SCUMBAG
Topic Author
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:37 am

Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:53 pm

It would make quick work out of this fire in CA. Why is it still sitting in the dust here in Marana?
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:02 pm

Quoting SCUMBAG (Thread starter):
Why is it still sitting in the dust here in Marana?

Too windy?
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:14 pm

Because the federal government has said, in effect, "prove that it will NOT suffer structural failure".

After a couple of horrible accidents involving poorly maintained airplanes, planes cannot be used to fight a fire on federal land unless they are completely failsafe. If the fire is on state or private land, the plane can fly over it. But it is NOT permitted to fly over federal land.

A ton of prevention for an ounce of cure.

As for the San Diego fires, you are SO right that it could be useful...but southern California is practically toast as it is.

Oddly enough, SAN was still open for business this morning - I put two people on different flights today (ironically, both to DFW where they reported they might be delayed by thunderstorms!!). One left at 6:30 the other at 9:45.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
mpdpilot
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 2):
Because the federal government has said, in effect, "prove that it will NOT suffer structural failure".

After a couple of horrible accidents involving poorly maintained airplanes, planes cannot be used to fight a fire on federal land unless they are completely failsafe. If the fire is on state or private land, the plane can fly over it. But it is NOT permitted to fly over federal land.

very good info by the way but how do they prove that?
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15021
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:39 pm

They are using the DC10 tanker near San Diego right now, according to the radio coverage. Right now it's so windy in the mountains, with such strong up and down drafts, they aren't risking any fixed wing operations over some of the fires. They tried dropping from a higher altitude, but it was not effective.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Boston92
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:43 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
They are using the DC10 tanker near San Diego right now

The DC10 was also used to help put out the Zaca Fire (260,000 acres burned, 2nd largest in state history) up near me in Santa Barbara Co. I believe it is based out of Victorville.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
They are using the DC10 tanker near San Diego right now,

Was that the one that "nipped" the trees awhile back?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15021
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:51 pm

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 6):
Was that the one that "nipped" the trees awhile back?

I do not know. All I heard was that they launched the DC (KC) -10 tanker at about 1:30PM or so. No idea which one it is (or if there are even more than one around here).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Boston92
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:55 pm

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 6):
Was that the one that "nipped" the trees awhile back?

I believe so, it actually had a good amount of damage to it.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 3):
very good info by the way but how do they prove that?

They do it by analysis. Taking the known facts (skin/stringer/frame thicknesses/fastener sizes/etc) and the loads. Crunch all the numbers together and come up with any required beef-up/modifications.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:06 am

With the CL-415s occupied in Santa Clarita, I was wondering when they would send Tanker 910 out to San Diego. With the sheer number of homes threatened, they really need to spare no expense with this. I wonder if they will negotiate with the Canadians to get more CL-415s and CL-215s down here

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
They are using the DC10 tanker near San Diego right now, according to the radio coverage.

It is about time. They pay $5 million a year to have it on stand by and $5500 an hour.

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 6):

Was that the one that "nipped" the trees awhile back?

Yes

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
All I heard was that they launched the DC (KC) -10 tanker at about 1:30PM or so.

Tanker 910, N450AX, is a former passenger aircraft.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
No idea which one it is (or if there are even more than one around here).

Tanker 910 is the only widebody water bomber flying currently in the world.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
SCUMBAG
Topic Author
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:37 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:14 am

What about that tanker from Russia? Said to be the best in the world? Canada has one, and it's an asskicker! lands, loads and takes off from the lakes or sea's
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:15 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
I do not know. All I heard was that they launched the DC (KC) -10 tanker at about 1:30PM or so. No idea which one it is (or if there are even more than one around here).

CNN just had a shot of it flying at 8:00 PM EST (5:00 PM in California).
 
lrdc9
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:27 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 6):
Was that the one that "nipped" the trees awhile back?

As far as I know there is only 1 DC-10 tanker anyway. I didn't know there was a 747. Could you show a pic, pretty pplllleeaaaaasssssseeee!!
Just say NO to scabs.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:22 am

I thought that they were "too expensive to charter".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD-Charred turd
 
Boston92
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Tanker 910 is the only widebody water bomber flying currently in the world.

No, the Evergreen Supertanker is a 747.

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/whyst.html
 
N1120A
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Matt D (Reply 14):
I thought that they were "too expensive to charter".

After the 2003 nightmare that was due in large part to the lack of resources, CAL FIRE stepped up its tanker procurements. This year, we have lots of resources, but the problem is that we have had so many fires spanning almost the entire region, which makes resource allocation a big problem.

Quoting SCUMBAG (Reply 11):
Canada has one, and it's an asskicker

One? Canada alone has 17 CL-415 Super Scoopers, if that is what you are talking about. 2 are leased every year by CAL FIRE from the Provence of Quebec and are bombing the Santa Clarita fires as we speak. I do think that CAL FIRE should have at least 5-10 CL-415s in its arsenal instead of going cheap with 2 leased in from PQ. That way you can cover 2 fires with those and then send 1-2 to compliment Tanker 910 on another.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 15):

No, the Evergreen Supertanker is a 747.

She isn't currently flying. The aircraft is still in development.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
QF108
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:29 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:01 am

There is live coverage now of the DC-10 tanker on the myfoxla live coverage of the fires,

http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/

Mark

Chopper pilot is now headed for Ontario, but they did get a great shot of the DC-10 making its water drop

[Edited 2007-10-22 18:03:58]

[Edited 2007-10-22 18:04:40]

[Edited 2007-10-22 18:08:44]
Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
Quoting SCUMBAG (Reply 11):
Canada has one, and it's an asskicker

One? Canada alone has 17 CL-415 Super Scoopers, if that is what you are talking about.

I believe SCUMBAG is talking about the Berijev BE-200 here.
Don't know why nobody is getting it, have only read good things about it, but it's probably the old "It's Russian and thus unsafe" mantra, that's the only reason I can come up with.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:14 pm

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 18):
I believe SCUMBAG is talking about the Berijev BE-200 here.

 checkmark  But IMO Canada would be the last country to buy it, if ever!
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15021
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:22 pm

Word is that the US DoD is sending 6 C-130 water bombers to the San Diego area and they will be in service by this afternoon. The C-130s have a water bomber conversion module they install inside, according to the news (which may or may not be accurate).

Anyone else know more about those aircraft?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:26 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
Anyone else know more about those aircraft?

Yea, we have quite a few of them in Colorado that were used in our huge forrest fires a couple years back. Our USAF Reserve squadron at Peterson AFB has I think 12x of them that they regularly use to fight fires.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:28 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
Word is that the US DoD is sending 6 C-130 water bombers to the San Diego area and they will be in service by this afternoon. The C-130s have a water bomber conversion module they install inside, according to the news (which may or may not be accurate).

As part of the request by the governor for the C-130s, over 1000 National Guard troops have been activated to help fight the fire.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
SCUMBAG
Topic Author
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:37 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:22 pm

It IS the BE-200 after all, and according to a bit on 60 minutes it is the finest fire fighter in the world bar none. It's big enough to make an impact, and as rugged as a damn tank. It can maneuver like a stunt plane, and is so overbuilt it looks like a flying armadillo. Only problem is the made in Russia tag. USFD want some, but the white house says no.
 
717-200
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:29 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:44 pm

Are the folks at Conair up in YXX sending any aircraft to SoCal?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Graf - VAP

72S 733 734 735 73G 738 742 752 763 E190 M82 M83
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:55 pm

The Evergreen Supertanker projects was shut down on March 21 this year. This website
http://www.firebomberpublications.blogspot.com/
has the details....about midway down.

IIRC believe the equipment has been removed from the aircraft and it is back in freighter service...
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:05 pm

A second DC-10 is currently being converted into a water-bomber. This one is a -30 series, ex-Continental. The 910 tanker is a -10 series, ex-American. Source per AW&ST article some weeks back.
IMO, someone dropped the ball on the 747 water-bomber, because whether it's in development, storage or restricted, the aircraft would be highly useful right about now. Hope whoever pulled the plug, gets a bad case of 1st degree sunburn...because what goes around, comes around.
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
SNAFlyboy
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:42 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:06 pm

As N1120A stated, we have the resources, but the number and severity of the fires going on right now is more than anyone had expected...

We have an arson fire raging out of control here a few miles east of SNA but only very limited air support. I've been told that almost all resources are being allocated to other areas and that high winds are making air support extremely difficult as it is... Last I heard, fire-fighters were resorting to the "old school method" of using shovels and trenches and such.

Somebody send us some rain!  Sad

~SNAFlyboy
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15021
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:15 pm

FOX11 in Los Angeles just showed the 10 Tanker do a fire retardant run. Really nice footage. Flying under 200 feet off the ground on the side of a mountain seems like a very dangerous proposition. The DC10 doesn't fly through the smoke, instead flying next to the fire line and dropping it's payload to try to prevent the fire from spreading.

Quoting SNAFlyboy (Reply 27):
We have an arson fire raging out of control here a few miles east of SNA but only very limited air support.

Half of them are arson, confirmed so far. Likely more will be confirmed at a later date. Two in malibu were not, one a downed power line and one a car fire that spread.

What is interesting is what a radio personality pointed out last night. As soon as the red flag warnings come out, arsonists start fires, often within minutes. History in this state confirms this sad reality. Very, very, very few fires are started by human accidents, and even then, they are caused by people ignoring the red flag warning anyway. She suggested that red flag warnings no longer be issued publicly, as it would decrease the arson risk.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

There has been video of the DC-10 in action up in the L.A. area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osCF0c4IcA4

Here's the 747 Evergreen International tanker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gedNufZSXM

I wish we didn't need either one.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
joness0154
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:29 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
Word is that the US DoD is sending 6 C-130 water bombers to the San Diego area and they will be in service by this afternoon. The C-130s have a water bomber conversion module they install inside, according to the news (which may or may not be accurate).

They actually had a C-130 with this conversion (actually it was on pallets I believe, so they just loaded it in there) at Oshkosh this year. It was pretty awesome. I'll see if I took any pictures of it.
I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
 
jeffry747
Posts: 909
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:26 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:31 pm

This is just great, SoCal is on fire, and here at SDF it's not gonna stop raining until Thursday. And I have to work OUTSIDE in this crap. I hate the rain, and I really wish we could send it your way.
C'mon Big B, FLY!
 
robsawatsky
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:07 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:58 pm

Quoting SCUMBAG (Reply 11):
Canada has one, and it's an asskicker! lands, loads and takes off from the lakes or sea's

Or are you talking about the Martin Mars?

http://www.martinmars.com/
 
User avatar
teme82
Posts: 1334
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:38 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:04 pm

Quoting SCUMBAG (Reply 23):
Only problem is the made in Russia tag. USFD want some, but the white house says no.

One more reason to vote in next elections there.  Wink

Yeah I've seen that BE-200 when I visited Russia few years back it sure can put out forest fires.  Smile
Flying high and low
 
N1120A
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:42 pm

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 26):
A second DC-10 is currently being converted into a water-bomber. This one is a -30 series, ex-Continental. The 910 tanker is a -10 series, ex-American. Source per AW&ST article some weeks back.
IMO, someone dropped the ball on the 747 water-bomber, because whether it's in development, storage or restricted, the aircraft would be highly useful right about now. Hope whoever pulled the plug, gets a bad case of 1st degree sunburn...because what goes around, comes around.

The main problem with Tanker 910 is that it just can't deal with the severe wind conditions and up/down drafts around Running Springs.

Quoting SNAFlyboy (Reply 27):

We have an arson fire raging out of control here a few miles east of SNA but only very limited air support.

The air support has been limited, but they have done a pretty good job in getting that one under control now, according to news reports.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 33):

Yeah I've seen that BE-200 when I visited Russia few years back it sure can put out forest fires.

The BE-200 would be great, though even more CL-415s would be useful. This garbage about leasing 2 a year from Quebec is getting old. CAL FIRE needs its own fleet. Also, I am wondering why the Minnesota-owned CL-215s haven't been rented this week.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Boston92
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:46 pm

So for major air support, we have the DC-10 and the six C-130's? Where are the a/c based out of (I knew when we had the DC-10 up here, it was out of Victorville and made 2 drops a day)?
 
ncelhr
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:12 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 16):
One? Canada alone has 17 CL-415 Super Scoopers, if that is what you are talking about. 2 are leased every year by CAL FIRE from the Provence of Quebec and are bombing the Santa Clarita fires as we speak. I do think that CAL FIRE should have at least 5-10 CL-415s in its arsenal instead of going cheap with 2 leased in from PQ. That way you can cover 2 fires with those and then send 1-2 to compliment Tanker 910 on another.

In the South of France we have had regular forest fires. Authorities have found that the CL-415 & 215 are the only truly effective ways of fighting such huge fires. The aircraft can scoop 5000 litres of water from the sea in a few seconds, and then return to the fire very quickly. Repeat attack of the fire can take place at intervals as small as every 7 minutes. With 2 bombers rotating, that's 1 drop every 3 minutes!

Larger aircraft take too much time to be refilled (they need to land at an airport that's too far away etc.) and are not able to fly low enough in rough terrain to litterally blast the flames - on huge fire, the water would evaporate before it hits the ground due to the intense heat.

As for helicopters, the amount of water they carry is too small to be effective on huge flames and the water evaporates before it hits the ground. Furthermore, whilst they can pump water from swimming pools and small tanks, they take too much time between repeat attack of the fire.

This summer's huge Greek fires were only extinguished due to air power, including reinforcements from Italy, France and I think, Spain.

Good luck to all of you in California. We know how hard it is to fight fire in windy conditions!
 
alaskaairmd83
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:26 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:29 am

Quoting Robsawatsky,reply=32

Or are you talking about the Martin Mars?

http://www.martinmars.com/
:

Could it be that the lakes we have out here in So Cal are too small, or in too dangerous of an environment to operate these effectively? Would one of these be able to operate out of a lake say the size of Big Bear?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:55 am

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 36):

Larger aircraft take too much time to be refilled (they need to land at an airport that's too far away etc.) and are not able to fly low enough in rough terrain to litterally blast the flames - on huge fire, the water would evaporate before it hits the ground due to the intense heat.

What they have done with Tanker 910 is smart, and effective. They fill it with fire retardant, as opposed to water, and drop the retardant on the fire line as opposed to the fire itself. This then keeps the fire from spreading.

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 36):

As for helicopters, the amount of water they carry is too small to be effective on huge flames and the water evaporates before it hits the ground. Furthermore, whilst they can pump water from swimming pools and small tanks, they take too much time between repeat attack of the fire.

That depends. Here in California, we have massive Sikorsky S-64 Skycranes, Erickson/Sikorsky S-64 Aircranes, and Bell 204s, which are scooping helicopters that carry far more than a typical bucket chopper. They are also able to operate in conditions that fixed wing aircraft are not able. A combination of resources is essential.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 35):
So for major air support, we have the DC-10 and the six C-130's? Where are the a/c based out of (I knew when we had the DC-10 up here, it was out of Victorville and made 2 drops a day)?

Tanker 910 (the DC-10) is based at Victorville. The MAFFS C-130s can pretty much come from anywhere that has a suitable C-130. We also have the 2 CL-415s, which have been focused on the Santa Clarita fires and have proved very effective, particularly in quick response to flare ups.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:56 am

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 36):

Larger aircraft take too much time to be refilled (they need to land at an airport that's too far away etc.) and are not able to fly low enough in rough terrain to litterally blast the flames - on huge fire, the water would evaporate before it hits the ground due to the intense heat.

i have always thought this was apparent logic, i have never understood this whole airliner conversion, given the available amphibian firefighting planes are proven and just so much more capable and should not be too expensive to aquire as newbuild.
10=2
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:58 am

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 36):
As for helicopters, the amount of water they carry is too small to be effective on huge flames and the water evaporates before it hits the ground. Furthermore, whilst they can pump water from swimming pools and small tanks, they take too much time between repeat attack of the fire.

The helicopter drops I've seen, which is most of the drops I've seen on TV here in SAN, seem to be pretty effective. Yes, the capacity is pretty low, but it seems to be working. They also seem to be able to refill quickly, as it looks like they use a suspended pouch and seem to be able to refill pretty quickly by dipping in a lake or reservoir. Fortunately, some of the places have been rather close to these sources of water, so they can drop, reload, and drop again rather quickly.
 
SNAFlyboy
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:42 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 34):
The air support has been limited, but they have done a pretty good job in getting that one under control now, according to news reports.

Most reports I've seen state that the Santiago fire east of SNA has not improved since yesterday and is only somewhere around 30% contained. I was over there yesterday and today as well and the situation does not appear much better. The Santa Ana winds, mixed with air currents from the fire and other winds, are apparently wreaking havoc in the region and grounding our already sparse air support from time to time.   

AlaskaAirMD83 brought up an interesting point. Hypothetically speaking, if we had a number of fire-fighting aircraft at our disposal, where would they refill? Does anyone have any idea? I'm unfamiliar with the way in which tanker aircraft refill, though I would guess water/retardant is brough to them at an airport instead of flying over a body of water... Also, are such aircraft typically equipped to deal with ocean water as well?...


~SNAFlyboy

[Edited 2007-10-23 18:10:40]

[Edited 2007-10-23 18:11:54]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15021
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 29):
There has been video of the DC-10 in action up in the L.A. area.

Not bad, but today's FOX11 footage was WAY better. Taken from a news helicopter from above so you could see the interaction with the terrain and the fire right next to it, with professional camera and crew keeping everything balanced. And the drop for today was over a much longer stretch.

I'll see if FOX11 has it posted on their website. They showed about 3 runs while I was watching. They say the turn time is about 30-40 minutes. Drop, fly home, land, get filled up and refueled, takeoff, go back, all in 30-40 minutes, pretty impressive.

They were also showing the assembly line of choppers picking up water from a lake with snorkels and buckets. It was really great footage, and a continuous loop of four choppers at about 1-2 minute spacing.

[edit] I put in a request to FOX11 to post that "10 TANKER" footage on their website, and told them that aviation enthusiasts would watch it, which their advertisers might appreciate. We'll see if they respond positively....
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:12 am

Quoting Lrdc9 (Reply 13):
As far as I know there is only 1 DC-10 tanker anyway. I didn't know there was a 747. Could you show a pic, pretty pplllleeaaaaasssssseeee!!

Arriving at JFK last month on a cargo flight.

http://moose135.smugmug.com/photos/190492643-L.jpg
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:12 am

Quoting SNAFlyboy (Reply 41):
and is only somewhere around 30% contained.

That is a hell of a lot better than Witch Creek or Slide.

Quoting SNAFlyboy (Reply 41):
Also, are such aircraft typically equipped to deal with ocean water as well?.

Yes. They have tested the CL-415 over ocean and found it to be able to pick up there. Further, the choppers are able to as well.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 42):
Drop, fly home, land, get filled up and refueled, takeoff, go back, all in 30-40 minutes,

That turn time is because of the location of the fire Tanker 910 is fighting. Running Springs is rather close to Victorville by air.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:13 am

I think it's funny how whenever there's a big fire in SoCal or elsewhere lots of folks here on a.net start the chant for the super-mega tankers as though those aircraft are some kind of magic wand that will make everything all better.

The truth is that the DC-10 and B747 tankers are only marginally useful in most wildfire situations. These aircraft are very difficult to employ successfully because of logistical, safety, and operational constraints. They are very interesting from the perspective of an aviation enthusiast, but are much, much less interesting to professional firefighters.

Given the realities of limited resources, I can tell you from many years of experience that what the Incident Commanders on these fires really want is more small fixed-wing tankers and ESPECIALLY more helicopters.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:32 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 29):
There has been video of the DC-10 in action up in the L.A. area.

That YouTube video is a couple of months old. I haven't seen the FOX11 video, but I have seen this link from KNBC:

http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=170479
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15021
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 46):
That YouTube video is a couple of months old. I haven't seen the FOX11 video, but I have seen this link from KNBC:

That's pretty similar. Cool. The FOX11 runs I saw were better executed by the pilots. But they may have been from the same feed.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 45):
The truth is that the DC-10 and B747 tankers are only marginally useful in most wildfire situations.

The truth is they can be indispensable in a fire situation. Not every situation, but the massive volume they carry can completely knock down a smal fire, or lay a long, instant fire line that can prevent a fire from jumping a ridge/road.

Ask the firefighters on the ground and they won't agree with you. They want all the help they can get, and the supertankers are a valuable tool. I've seen the larger tankers knock out an entire flare-up on one drop, something the smaller fixed wing and choppers just can't do.

And while the winds may be bad during the hotter hours of the day, in the mornings, the winds tend to drop and the larger jets can get in there safely. That means you are knocking down the fires at the most opportune time, when the winds aren't spreading them as quickly.

Obviously, the smaller birds can get into tighter places, but on the bigger areas, firefighters want those big jets!

They would love to have 10 of those DC10s in the air this morning. Some of these fires would be OUT if that were the case. The others, that can't be fought with them, would be better contained because the smaller birds could concentrate on those areas more.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26529
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:05 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 47):
but on the bigger areas, firefighters want those big jets!

They would love to have 10 of those DC10s in the air this morning. Some of these fires would be OUT if that were the case.

That isn't necessarily true. Again, those tankers have a very specific task, which is to prevent spread. They aren't good at putting fires out. Further, if winds are pushing fires in different directions or keeping the DC-10 from being able to fly as low as needed, then they have little use. Again, smaller, more versatile aircraft are what is needed.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Boston92
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Why No 747 Super Rainmaker In Socal?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):

Do you know how many trips a day 910 can do? Also, Schwarzenegger signed 910 to be "on call" for $5M a year for the fire season which ended the 15th. So the cost to operate 910 is above and beyond the yearly cost the state pays it anyway?

Do we know when the second tanker will be ready in 2008?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos