Daddy of all tankers

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

[tom d. friedman]

well made documentary. never thought of the versatility mentioned!!

[JDK]

well made documentary. never thought of the versatility mentioned!!

Yes, you'd never think they were trying to sell the idea or anything.

Interesting that no-one's bought the idea, so far, funding wise.

[Michel C-GNCJ]

IMHO, it's because it's simply nuts ! Waaayyyy to big of an a/c to be real useful, specially in tight spots. And the stress of this kind of operation on the airframe was probably never designed for. Plus, recycling time must be quite lenghty. Just try to land of of these behemot in any remote field !!! muhahahahahaha...

I was also told that the pilots on a recent trial run were real surprized when they ingested a whole pine tree with one of their engines... What a wake-up call !

Bombardier makes a real good performer with the CL-415. Two of which could be seen in action in yesterday's news over that nasty fire in California. Our guys are really good at it and will help a bundle.

That a/c is designed specially for this kind of operations and environment. It is simply crazy how easily it can be flown in very tight spots and still deliver its load. I got a few pictures of the CL-215 wich was the piston engined version on my site. The 415 is similar but quite more powerful and handles better.

CL-215: http://www.passion-aviation.qc.ca/maniwaki.htm

CL-415:

[Cubs]

I say we quit playing around and use a B-52. (Just kidding, see previous post).

[Cvairwerks]

From what I've heard though variou sources, the 747 project got put on hold within days of the DC-10 tanker getting grounded for a major structural inspection. USFS refused to certify the -10 without significant testing. Ca. okayed them for some use and then got themselves in a real bind when the aircraft struck a series of trees during a drop. The FAA stepped in and grounded the aircraft until a significant inspection was done. I haven't heard anything more as to how the inspection has progressed, so it's probably still in work.

Maybe some of the tanker guys can fill in the gaps and update things.

[Nathan]

I thought it wasn't safe to fight fires with jet engined fire bombers?

[Cvairwerks]

I did find some info that shows that the -10 is back in use, although the capability data they give is a bit suspect. On one page of the site they state the 12000 gallons of slurry will cover a path 50' wide and .8 miles long, and on another page they have it upped to 300' wide and over a mile long.
From their info too, it appears that the -10 also has a much lower wind limit at the fire scene than other aircraft, further limiting it's usefulness.

[Asterperious]

from what I've been told the 747 has been dismantled as the owner was not able to get teh deal he wanted with the forest service so rather than wait they elected to recover costs from the experiment and move on. I don't think we'll ever see the 747 in action fighting fires. An interesting concept but not really practical in most of the conditions faced by aerial tankers. Although I'd say it would have been handy in some of the lower, flatter areas of SOCAL this week laying down suppression lines.

The money politics in this country have impededrational decision making with aerial tankers. it would make far more sense to buy a fleet of CL-415's (or something similar) and get on with things instead of modifying tired airframes to do something they were never intended or optimally suited for.

[RareBear]

News footage yesterday showed the DC-10 in action. Straight and level runs over relatively flat terrain.

Walt

[Mark Nankivil]

If you were watching FOX News last night, the DC-10 is dropping on some of the fires around San Diego. The previous "event" with the DC-10 caused some damage to the leading edge and flaps/ailerons of the left wing - somehow missing the left engine nacelle altogether.

I suppose there's some use for a 747/DC-10 type fire bomber but the USFS really screwed the pooch when they canned many of the Neptune (Aero Union comes to mind), DC-4/DC-6/DC-7, etc. contracts after the C-130A and PB4Y crashes. Helos and small Air Tractor type aircraft are not going to address fires of this size and magnitude though they are useful in their own right.

http://www.aeroimage.com/Company/FireBombGrdMain.htm

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technolo ... ume01.html

http://www.flickr.com/groups/10131719@N00/

http://www.vpnavy.org/firebomber_aircraft.html

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index. ... 576.0.html

Enjoy the Day! Mark

[Old SAR pilot]

Why not consider the Be-200? Seems a number of European countries are either snapping them up or leasing them...

More at:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/pro ... -2004.html

[Mark Nankivil]

I have a friend over at Aero Union and as he put it, the Be-200 is a certification thing. Nothing that cannot be overcome but someone has to pony up the $$$ to make it so.

Considering the fire problems in Greece and other points in Southern Europe, I'd be surprised to not see Be-200s over there - ditto for the Be-12. There's a fair number of CL-215/CL-215T/CL-415 aircraft in Europe (France, Italy, Greece and a few others have them).

Anyone know if there are private fire bomber companies in Europe or are they all government run?

Enjoy the Day! Mark

[Old SAR pilot]

There are several Be-200s operating in Europe - some leased, some purchased. I recall reading in Air Forces Monthly that several countries have ordered them.

Also, if I recall correctly, most all of the aerial firefighting in Europe is done by govt agencies (with some leasing - as in from Russia, but still under their control)