747 tanker

[inline]

Saw a picture of Evergreen's 747 tanker. Awesome!

 

[propsarebest]

Too bad its flying freight right now...


We are almost done with a second one, and this one will be a tanker 100% of the time.

 

[Zoneload]

The Evergreen Supertanker has completed its certification and is now available for service and ready to assist agencies with fires during the remainder of the 2008 fire season. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[stupidpilot]

Omni's DC-10-10 tanker is pretty cool too!

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/3/4/1208436.jpg

 

[mvedepo]

Evergreens is much more versatile then the DC-10. There are huge advantages of the pressurized system opposed to the gravity drop.

 

[avbug]

How so?

 

[mvedepo]

The biggest is safety. Having a pressurized system allows the Supertanker to fight fires from a higher altitude over conventional gravity drop systems.
Among other things it allows you to be more versatile in regard to what you are carrying. The Supertanker has numerous other possible functions such as oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather alteration.

 

[richav8ter]

I saw this thing in action at Pinal airpark AZ. Evergreens T-28 photo bird was doing action shots of it dropping water. Most cool , in front of the setting sun.

 

[stupidpilot]

Evergreens is much more versatile then the DC-10. There are huge advantages of the pressurized system opposed to the gravity drop.

I believe the Omni bird is pressurized as well, I know there are several pumps in there. Honestly I'm not sure.

 

[avbug]

The biggest is safety. Having a pressurized system allows the Supertanker to fight fires from a higher altitude over conventional gravity drop systems.
Among other things it allows you to be more versatile in regard to what you are carrying. The Supertanker has numerous other possible functions such as oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather alteration.

You've got no aerial firefighting experience, do you?

It shows.

 

[stupidpilot]

You've got no aerial firefighting experience, do you?

It shows.

Ouch!

 

[mvedepo]

You've got no aerial firefighting experience, do you?

It shows.

Sooooo you are saying being able to fly 200 - 600 ft higher then other drop planes isn't a benefit? I bet the crew on the DC-10 would have liked to have an extra couple hundred feet of altitude when they mowed down those trees last year.

Enlighten me one who is all knowing....

 

[mvedepo]

Evergreen has invested over $50M and 20,000 engineering hours to introduce and deploy this exciting technology during this fire season, with a strong focus on effectiveness, safety, and operational efficiency.

A development effort from the family of Evergreen Companies, the Supertanker brings a massive payload of over 20,000 gallons of fire fighting agent (about 7 times the volume of the federal government's largest air tanker), and a revolutionary pressurized system that allows fires to be fought from higher, safer altitudes. The Supertanker also brings an innovative capability - the ability to fight fires at night - while they are "dormant" and most vulnerable.

You really should call Evergreen also and let them know they wasted $50,000,000 because their setup is obviously inept compared to conventional drop methods. You could be a hero and prevent them from wasting anymore money.

Here's the number:
503-472-9361

Ask for Del.

 

[avbug]

Sooooo you are saying being able to fly 200 - 600 ft higher then other drop planes isn't a benefit? I bet the crew on the DC-10 would have liked to have an extra couple hundred feet of altitude when they mowed down those trees last year.

It struck the trees because it was being flown by an inexperienced crew that wasn't qualified to be there, who flew improperly, and struck terrain. It's a big source of contention in the fire industry. It's also part of the reason that the federal government refused to contract the DC-10.

Is flying higher not a benefit? No, it's not a benefit. Flying higher means more time for the retardant in the air, more time to be affected by winds, more drift, more wasted retardant, weaker targeting, and a less effective drop.

Retardant delivery in general needs to be dropped just high enough that it stops it's forward motion and falls vertically. If it has horizontal motion of consequence, then "shadowing" occurs in which part of the fuel is coated. The result is an ineffective retardant line and a burn-through.

Evergreen has been pushing the 747 for several years now. Do you see it being used on fires presently? Wonder why?

Del used to be a player in the fire business. He'd like to be again. Presently, he's not.

"Super tankers," while having some limited use on a few fires, primarily in the Region 5, southern California area, are slow to turn around, slow to load, can operate from just two tanker bases in the country, tend to drop too high for precise targeting on many fires, are too few in numbers, far too expensive per gallon of delivered retardant, and in the case of the DC-10, require their own dedicated leadplane.

 

[mvedepo]

It struck the trees because it was being flown by an inexperienced crew that wasn't qualified to be there, who flew improperly, and struck terrain. It's a big source of contention in the fire industry. It's also part of the reason that the federal government refused to contract the DC-10.

Is flying higher not a benefit? No, it's not a benefit. Flying higher means more time for the retardant in the air, more time to be affected by winds, more drift, more wasted retardant, weaker targeting, and a less effective drop.

Retardant delivery in general needs to be dropped just high enough that it stops it's forward motion and falls vertically. If it has horizontal motion of consequence, then "shadowing" occurs in which part of the fuel is coated. The result is an ineffective retardant line and a burn-through.

Evergreen has been pushing the 747 for several years now. Do you see it being used on fires presently? Wonder why?

Del used to be a player in the fire business. He'd like to be again. Presently, he's not.

"Super tankers," while having some limited use on a few fires, primarily in the Region 5, southern California area, are slow to turn around, slow to load, can operate from just two tanker bases in the country, tend to drop too high for precise targeting on many fires, are too few in numbers, far too expensive per gallon of delivered retardant, and in the case of the DC-10, require their own dedicated leadplane.

I understand what you are saying but this thread was about the 747. I was just pointing out that that the 747 has certain advantages over the DC-10 when someone brought it up. I am not comparing the drop efficiency of EITHER of the "Supertankers" to the P-3, CL-415, JRM-3, or any of the other standard application aircraft in operation today.

 

[stupidpilot]

It struck the trees because it was being flown by an inexperienced crew that wasn't qualified to be there, who flew improperly, and struck terrain. It's a big source of contention in the fire industry. It's also part of the reason that the federal government refused to contract the DC-10.

I beg to differ, the crew all were extremely experienced DC-10 pilots. It was more of a matter of learning how a DC-10 could be utilized to fight fires. The chase plane they were following ventured too close to the terrain and the crew did not realize what was happening until it happened. Chalk it up to learning how to fly a big plane close to the ground where there are fires. Also, the fed govt refused to contract the DC-10 is because the other fire fighter tanker pilots were whining about how they would lose their jobs, it had nothing to do with the tree strike.

 

[avbug]

I understand what the thread is about. However, the use of a pressure system offers no advantage to retardant delivery.

The selling point that Evergreen is attempting to make is that the "pressurized" system creates a better delivery pattern.

Unfortunately, part of the reason that the DC-10 finally got in the field and got picked up by CDF, and the 747 did not, is that the drop pattern for the 747 was unacceptable.

There's no disadvantage to a "gravity" system using standard tank doors.

Pressurized delivery systems such as the AeroUnion MAFFS unit presently in use in military C-130's is an example. They offer no particular advantage, save for that application in which they are modular and require no door system.

A large, swept wing aircraft with low maneuverability isn't necessarily the best possible option for tactical firefighting.

There's a reason that Evergreen's airplane is still hauling freight, and not dropping on fires.

 

[avbug]

I beg to differ, the crew all were extremely experienced DC-10 pilots.

Irrelevant. They were not experienced fire pilots and had no business being there. That they hit the ground is proof enough.

The chase plane they were following ventured too close to the terrain and the crew did not realize what was happening until it happened.

Rubbish.

It's not a "chase plane." It's a leadplane, and high or low, the position or the lead is irrelevant. If the lead flew into the hillside, would they do so too?

The lead isn't there to teach them how to fly. They're supposed to be competent enough to do that all by their lonesome. The lead is there to investigate the route into the drop and out, to investigate the air (downdraft, turbulence, etc), give input on the proper drop, fire behavior, and coordinate with the air attack and incident commander or his representive, and then to give a guided run to help identify drift and the proper approach line and drop point.

The lead is NOT there to prevent an aircraft that he can't see, from flying into the ground.

Chalk it up to learning how to fly a big plane close to the ground where there are fires.

Chalk it up to an unqualified, inexperienced crew not being where they should have been and flying their airplane into the ground.

No matter what one's assignment in the air, we all operate under one basic tenet which is universal; don't fly into the ground. They did that.

Trying to pawn it off on the leadplane pilot or anybody else just doesn't cut it. Their excuse? They hit a "downdraft."

Also, the fed govt refused to contract the DC-10 is because the other fire fighter tanker pilots were whining about how they would lose their jobs, it had nothing to do with the tree strike.

No. The DC-10's failure to obtain a federal firefighting contract had nothing to do with other pilots. Clearly you know nothing about contracting, but rest assured that "pilots whining" has no place, nor consideration in the contracting process...nor has it ever had any influence in obtaining or denial of a fire contract.

The DC-10 was overpriced. They lowered their price enough that CDF grudgingly brought them on, and is trying very hard to justify their use presently.

The DC-10 can't use other lead aircraft; it has a dedicated lead, which function alone restricts it from most fire operations, and it can't drop unless it's dedicated lead is present. It's inability to use most tanker bases, it's long reload times and turnaround times, and it's inability to operate in most of the US for firefighting operations also killed it's viability for federal fires. It's been used on federal fires within California...but it's too expensive to fly far to drop a load, and can't go anywhere else to reload...there are few places that can accomodate it.

Furthermore, attempting to use it tactically on fires is futile. It's a broad brush for long firelines. It's chief value is putting down retardant to cool a fire...but retardant isn't used to cool fires; it's used to build precise lines to direct and control fire behavior, for structural protection, etc. It's often used in close direct support of ground troops, reinforcing dozer lines, protecting landing zones, etc...all things not suited to the DC10. Additionally, whereas many tanker operations require radican maneuvering, steep descents, and operations not above terrain but among terrain in canyons, etc...the DC10 (and the 747) is NOT suited for those operations.

Furthermore, many fires have significant debris above the fire which can break windscreens, FOD engines, etc...big open fans don't tolerate that well. The aircraft presents considerably higher maintenance expenses (which factor into not only the operational contract, but off season expenses to the government), etc.

One of the primary values of a tanker is the ability to move it to a fire area where it can have short turnarounds and make frequent visits to the fire, or can catch a fire early. With the amount of time required to mobilize the DC10 or B747, it's not much of a tactical response tool, and is therefore limited further in it's utility.

These fieldings are certainly viable tools in the firefighting toolbox, but limited ones...and their advantages are not the ones you think.

 

[DC4boy]

I beg to differ, the crew all were extremely experienced DC-10 pilots. It was more of a matter of learning how a DC-10 could be utilized to fight fires. The chase plane they were following ventured too close to the terrain and the crew did not realize what was happening until it happened. Chalk it up to learning how to fly a big plane close to the ground where there are fires. Also, the fed govt refused to contract the DC-10 is because the other fire fighter tanker pilots were whining about how they would lose their jobs, it had nothing to do with the tree strike.

Who the ef' told you that!?

I was on that fire when it happend, the LEAD executed a picture perfect run on realitvely mild day in the Tehachapi's. The pilot flying the lead is perhaps the most seasoned, and without a doubt, the best in the industry. I wish I could show the video here, it would show just how bad the -10 crew f'd up.

Not a single pilot was whining about any job. The DC-10 (at the time) did not meet the USFS requirments regarding operational service life. If it had been allowed to operate in the fire environment on Federal land, every operator who had aircraft parked in 2004 due to lack of OSL data, would have had grounds for a law suit.

Experience; yes the Omni/Tanker 10 LLC crew is very experienced in the DC-10. To obtain an Inter Agency Initial Attack Card, one most go through extensive training in the fire environment. As well as 100+hrs low level/mountainous terrain, supervised drops, lead plane join ups, all of which takes at least two season to obtain. All of wich the DC-10 crew did not posess, and it showed.

I don't mean to come off as condecending, but you are wrong.

 

[DC4boy]

ahhh you beat me to it!

 

[avbug]

Experience; yes the Omni/Tanker 10 LLC crew is very experienced in the DC-10. To obtain an Inter Agency Initial Attack Card, one most go through extensive training in the fire environment. As well as 100+hrs low level/mountainous terrain, supervised drops, lead plane join ups, all of which takes at least two season to obtain. All of wich the DC-10 crew did not posess, and it showed.

DC4boy is being exceptionally generous to the DC10 crew, in a tactful manner. While it's possible, technically, to obtain a card within those times...typically one is over fires for ten years before being able to act as PIC in a tanker.

Being qualified to fly a stable instrument approach on breezy day to a nice, long instrument runway is not the same as flying a drop in the mountains in high winds, severe turbulence, low visibility, with high traffic density, when others are counting on you and the taxpayer is footing the bill. Simply because one is qualified to fly the airplane does NOT mean one is qualified to fight fire with it.

Flying the airplane is just a small part of using it to fight fires.

 

[DC4boy]

Yep, just finished my 8th consecutive fire season. 1500+hrs in the fire environment, scratch free, and still not the Capt. of an airtanker. Still lots to learn!

I guess those Omni guy's are just better than me..

 

[stupidpilot]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees. Again, the lead may have been very experienced, but not with a DC-10. Different aircraft, different techniques. So I still say it was not entirely the Dc-10 crew's fault. It does sound like there could have been quite a bit more learning that had to be done prior to utilizing the aircraft on an actual fire.

 

[propsarebest]

The 747 is available NOW,if any agency wants it. We just got an new STC signed off for a different pressure system. The tanks are now installed in the aircraft, not just on pallets like the first one was.

No customers yet, however.

 

[DC4boy]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees. Again, the lead may have been very experienced, but not with a DC-10. Different aircraft, different techniques. So I still say it was not entirely the Dc-10 crew's fault. It does sound like there could have been quite a bit more learning that had to be done prior to utilizing the aircraft on an actual fire.

B.S.

The profile flown by the lead for the Dc-10 was flown between 300-500' AGL, mandatory. Four airtankers' flew that same line <150' AGL just minutes before, all uneventful.

I was there, I've seen the video. Classic rookie mistakes. They're lucky to be alive.

Move on

 

[avbug]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees. Again, the lead may have been very experienced, but not with a DC-10. Different aircraft, different techniques. So I still say it was not entirely the Dc-10 crew's fault. It does sound like there could have been quite a bit more learning that had to be done prior to utilizing the aircraft on an actual fire.

Stupidpilot, you certainly picked an apt screen name.

You assert that the small lower powered leadplane handled the turbulence, but the DC10 didn't, and it's the leads fault...you spoke to the idiot that flew into the hillside...but not to the lead pilot...and make your assertion based on having exactly 0 firefighting experience, not having been there, and without a leg to stand upon. Brilliant.

Whether a lead has flown ahead of a DC-10 before is irrelevant. Leads do dissimiliar flight with numerous other types of aircraft ranging from large four engine military equipment to helicopters to single engine air tankers. The lead doesn't tell the tanker how to fly. The tanker can never blame their poor, and in this case stupid, performance on the lead. This was all on the DC10 pilots. You think the lead flew them through a downdraft and it's the leads fault? Got news for you. Fly a proper line in and there's no issue with a "downdraft." That they hit the hillside is bad enough. That they tried to excuse themselves by blaming it on a downdraft is pathetic.

That they have tried to assert it had anything to do with the leadplane pilot is unforgivable. What more can be said about them than that they're idiots, other than they had the unprofessional gall to attempt to blame their own failing upon someone who didn't and couldn't have let them down. Funny that the lead made it through that run, that the other tankers made it through the run, but they didn't.

A little more to learn? Nothing that ten more years as a copilot on fires wouldn't fix...for them. I don't care if they're a 25,000 hour pilot...if it's their first hour over the fire, then they're a 1 hour pilot over a fire. Period.

Different aircraft, different techniques, you say? No. Do you have any concept what a leadplane pilot does? No.

As for you, based on your ability to jump to conclusions regarding subjects about which you know nothing...it's doubtful that 25,000 hours over a fire would teach you much.

Dandy that the 747 is up and ready to go. Is a fire-qualified and experienced crew ready to go to fly it?

 

[stupidpilot]

Relax. You're getting way too defensive and wrapped around the axle about all this. You assume I have no firefighting experience, well you would be wrong. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on some aspects of the incident.

 

[DC4boy]

Relax. You're getting way too defensive and wrapped around the axle about all this. You assume I have no firefighting experience, well you would be wrong. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on some aspects of the incident.

Enlighten us, please.

There's nothing to disagree on.

I'll mention this to the CalFire AMU officials, and the lead driver, and see what their reaction is.

 

[mushroom]

I never even heard about this accident. Is there a link to the NTSB narrative?

 

[414Flyer]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees.

Thats just a normal part of aerial firefighting, and mountainous terrain flying. Combine the two, and you have to expect that kind of turbulence. You cant blame the turbulence for it, since an crew experienced in that kind of environment knows to expect those kind of winds as a possibility, and knows what to do if they encounter it.

When you said that they were experienced, its not that it was in a DC-10 that counts more than fire. There are all kinds of people with lots of big iron experience, but it means little over a fire, as evidenced by this incident. Its fire experience that counts much more. The fact that they are trying to pass it off on the lead plane and or the weather, just speaks volumes to anyone who has fire experience.

With enough bananas, you could train monkeys to crew a DC-10. Not so with aerial firefighting.

I would much rather fly with someone experienced in fire but their first year in that kind of plane, than someone experienced in that plane, but first year on a fire.