Airtanker Groundings/Aging Aircraft

[Roger Cain]

Easy there Rob, just pokin' you in the side. I agree that we've got major problems with the environuts, although they've done some good too, otherwise we wouldn't have the Redwood Forests or parks that are currently around. Also, with mountains that go as high as 14,000 feet in this state, good luck with fire control.

Fifth largest state? You better go back to school Rob, Maine falls as #39 in size. Information on all the state sizes can be found at http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml

Roger

[Don Martin]

How about re-opening a production line and bulding some NEW aircraft purpose-built as fire bombers. I'm thinking maybe the C-130J line(if it has even ended production) or even the P-3s if possible. I'm thinking a Herk with the cargo bay converted into separate storage tanks for water and retardent and using modified under-wing fuel tanks as the dropping system. That would allow a drop of what, 1000?, 2000? gallons? Thus allowing multiple drops without a RTB. It would give a wider dispersal pattern than the Jiffy Tanks(or whatever they are called) that the AFRES and ANG use now. And they would be air refillable, in whatever mixture required, from the main cargo-bay tanks. And with a dump from the main tanks going out through what used to be the ramp and aft cargo doors, you could dump the whole load when the situation requires. All this, in the case of the C-130's, would be built on an airframe designed for low altitude, high stress(G's) AND unimproved landing facilities(Don't forget- Zero time on the airframe instead of old and worn out). All together an aircraft designed for harsh duty , and suitable for both California/Western-style and the little old camp-type fires we have in this end of the world. And, who knows some other party(s) with forest fire problems might look twice at a purpose built fire bomber. The more the merrier!

[Joe Scheil]

Its neat to dream, but the purpose built fire bomber really is not cost effective or even better than what currently exists. The P-3 Orion is the fastest, harder hitting tanker that could go on and fly another 15 years. The Martin Mars is the best tanker ever by the way. Regardless of how good and safe the P-3 is, the USFS is out of the large fixed wing tanker business as a CONCEPT. The 747 and others have the same future as the CF-105...

Eco Nuts may have caused "problems", and given there are many oversights and overzealous attacks by them. Its also important to remember that California's forests are second to none. We have the some of the best forest that has survived. Remember that any forest east of the rockies is new scrub trees, as all of the timber was taken prior to 1820 for ships and cities. While I don't agree with a lot of their methods, the flight from the north state line down to Reading past Shasta is about as good as it gets. Its just too bad we can't legally buzz Yosemite Valley in Mustangs.....

[Don Martin]

I know it's just dreamn', but just like everything else OUR Government does, the current solution seems to be half-fast at best! And with out a doubt the Mars is the absolute greatest thing. And if you should choose to fly back east to see what wall to wall evergreen looks like(2/3's of the state being trees), you can buzz the Penobscot Valley all you wan't. Every one will think you're just another float plane with those coasre pitch props!

[dj51d]

There has been some recent progress on getting the large air tankers back into the air. As many as 5 P-3's from Aero Union may be in service as early as next week.

http://wildfirenews.com/ (second story at the time of this post)

[Shay]

Whatever happened to the AeroTec Retired USAF A-10 Thunderbolts conversion to their FireHog Airtanker setup? Did this fall through, fizzel out or is it still on the drawing boards? Thanks

Shay

[dj51d]

My understanding is that the US Government is flat out refusing to release any A-10's for the project due to a deal gone bad involving a certain batch of C-130's. I can't recall for certain, but I believe the same C-130 deal gone bad involved a certain organization the warbird community is none too pleased with right now.

[Randy Haskin]

There's also the fact that, when the "FireHogs" idea was first considered, the A-10 was on its way to the boneyard (for the 69th time), and the DOD was going to be getting rid of lots of them. This was also back when there was serious consideration to giving some A-10s to the Army as well. I remember this discussion circa 1992 or 1993, as there were talks among my ROTC class about cross-commissioning into the Army to fly their "new" Hogs.

The Air Force has a growing interest in the A-10 every year. Especially in the wake of OIF...they're now proposing re-engining the fleet and giving them all glass cockpits and a host of new goodies.

So, on one hand, I don't believe that the DOD is as supportive of the project as they once were.

Two...I mentioned the FireHog concept to a couple of A-10 pilots that I work with in my current job. They both openly laughed in my face, saying that the concept wouldn't work as proposed. Something to do with the CG shift of removing the gun, but I'm not 100% certain. I remember reading the FireHog webpage thinking that they had a pretty decent plan on making the modification to air tanker work, but these guys were both adamant that the concept was a joke.

[Scott Rose]

There's also the fact that, when the "FireHogs" idea was first considered, the A-10 was on its way to the boneyard (for the 69th time), and the DOD was going to be getting rid of lots of them. This was also back when there was serious consideration to giving some A-10s to the Army as well. I remember this discussion circa 1992 or 1993, as there were talks among my ROTC class about cross-commissioning into the Army to fly their "new" Hogs.

The Air Force has a growing interest in the A-10 every year. Especially in the wake of OIF...they're now proposing re-engining the fleet and giving them all glass cockpits and a host of new goodies.

So, on one hand, I don't believe that the DOD is as supportive of the project as they once were.

Two...I mentioned the FireHog concept to a couple of A-10 pilots that I work with in my current job. They both openly laughed in my face, saying that the concept wouldn't work as proposed. Something to do with the CG shift of removing the gun, but I'm not 100% certain. I remember reading the FireHog webpage thinking that they had a pretty decent plan on making the modification to air tanker work, but these guys were both adamant that the concept was a joke.

I remember this conversation on the old forum. I think the issue of the CG came up, it's not really an issue, IMO. Of course the CG would be thrown off if it wasn't replaced but fitting ballast to the gunbay (even a lead cannon replica) wouldn't be impossible.

The A-10 is my favorite "modern" jet and I'm really glad to hear the USAF is finally realizing it's potential. Its proposed replacement (the F-16) is a fine aircraft but cannot take the punishment and damage of a low-level ground attack environment.

Thanks for the infor Randy

Oh yeah, here is the Firehogs site.

http://www.firehogs.com/

[Ollie]

Hey Rob, your Mi-8s are in fact Mi-14s...

Check the amphib hull with the radar fairing up front!

[Roger Cain]

Thanks, I down loaded the wrong pic,

So Rob, what was the correct picture?

I was out at Minden NV yesterday and they were happy about the decision with the P-3's. As I understood it, a P-3 is going to be on standby for Minden, but will be based at Chico (Aero Unions homebase). There are two P2-V's awaiting airframe inspection at Minden, so hopefully they'll be clearing some of the others to fly also. Currently they have two of the AT-301's on duty along with a Huey, and there was also a Canadian Coulson Sikorsky helo awaiting calls, that had been brought in for the Verdi fire..........Roger

[Don Martin]

Just a note, I caught some nice footage of some P-3s firebombing the latest wildfires out west on the national news this morning. Quite a sight!

[Roger Cain]

Dang, we got fires out here again?

[Don Martin]

I thought that was your other season besides rainy!

[Scott Rose]

I thought that was your other season besides rainy!

California is all new age earthy crunchy tree huggery. They don't have seasons, they have the elements. Water (rain), Fire (wildfires), Earth (mudslides), and Air (El Nino).