DC4/C54 Firebombers

[exhaustgases]

I think the liability issue with ex-military aircraft is more politics than anything else. Most military airplanes I've ever been around have tended to be in pretty good shape, inside and out. There's a lot more civilian junk flying around out there than freshly surplussed ex-military stuff.

I'm admittedly prejudiced but I'd be pretty uncomfortable bombing with a Herc, it's just not what that airplane is for, and the cockpit of a Herc was home for me for almost twenty years. For my money I'd just put a three-thousand US gallon tank on an overhauled, stripped out P-3. You could operate it out of any 5000' strip, paved or gravel, it's got four turboprops that answer their throttles faster than any piston engine, crews are available, parts are available, and it handles like a fighter. Exiting a drop with the Electra I fly now you just open the taps and point it in the direction you want to go (up, down, or "that way") and she just leaves and hopefully you get the flaps up before you overspeed them.

In Allisons we trust - especially four of them.

Herc? C-130 was the Hawkins and Powers plane that lost its wings and started the whole anti Piston powered large plane fiasco, and it was a turbine plane.
Can't use a turbine they burn too much fuel all your gallon capacity is eaten up by turbine juice. Turbines are not a choice for fire planes. The new plane would also need renewed recip manufacturing and the fuel they use should be that turbine juice, get the BSFC in the .3 or less range, it maybe that good or better with the Achates engine design. No turbine could come close and have the flexibility, the plane should be able to scoop the H2o from lakes like the big martins do or did.