Airtanker Memories

[fyrflyr]

Looks a little bizzar to me (as a Tanker) being pressed into a Tanker role out west, how did they perform? I have never seen an eggzample of this airframe type in Tanker service

There were only two AJ's operated as tankers in the early 60's. They took the jet out of the fuselage and replaced it with a 2000gal retardent tank. The plane was just a little under powered with the R-2800 engine that it had at the time. These were replaced with R-2800-CB-16's with water injection for take off. Much better performance. The visibility from the cockpit was one of the best in the tanker business.

I was sure sorry to see them go. They were really a neat aircraft.

Bob

[Speedy]

When I got out of Uncle Sam's Canoe Club many moons ago I had kicked around applying to work at Aero Union, since I was still proficient in the Sky Pig.

So maybe a question for the guys that DO instead of those of us who just 'thought about doing it'.

IS there an ideal platform for fighting fires these days? Is the idea to dump as much as you can from a volume standpoint? Is the idea to be able to get as low and close to the drop area to be as accurate as possible? Is it an ability to go into the target slow, but have enough power to get yourself OUT of the situation once you're done? All of the above?

There's been a lot of approaches over the years and I suppose it depends on the size of the fire, whether you're trying to contain and control it or put it out. But they have everything from Turbo Thrush to Martin Mars, Bell 47 to the Erickson Skycrane, and even the DC-10 and 747 conversions.

Is there an ideal platform? Or is that making the same assumption that the Navy did by making the F/A-18 the 'all encompassing' fighter/bomber/jammer/attack/tanker at the expense of all the other diverse platforms?

[Lt51506]

I suppose the ideal platform depends on who you talk to. Realistically, the aircraft is just another tool in the box and seeing as how each fire is different with it's own set of dynamics, you use the proper tool...right?

SEAT's and S2's are great for some areas and terrain where getting something larger, like a P3 or a Neptune, are not only impractical, but dangerous. Terrain has a lot to do with how effective a certain tanker type will perform. Fire generates it's own weather, thus, thermals in certain areas will toss a smaller tanker quicker than a larger one. Wind speed, airspeed, and drop altitude all figure into this as well. Retardant coverage is another factor that is part of the equation. Fuel density on the ground requires different coverage levels, which brings us back the different aircraft being used. There was a time when either you dropped a half load or a full load. Nowdays, with the computer controlled system, that part of the game has changed.

Hopefully, Larry Kraus or Kenny Chapman will chime in for this subject, as both are current in the industry.

Tom

[fyrflyr]

I suppose the ideal platform depends on who you talk to. Realistically, the aircraft is just another tool in the box and seeing as how each fire is different with it's own set of dynamics, you use the proper tool...right?

SEAT's and S2's are great for some areas and terrain where getting something larger, like a P3 or a Neptune, are not only impractical, but dangerous. Terrain has a lot to do with how effective a certain tanker type will perform. Fire generates it's own weather, thus, thermals in certain areas will toss a smaller tanker quicker than a larger one. Wind speed, airspeed, and drop altitude all figure into this as well. Retardant coverage is another factor that is part of the equation. Fuel density on the ground requires different coverage levels, which brings us back the different aircraft being used. There was a time when either you dropped a half load or a full load. Nowdays, with the computer controlled system, that part of the game has changed.

Hopefully, Larry Kraus or Kenny Chapman will chime in for this subject, as both are current in the industry.

Larry and Kenny can most certinelly fill you in on the different tools for the tool box. Kenny on helicopters, because he's flown them all, from the smallest to the biggest. Larry can fill you in on the tankers, as he currently fly's the DC-7. And as far as the 7 goes, as our old mentor, Don Ornbaum used to say, he can put that DC-7 anywhere you can put an S2. And he did.

Bob

[Ztex]

As for new tankers....there is this idea.

viewtopic.php?p=401572#p401572

BAe146-200 air tanker.

http://wildfiretoday.com/2010/05/26/a-n ... /#comments

http://missoulian.com/news/local/articl ... 002e0.html



Photo by TOM BAUER/Missoulian

[the330thbg]

Why weren't the KC-97's ever utilized as firebombers?

Certainly could carry more of a load than a PBY or '24 variant.

Because they were still being used in active duty?

Thanks!

[Chuck97]

UM, did you not see the picture of Tanker 84, ex KC-97G/L, 52-2698, was Hawkins and Powers fire bomber, used in AK, many times. The KC-97 fire tankers were the largest of the round engine tankers. Back up a page, and scroll down to that beautiful Lady.

[Jack Frost]

When I try to view many of the photos on this thread, all I get is a notice that bandwidth is exceeded and to get Photoshop Pro. Is this a problem on this thread or do I have a problem with my IE browser?

Any help would be appreciated.
Jack

[the330thbg]

that happens to me as well. Intermittently

[WallyB]

When I try to view many of the photos on this thread, all I get is a notice that bandwidth is exceeded and to get Photoshop Pro. Is this a problem on this thread or do I have a problem with my IE browser?

Any help would be appreciated.
Jack

Nothing to do with you Jack. The account on Photobucket which is hosting the photos has exceeded it's monthly access limit. The photos should magically reappear next month, ie. tomorrow .

It's the account owner who is being urged to upgrade ($$), not you.

[Canso42]

thanks for explaining the bandwidth issue before I stuck my foot in it showing my electronic ineptitude.
PB4Y-2 tanker C30 is the one at Lone Star.

[WallyB]

As for new tankers....there is this idea.

viewtopic.php?p=401572#p401572

BAe146-200 air tanker.

Seems to me USFS has decided never to use converted airliners again.

As I posted before they are unlikely to buy CL415s or Berievs (NIH ?) so it looks like SEATs and Bells from here on.
The existing type 4s will soldier on until they fall apart, hopefully NOT in the air, and they are just memories like the above.

[Jack Frost]

Thanks WallyB

[sledge39]

...H&P's Tanker 84 was the second C-97 tanker...

...this was the first one...YC-97 45-59587 N9538C...seen at Chino 1962...

Last edited by sledge39 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[The Inspector]

Short tail and 'Gumps' neato!