify a few questions above:

The DC-10 has a bottom-mounted external tank underneath the fuselage which is filled with a liquid retardant concentrate & water mixture (the red stuff you see being dropped over wildland fires). It is able to but will likely not carry a water or water & foam mixture only. The DC-10 airtanker is intended to operate over fires well inland or otherwise separated from suitable scooping sources, so the use of the CL-415 waterbomber (an otherwise excellent firefighter) is inefficient in vast areas of the western US. Use of the CL-415 in coastal areas or relatively flat terrain with many lakes remains a very sound firefighting strategy.

The Evergreen 747 had several pressurized internal tanks that carried retardant, which was delivered through an aft-mounted high-pressure nozzle aimed downwards from the aircraft. This is a similar method by which USAF Hercules aircraft deliver retardant, and I can assure you is inconsistent at best in terms of coverage and effectiveness on the ground. Coupled with the fact the 747 drops at 800' AGL, making much of the load susceptible to drift after release, it became evident that the effectiveness did not justify the expense. In my opinion, common sense prevailed over the 'bigger is better' mentality.

Both widebodies suffer from the inability to operate from all but a handful of airports, which may be a great distance from the fires. Even if you have sufficient runway length and apron space, you need the loading equipment installed at each location. A ground turn of 12 minutes is not accurate - that's the loading time. Allow at least double that for taxiing and manoevering prior to takeoff and after landing.

Regardless of the effectiveness of each airplane type, it must be said that the key to successful aerial firefighting is in the way the aircraft are managed. The USFS and some state land agencies still employ some grossly inefficient and wasteful tactical and strategic resource management practices that any number or type of aircraft will not overcome. But that my friends, is a topic for another site.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
SANChaser
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:36 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:53 am

Living in SoCal and with a hot and dry summer here already, this is welcome news!

I am curious about other types like the BE-200 - wouldn't something like that be very effiective for the southwest - each trip would deliver around 3100 gallons of water. The claim is to deliver 270 tons without refuelling?

It would have the additional capability of refilling from a lake or the ocean, something that the supertankers could not. I guess the logistics of suporting an entirely new type from Russia would be too expensive?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5120
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:40 pm

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 16):
Even if you have sufficient runway length and apron space, you need the loading equipment installed at each location.

Not true. With the evergreen solution, all you need is a fire hydrant. Everything else travels with the aircraft.

As to it being "converted back to freighter", I think it was flying freight missions all winter, as planned. The tanker equipment loads on pallets.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: DC-10 Firefighter Tanker In 3 Year California Deal

Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:56 am

Quoting SANChaser (Reply 17):
I am curious about other types like the BE-200 - wouldn't something like that be very effiective for the southwest - each trip would deliver around 3100 gallons of water.

The trouble in the US southwest is the lack of ocean and suitable lakes close to most of the fires. Water & foam requires quick aircraft turnaround times...anything above 10 minutes with typical summertime temps and humidities will render anything but chemical retardant ineffective.

Quoting SANChaser (Reply 17):
I guess the logistics of suporting an entirely new type from Russia would be too expensive?

Not more so than supporting any NA-built aircraft. I'd imagine FAA certification for the Beriev is the chief hurdle.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 18):
Not true. With the evergreen solution, all you need is a fire hydrant. Everything else travels with the aircraft.

I doubt the liquid concentrate retardant travels in the 747. Which is my point - you'd need tanks of it plumbed to connect with the hydrant water supply on an apron designed to accommodate a 747-sized aircraft at an airport capable of handling said aircraft. I could probably count the likely aerodromes with installed facilities on two hands at the moment. All a moot point anyway, as the 747 program is dead or critically ill at the moment.
The DC-10 is a much better idea than the 747, but give me four 3000-gallon airtankers over one 12,000-gallon airtanker any day. I can say this with authority as a longtime aerial firefighter.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.