Airtanker Groundings/Aging Aircraft

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Ollie wrote:

Do you know what kind of planes they'll be getting?

Nope, but they must be smaller if they are replacing 33 with 120...

So 38 "air tankers" + 71 helos + 8 military C-130's = 117 aircraft = "nearly" 120 aircraft?

The 38 will be from private companies...like Hawkins & Powers? I'm not sure I understand this point!

If the problem was airworthiness, is this an issue related only to aging aircraft, one specific company (H&P), or to the way these companies were operated? Maybe the FAA is now incorporating firefighting activities into part 91?

The way I understood it is that since these companies were operating under government contract they didn't need to meet FAA airworthiness standards. Another example of the government being able to skirt the law that you and I are forced to abide by.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:01 pm

I just watched the news and they showed video of a test today of an Evergreen 747 configured as an air tanker.... could this be one of the new planes they are talking about?

O.P. · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:54 pm

Scott WRG Editor wrote:

I just watched the news and they showed video of a test today of an Evergreen 747 configured as an air tanker.... could this be one of the new planes they are talking about?

I have a question also. If 747's are used in the future, where will they operate out of? Hollister...

Runway 13/31
Dimensions: 6350 x 100 ft. / 1935 x 30 m
Surface: asphalt, in good condition
Weight limitations: Single wheel: 30000 lbs
Double wheel: 45000 lbs

Runway 6/24
Dimensions: 3150 x 100 ft. / 960 x 30 m
Surface: asphalt, in good condition
Weight limitations: Single wheel: 30000 lbs
Double wheel: 45000 lbs

Santa Rosa

Runway 14/32
Dimensions: 5115 x 150 ft. / 1559 x 46 m
Surface: asphalt/grooved, in good condition
Weight limitations: Single wheel: 35000 lbs
Double wheel: 53000 lbs
Double tandem: 85000 lbs

Runway 1/19
Dimensions: 5002 x 100 ft. / 1525 x 30 m
Surface: asphalt, in fair condition
Weight limitations: Single wheel: 52000 lbs
Double wheel: 75000 lbs
Double tandem: 117000 lbs

Can any 747 take off from these runways? If yes, can a fully retardant loaded 747 take off from them.
I used these as examples because I've been to them before and they have the whole firefighting setup at them. I'm not sure,but I'm thinking that the runways normally used by the firebombers can't be used by these aircraft.

Maybe LAX-SFO-OAK travelers and citizens will be cool with the extra traffic, air and taxiway, during the fire season...hell...maybe one load from that big momma will put the whole fire out.

Ollie · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:00 pm

And what about fuel consumption??

:lol:

O.P. · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:25 pm

Ollie wrote:

And what about fuel consumption??

:lol:

Good call!

You also got your facilities to support 747 retardant tankers, and all the pretty retardant staining on the pavement . I like saying retardant.

Ollie · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:26 pm

Oh yes.

Lacombe Master Plan #12-B calls for CL 415s!!

J Scheil · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:51 pm

First, the current grounding stands. This is a massive reduction in capability. The current Federal plan is to contract 8 (EIGHT) MAFFS equipped C-130's, government ANG aircraft, at 52 MILLION dollars for the season! There will be 38 fixed wing SEAT tankers contracted, these are agricultural aircraft, Air Tractors and such with 600 gal capacity. The rest will be helos, some of them the helitankers, modified CH-54. What is lost are all of the heavies, fast large aircraft designed to hit the head of fires hard.

With the loss of the P-2 and P-3's, DC-4, 6 and 7's, the wildland fire game will change drasticly. The CL-415 is a mediocre replacement regardless of where it was built. It don't go as fast with as much, and costs a bundle. There are Russian birds that if we could buy overseas, and wanted to, would be a lot better. The CL-415's sales succes is a direct result of Canadair marketing and lobbying governments, and using political clout to sell aircraft.

The unfortunate bottom line is that the FEDs and the USFS do not want the fires that develop to be able to get out of hand. They will acheive this by removing the fuel from protected federal lands through increased logging. The word I hear is that with fuel and wood, steel and other commities have to be let loose, and this is one way to do it I guess...

The USFS was never in the business of putting them out anyway...

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:53 pm

You could use the 747 as a mid-air re-tanker to re-fill smaller tankers. Just have it orbit the fire at 10-20,000 ft. and refill the S-2's (after fitting with appropriate probes of course)

Ollie · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:55 pm

Joe, in an environment close to the sea or where lakes abound, nothing beats an amphib to do the job.

Firefighters here couldn't work without the Canadairs, they are the best thing around to attack fires.

Russian jets? Burn too much fuel.

Joe Scheil · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:38 pm

This issue is a personal one with me for few reasons. To the point and focus of the post first.

The grounding of the big tankers should have a significant effect on the warbird industry as most of the large shops that overhaul and stock spares for R-1820, 2000, 2800 and 3350 will now not have as big a reason to do so. The large commercial consumers of these spares are now out, so while parts may become cheaper, it will remove the need to have lots of rebuilds being done. We shall see. In any case I'm sure Aircraft Cylinder, Standard Aero and many of the other shops are agast at the potential loss in revenue.

Amphibs are the best aircraft for the firefighting task in my opinion as well. In southern california we have many resivoirs and they provided a ready supply for us in our PBY. We could beat many if not all of the large retardent tankers in both gallons dropped and cost per gallon. The PBY used the Field Aviation conversion, a Canadian innovation that was used by candidair on the CL-215 as well. The drop door was the same part number I heard, though the PBY had a better drop pattern due to its hull shape. The 415 is a turbine, and heavily computerized. The 415 knows the air temp, lake run length and a whole set of other parameters and adjusts the weight of its scoop for the conditions. While we relied on Standard Aero's 1830's and judgement, the 415 picked up what it wanted, and had a significant reduction in gallons on target. Many times here it was rumored they picked up less than 1000 gal every time.

To me its amazing that an entire "vintage" aircraft industry has been idled without a single thing in the papers. All of the pilots, Aero Union, H&P, Neptune Inc and the like are just dumped with no notice. All of the parts suppliers and all of the need for large aircraft of this type is removed in less time than the 10 minute press release took to be printed. This is bad folks, so photograph them now...

As for the forests of Maine, and the potential for fire.... I quote Dr. Evil...

"Ummmm, Right"

dj51d · **Posted:** Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:12 pm

I agree amphibs are the best. Here in MN, they've even used the CL-215 to put out an out of control auto salvage yard fire. The PBY makes an excellent water bomber, but how much longer will they be allowed to stay in service? The PBYs are now getting on 60 years old,and if the USFS was concearned about liability, how long before the CDF is forced to retire their warbirds for the same reason? As for the Russian planes, the Beriev Be-200 is fast and carries more water than the Canadair, but it also requires more room to operate. How easy and cost effective are the Progress turbofans going to be to service compared to the Canadair's Pratt & Whitney turboprops? How does the initial cost of the Be-200 compare to the CL-415?

The 747 is an interesting project, and I'll be interested to see how effective it is, but a 747 plus conversion can't be cheap either. That's the real problem, weather the solution is new aircraft or better management of our forests, it isn't going to come cheap.

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:09 am

http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/mar9-2004/Mn-69-747-firebomber.html

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.html

thats a big tanker 24,000 gallon capacity!

Ollie · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:32 am

I talked to some 415 pilots the other day and they told me that it seriously hauled ass, much more than the 215. The 215 has a better drop pattern, but that's it.

Hmmmm, 415!!!

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Col. Rohr wrote:

As for Big Bertha were in the Hell are they going to Stage these things, I know how about NAS CHINA LAKE or EDWARDS AFB because we all know they have mile and mile of lovely runways. But come to think of it I like OP idea of LAX can you se it now the call comes in their s a 777 on final and is told you must do a go around we have a DEFCON 5 Sitis. with the Firer Bombers and they need al the Runways for a mass tsake off.

The former Norton AFB (San Bernardino International now?) and the former George AFB are now both civilian I believe and could easily handle that size of aircraft, as could have MCAS El Toro, now destined to be huge a golf course complex (a waste of a perfectly good airport if I ever saw one, but I digress).

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:31 am

Col. Rohr wrote:

Hey Guys,

The 747 is a nice idea but iI don't see it going into some of the Box Canyons that are out there. Also alot of these birds are going to be running into the same wing problems also and here's a question are they going to beef up the wings these thing wer'nt made to pull a couple of G's and do radical turns.

Heh, with 24K gallons of retardant they just fill the box canyons :lol:

Warbird Information Exchange

Airtanker Groundings/Aging Aircraft

Who is online