747 fire bomber

[jsoceanlord]

evergreen aviation is converting a 747 for firebombing.

the idea is that one of these will be equal to about 10 c-130's. The plane's supposed to cover a huge region, like the western US, and fly around and kick a_s on fires. It's supposed to make the drops with gear and flaps down.

 

[fr0g]

whoa.. now *that* would be a fun job!!!!

 

[labbats]

holy crap!

 

[avbug]

Two large aircraft are under development for that purpose right now; the B747, and the DC-10.

The real problem lies in that such a platform has some limited application on large project fires, but not on tactical missions or early starts. Additionally, the facilities from which these aircraft can operate is limited, as their application in the fire environment.

The concept of the "supertanker" has been bantied about for years. What's not considered is that just like the caliber of a weapon, it's not the size, it's how you use it.

Firefighting isn't about dumping all the water or retardant you can on a fire. That can serve to make things worse, if it's not done properly.

Firefighting is seldom done on a nice, flat plain in calm conditions. In fact, from an aerial attack standpoint, it's never done. It's generally done in very hilly or mountainous terrain in very low visibility in high winds, often with severe to extreme turbulence. The aircraft involved often must make tight turns, or have the capability of doing so. Drop altitude is within a narrow range; too close and damage can occur to the surface (including pushing the fire, shadowing in which only part of the fuel is covered, risk to personnel on the ground, etc). Too high and there is excessive drift, the inability to target or build line, and the likelihood of dissipation and ineffectiveness of the drop.

An aircraft dropping the volume described for the B747, as put out by Evergreen, will need a minimum drop height of 800' or higher, making controllability of the retardant or water/wet-water very difficult. It may have value in generally cooling a large flame front, but those who have been in a real fire, with 300' flames and temperatures in excess of 2,500 degrees, know that there's nothing mankind can do to really cool that kind of a fire. Direct attack is not the answer.

The 747 in close quarters in rough air at slow airspeeds (necessitated for proper use of retardant) in near zero visibility may present a number of problems, both due to maneuverability, the swept wing, the turbofan engines over a fire, the quantity of drop material, etc.

The turbofan engines must also be considered; during the last spat of fires in Southern California, six tankers had their windscreens shattered on the first day, by flying trees and debris. Try fodding out the engine on the airliner you fly with a tree, and see what happens. Think of it this way; if you ingest a large object in your airplanes engines, are you going to return and load, and come back again without a very thorough maintenance check and release? On a fire, speed is time is life, and there isn't time to down the aircraft because you hit something...if that's going to be an issue, don't go to the fire in the first place.

Dispatch locations are an issue. While the 747 has a high cruise speed in the flight levels, it would be operating at lower levels most of the time; slower speeds, high fuel consumption. The number of tanker bases that can accomodate an aircraft at that weight are few and far between; the tanker would need to ferry a very long distance, adding to long turn around times and increased costs. Much better to have several single engine air tankers or even P2V's and DC-4's nearby to hit the fire repeatedly in a shorter time, for less money.

The ability to operate the airplane would be very limited due to facilities, and a host of other factors. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but it's certainly not the panacea that one might think. If it is viable, it will be one more tool to be used over the fire, albeit a very limited tool with few applications.

 

[JohnDoe]

Sure would be a sight to see though........

 

[furloughfodder]

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.html

Check out the Promo Video.

I have seen it in operation on the ground during testing. VERY impressive.

 

[F70pilot]

(with tongue placed firmly in cheek)

Maybe the tankers are really next generation chem-goo sprayers and using fire fighting as a cover storey.

 

[furloughfodder]

You never know.... it is Evergreen we are talking about here...

Just do a Google for "evergreen cia" for some entertaining reading....

 

[2000flyer]

Take a look at the bottom left picture. Looks an awful lot like the World Trade Centers to me. I hope I'm wrong, but if not, that has to be the tackiest ad I've seen.

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/images/montage_2.jpg

 

[avbug]

You're right, it does appear to be the WTC. Those are artists renderings, but in each case the drop would be completely ineffective (to say nothing of the inappropriate suggestion that the tanked 747 would have any effect on the WTC events or subsequent fires).

As for the other pictures...water on the burning oil tanker...aaah, did anyone consult a firefighter before drumming that one up? Anybody ever throw water on a grease fire??

The retardant drop some half mile or more away from the fire line, with what appears to be better than fifteen hudred feet of altitude is impressive. Wasteful, but impressive. In fact, all the pictures look rather silly.

I hope they succeed, I really do. I had hopes that the A-10 program might make some headway...but until something better comes along than the way we do it now...those concepts may not be as viable as the excitement they generate.