Warbird Information Exchange

That's what happened to me when I posted the book title. I didn't say anything because I thought the auto-censor was common knowledge and I was the one missing out. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

As far as the poster who suggested the B-52 fire bomber, I think you have two issues 1) the B-52s are regulated under one of the arms treaties, and 2) Bigger isn't always better. If you read Linc Alexander's book and his support of "One Strike", you'll get his explanation why a huge airplane isn't always necessary.

Back to the OT, though. I wasn't suggesting a trade like they had in the 1990s, I was thinking the operators would purchase these aircraft surplus. However, it does sound like it's getting harder and harder to get any kind of military aircraft into civilian hands. That's a pity. A lot of surviving warbirds out there owe their very existence to their use as fire bombers. For example, if the F7F wasn't used as a fire bombing platform, how many would still be in existence, period, let alone fly.

The auto censor would completely screw up any on line discussions amongst folks having a conversation regarding bug eating amphibians because it thinks you're dissing French people so it converts F -rog into 'French'.
Structurally the BUFF wouldn't stand up to the pounding caused by flying in areas of wildly fluctuating thermal activities (like flying into a mountain canyon full of burning Douglas Fir trees). In fact since the airframe was designed to cruise @ 50+K feet, dropping them down to 'Oil Burne...oops! Olive Branch' altitudes of 500 to 1000 feet is peeling hours of the remaining airframes. The Newest B-52 is 48 years old and it's not a real snappy performer in turns, watch the tape of that idiot 'Bud' Holland @ Fairchild from 1994 to see how poorly one does in a low, steep turn (he far exceeded the bank angle of the airframe) and imagine that in a box canyon full of burning trees. The BUFF requires flying the airplane by hand with the autopilot on to stay under a tanker because it has no ailerons, just pretty small spoilers.
We've been over this before, if the aircraft in question isn't a 'designed to our specifications, brand new design you cannot use it to fight fires on USFS lands' so say the big wigs @ USFS That's why most fires on Federal lands are fought on the ground or with helicopters and not airplanes (full props and all deep respects to those who do fly helos to fight fires, but I've always thought that was like taking a squirt gun to a lumber yard blaze). The USFS decided as part of the fallout of the tanker accidents, they wanted a designed by federal political committee, new build tanker. I doubt any airframe manufacturer is going to gear up to build 18 airframes on a set bid process. That's also why you don't see Tanker 10 or Evergreens 747 or the MARS boat tankers working Federal Lands fires, just State lands fires.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

My understanding was the Mars was working in 2009 under a Federal (US Forest Service), not state contract. Have the rules changed since then??

Nope. The wing box fatigue is an "all or nothing" issue. Because the USAF had to cutback the acquisition rate of the "J" model, they are having to keep the remaining "E" models around until they can't fly them anymore. In some cases, they've had to do "temporary repairs" on the wing boxes just to make it to the boneyard to be scrapped. The C-130 was only viable as a "direct conversion" with MAFFS equipment installed or a minimum mod constant flow system. Since that isn't possible anymore, I doubt you'll see any more C-130s hit the fire lines.

An auto censor. Well I'll be whatever the auto censor would conjure up. I guess I can understand its point, but I can also think it's kinda stupid at times.

Keep that thought the next time ANY politician opens their mouth and inhales-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

thanks for the update

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

BTW, I've found one of the best sites for the status of the Herc population to be - www.herkybirds.com

They keep good track of where the birds are, what kind of condition they're in, and what kind of projects are on the block.

Maybe I'm a fool...but I miss my Dollar 19. Be good to her and she'd do just about anything you asked.

Something new - something borrowed:
There are several platforms available or currently in production in other countries that would do nicely. However, the USFS has it's collective head up in their nether regions and are steadfast about not using them. Of course, not all is their fault, the FAA doesn't approve them for flight here in the states either. No problem.

Let the climate deteriorate and the drought continue, some political big wig's property will be destroyed and MAYBE we'll see some honest action to aquire new aircraft. Not going to hold my breath on that one.

Too bad Marsh couldn't do for the old fleets the things they did for the S-2's for CalFire. I know, it's all politics.

Off my soap box
Tom

_________________
...not a complete idiot, some parts ARE missing!

i agree. I wonder if some high political figure had his house destroyed would they change their minds in a serious case like this. It seems that every year there are massive fires that takes weeks to put out. I hope that more planes will come along to help!

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

According to the FAA there are 6 US-registered Canadair 215s although I think they are all the piston version, not turoprops as the register states . The two at KIGM don't seem to do much - always in the same spot when I go there.

Of course the USFS would never shell out the money for new CL415s !

i swear the c-47 can STILL do the job

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

H&P did do a tanker conversion on the C-47 for someone, who I don't know, pictures are out there some where. Problem is payload they would not carry enough. Now when we talk about the "U.S. Forest Circus" and new air tanker types here is what comes to mind from conversations of the past,
1. They want a 3000 gallon airplane.
2. They want four engines, this is why you do not see any U.S. registered CV-580 air tankers at the moment.
3. The Forest Service does not want to pay what it would take to contract a new mondern day purpose built air tanker.

I grew up around air tanker world and love it. But until some one in Washington, gets into the head shed job of the Forest Service that has a clue about the air tanker program and is pro large air tanker guy and is for the overhaul of it and willing to fight to get the funds needed it is not going anywhere for a long time. (my 2 cents)

Scott....

that sucks

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

A list of Air Tankers,

http://www.ruudleeuw.com/airtanker-id.htm

_________________
45-47=-2