Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
747 fire bomber
- Thread starter jsoceanlord
- Start date
- Watchers 10
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
dash8driver
Foamy Specialist
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 1,217
sure you did. you dont have to use the word itself. based on what you're saying you're implying that they got it all wrong.
i'm not trying to refute anything. i'm not claiming i have more experience or research than anyone else or any company. i recognize that you are the fire guru and simply suggested you might want to help them out since your fire experience, 747 experience, and extensive research on the project obviously surpasses that of anything Evergreen, their researchers or anyone they've hired on it have. Its pretty obvious they havent thought this through, they threw up a website and a promotional video in the heat of the moment without putting any time or resources into seeing if the project is feasable like you have.
i'm not trying to refute anything. i'm not claiming i have more experience or research than anyone else or any company. i recognize that you are the fire guru and simply suggested you might want to help them out since your fire experience, 747 experience, and extensive research on the project obviously surpasses that of anything Evergreen, their researchers or anyone they've hired on it have. Its pretty obvious they havent thought this through, they threw up a website and a promotional video in the heat of the moment without putting any time or resources into seeing if the project is feasable like you have.
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
Well Avbug:
We used our air tankers (PBY's) as initial attack and were very successful in that role as long as we got on the fire before it became to big or hot to control with water drops..
Usually we carried long term to the fire, then scooped until it either was under control for the ground guys or it was no longer feasible to fight it with the water bomber.
And we would average six minutes between drops for the season, we did more drops in a day than some land based tankers would do in a week.
I am not going to comment on the 47 simply because I do not have any idea of what it is capable of.
We used our air tankers (PBY's) as initial attack and were very successful in that role as long as we got on the fire before it became to big or hot to control with water drops..
Usually we carried long term to the fire, then scooped until it either was under control for the ground guys or it was no longer feasible to fight it with the water bomber.
And we would average six minutes between drops for the season, we did more drops in a day than some land based tankers would do in a week.
I am not going to comment on the 47 simply because I do not have any idea of what it is capable of.
SLAFCO?
Dash8, before you get too carried away in your sarcastic wit, don't lose sight of the fact that Evergreen is trying to sell a product. It's not a charity out to just do the right thing. The goal of evergreen is to produce something saleable, and whatever can be done to sell that item will be done, period.
You're not familiar with the extensive sales jobs done to support pushing the A-10 as an air tanker, either...you'd recognize it as being in the same vein.
I have repeatedly, make that REPEATEDLY, stated that I hope evergreen succeeds, and that it's just another tool to be used over the fire. It happens that this is a limited use tool; it's not something to initial attack a fire, nor to be used on starts; it's something to be used on large project fires for extensive line building...at a time when national fire policy has expressely established that we're trying to get away from line building.
The real firefighting is done by groundpounders, period. As aerial firefighters, we only support ground troops. They do the real work, and get little of the "glory," whatever that may be. Any aerial asset is there only to support ground operations. That has always been the case, and always will be. Anyone who has ever worked a fire fully understands that fact.
Dash8, before you get too carried away in your sarcastic wit, don't lose sight of the fact that Evergreen is trying to sell a product. It's not a charity out to just do the right thing. The goal of evergreen is to produce something saleable, and whatever can be done to sell that item will be done, period.
You're not familiar with the extensive sales jobs done to support pushing the A-10 as an air tanker, either...you'd recognize it as being in the same vein.
I have repeatedly, make that REPEATEDLY, stated that I hope evergreen succeeds, and that it's just another tool to be used over the fire. It happens that this is a limited use tool; it's not something to initial attack a fire, nor to be used on starts; it's something to be used on large project fires for extensive line building...at a time when national fire policy has expressely established that we're trying to get away from line building.
The real firefighting is done by groundpounders, period. As aerial firefighters, we only support ground troops. They do the real work, and get little of the "glory," whatever that may be. Any aerial asset is there only to support ground operations. That has always been the case, and always will be. Anyone who has ever worked a fire fully understands that fact.
Last edited:
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
urflyingme?!
Man Among Men
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,275
You guys are all mising the real topic here! WEATHER MODFICATION!
...and I quote....
Are there any other markets for the Evergreen Supertanker? Can it operate globally?
Evergreen is studying other applications for the Supertanker. Oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and
weather modification are all potential markets for this aircraft. Because the aircraft is pressurized, the Evergreen Supertanker has the capability of any long-range Boeing 747 passenger aircraft. This allows the aircraft to deploy to any international location.
They're all out to get us!!! AHHHHHHHH!
...and I quote....
Are there any other markets for the Evergreen Supertanker? Can it operate globally?
Evergreen is studying other applications for the Supertanker. Oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and
weather modification are all potential markets for this aircraft. Because the aircraft is pressurized, the Evergreen Supertanker has the capability of any long-range Boeing 747 passenger aircraft. This allows the aircraft to deploy to any international location.
They're all out to get us!!! AHHHHHHHH!
dash8driver
Foamy Specialist
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 1,217
this is true. this probably isnt really meant to be used for fire fighting. that's probably a decoy to fake everyone out. its really going to be used for spraying chemtrails over the US and the rest of the world. it will be able to lay out longer and thicker chemical trails.
avbug, do you have any experience in chemtrails and how feasable this would be?
where is that denver130 guy.. i'm sure he has some input.
avbug, do you have any experience in chemtrails and how feasable this would be?
where is that denver130 guy.. i'm sure he has some input.
urflyingme?!
Man Among Men
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Posts
- 1,275
I've worked with canadian CL215's and 415's on fires on both sides of the border. Scoopers have merit where there is ample water, but there are many locations where they don't. One thing I did note when flying across the border in regions where the use of scoopers was the rule was that the birddogs had seemed to have no real concept about the proper use of retardant.
Having lost another tanker pilot yesterday, I'm not in a humorous mood. One is always too many...but it seems that it's all too frequently one too many.
Having lost another tanker pilot yesterday, I'm not in a humorous mood. One is always too many...but it seems that it's all too frequently one too many.
007
dinosaur secret agent
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2003
- Posts
- 394
I have flown over 500 hrs of Air Attack in the Rocky Mountain Region and several of my friends are leadplane pilots,
I can tell you that this application is complete OVERKILL designed by people that have never fought fire from the air.
You never drop on a fire directly except in dire circumstances (Troops being overrun) or extremely small fires. It is called retardent for a reason. It slows the fires progress in order for the Gound personnel to build a fireline so it can be contained. Firelines are not always precise but do require a certain amount of controllability, as previously mentioned, the drop height is to great and (just for the Rockies) a 747 would never be able to maneuver down a ridgeline and make a drop downhill, or if the doors fail, be able to pull out of the downhill run.
It would probably have application in the plains, but on a limited basis.
I have also heard the Dash 8 has come up as a more likely prospect.
If you guys think this is wild though, you should have heard some of the Rocket scientists in the Blue Ribbon panel after the last two crashes.
Some guy actionally wanted to attach showerheads to KC-135's and shower the fire out.
Not kidding.
I can tell you that this application is complete OVERKILL designed by people that have never fought fire from the air.
You never drop on a fire directly except in dire circumstances (Troops being overrun) or extremely small fires. It is called retardent for a reason. It slows the fires progress in order for the Gound personnel to build a fireline so it can be contained. Firelines are not always precise but do require a certain amount of controllability, as previously mentioned, the drop height is to great and (just for the Rockies) a 747 would never be able to maneuver down a ridgeline and make a drop downhill, or if the doors fail, be able to pull out of the downhill run.
It would probably have application in the plains, but on a limited basis.
I have also heard the Dash 8 has come up as a more likely prospect.
If you guys think this is wild though, you should have heard some of the Rocket scientists in the Blue Ribbon panel after the last two crashes.
Some guy actionally wanted to attach showerheads to KC-135's and shower the fire out.
Not kidding.
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
007:
I flew scoopers for fifteen years both North and South America and I can assure you we regularly dropped directly on the fire line. ( mostly the head )
Just as a guess I would say we dropped directly on the fire line in about 80% of the time.
The rest of the time we would have long term on board and of course lay a guard.
I flew scoopers for fifteen years both North and South America and I can assure you we regularly dropped directly on the fire line. ( mostly the head )
Just as a guess I would say we dropped directly on the fire line in about 80% of the time.
The rest of the time we would have long term on board and of course lay a guard.
That was probably more than 15 years ago...today going direct is infrequent and more often cowboyish. One secures the flanks, seeks an anchorpint, and then begins building line and using other fire tactics.
Going direct on a fire is the most effective way to split a head or flank, effectively creating two or more fires, and effectively reducing one's chances to successfully control the fire. This all depends, of course, on the individual fire and it's circumstances, which are legion.
If you're dropping water, which is far less effective than retardant, the only choice is to go direct. Sometimes it's very effective, but most of the time when direct attack is used, it's only because there are few other choices.
A few years ago we were the only tanker in Florida. We were early in the season. We went to a fire south of Punta Gorda, that was pushing a busy highway, moving south. A state air attack was overhead, and we linked up with him on-site. I did a turn around the fire, and found a structure on the east side that could make use of the retardant. The flame front was close to a mile wide, with 250' flame lengths, rolling hard, and moving with the wind which was about fifteen knots at the time, from the North.
The FDF air attack told us to hit the head, go direct. He knew that news helicopters were in the area, and he wanted the publicity. I advised him that we'd lose the retardant and quite possibly split the head, if the retardant had any effect at all. Our best, and really only true option with the load, considering out turn time, was to lay some protection for the structure and buy it some time.
The FDF ATGS said, and I quote, "This is Florida. That's not our style. In Florida, we hit the head."
It was his call, and we flew down a beautiful clear tunnel beneath the smoke column, directly adjacent to the flames, and hit them with a trail drop, coverage level 8.
Two hours later we were back with another load. The first had split the head, crossed the highway, stopped all traffic, risked numerous lives, and took structures (including the one we identified). Thankfully for us, we were stylish in the best Florida tradition.
Aerial firefighters do NOT fight fire. We support ground troops, who do the real work, and the hardest work. Often that involves backing up a handline, or a cat line. It may mean painting a ridge, or more commonly the backside of a ridge to prevent slopover, or even pretreating a field downwind of a burn to prevent or reduce spot fires. It may mean boxing off a helispot or LZ for troop protection. It may mean many things. But on a large fire, going direct is the least effective means of fighting fires.
Like or not, current, time proven doctrine, and one I live by. Over a fire, the first year pilots are evident when they suggest initial attack tactics, because they're always the ones who want to go direct, and usually to attack the head. The more experienced hands are usually the ones who start putting drops where you might not expect it; right along the flanks or from an anchor point...right where they need to be.
The biggest two exceptions for air ops are helicopters which generally go direct on spots or work flanking fires with helibucket drops, and SEATs (Type III, IV) tankers which do a lot of initial attack work at the very early stages...and often will lay an X over the fire or box it at a single tree or two to prevent spread. This is generally always done with retardant, whenever possible.
In big fire situations in timber, going direct has about as much effect as spitting in a furnace, especially with foam, wet water, or just plain water.
Going direct on a fire is the most effective way to split a head or flank, effectively creating two or more fires, and effectively reducing one's chances to successfully control the fire. This all depends, of course, on the individual fire and it's circumstances, which are legion.
If you're dropping water, which is far less effective than retardant, the only choice is to go direct. Sometimes it's very effective, but most of the time when direct attack is used, it's only because there are few other choices.
A few years ago we were the only tanker in Florida. We were early in the season. We went to a fire south of Punta Gorda, that was pushing a busy highway, moving south. A state air attack was overhead, and we linked up with him on-site. I did a turn around the fire, and found a structure on the east side that could make use of the retardant. The flame front was close to a mile wide, with 250' flame lengths, rolling hard, and moving with the wind which was about fifteen knots at the time, from the North.
The FDF air attack told us to hit the head, go direct. He knew that news helicopters were in the area, and he wanted the publicity. I advised him that we'd lose the retardant and quite possibly split the head, if the retardant had any effect at all. Our best, and really only true option with the load, considering out turn time, was to lay some protection for the structure and buy it some time.
The FDF ATGS said, and I quote, "This is Florida. That's not our style. In Florida, we hit the head."
It was his call, and we flew down a beautiful clear tunnel beneath the smoke column, directly adjacent to the flames, and hit them with a trail drop, coverage level 8.
Two hours later we were back with another load. The first had split the head, crossed the highway, stopped all traffic, risked numerous lives, and took structures (including the one we identified). Thankfully for us, we were stylish in the best Florida tradition.
Aerial firefighters do NOT fight fire. We support ground troops, who do the real work, and the hardest work. Often that involves backing up a handline, or a cat line. It may mean painting a ridge, or more commonly the backside of a ridge to prevent slopover, or even pretreating a field downwind of a burn to prevent or reduce spot fires. It may mean boxing off a helispot or LZ for troop protection. It may mean many things. But on a large fire, going direct is the least effective means of fighting fires.
Like or not, current, time proven doctrine, and one I live by. Over a fire, the first year pilots are evident when they suggest initial attack tactics, because they're always the ones who want to go direct, and usually to attack the head. The more experienced hands are usually the ones who start putting drops where you might not expect it; right along the flanks or from an anchor point...right where they need to be.
The biggest two exceptions for air ops are helicopters which generally go direct on spots or work flanking fires with helibucket drops, and SEATs (Type III, IV) tankers which do a lot of initial attack work at the very early stages...and often will lay an X over the fire or box it at a single tree or two to prevent spread. This is generally always done with retardant, whenever possible.
In big fire situations in timber, going direct has about as much effect as spitting in a furnace, especially with foam, wet water, or just plain water.
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
Thank you for the condescending sermon on how to fly water bombers.
Yes I quit the business in 1986, however in the fifteen years that I did fly water bombers no one ever suggested that I was a cowboy, much less indicated that I did not undersand what initial fire attack was all about.
Our method of waterbombing was quite effective, and even in those dark ages we were smart enough to know when it was either ineffective or not safe to continue so we would cease operations.
And isn't it strange that I survived so long making more drops in an hour than most land based pilots would in a day.
Anyhow thanks for giving me a lesson in flying these things.
However it a little late as I very much doubt I'll need the new found knowledge.
And by the way did you do many drops in the Andes Mountains?
If so maybe you could re adjust my lack of knowledge in that enviorement also?
Cat Driver
Yes I quit the business in 1986, however in the fifteen years that I did fly water bombers no one ever suggested that I was a cowboy, much less indicated that I did not undersand what initial fire attack was all about.
Our method of waterbombing was quite effective, and even in those dark ages we were smart enough to know when it was either ineffective or not safe to continue so we would cease operations.
And isn't it strange that I survived so long making more drops in an hour than most land based pilots would in a day.
Anyhow thanks for giving me a lesson in flying these things.
However it a little late as I very much doubt I'll need the new found knowledge.
And by the way did you do many drops in the Andes Mountains?
If so maybe you could re adjust my lack of knowledge in that enviorement also?
Cat Driver
If it was so **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** effective, mate, you wouldn't have had to do that many drops.
Think about it.
As for the "dark ages," there's a reason that the statistics are much better today than they were 10, 20, and 30 years ago. It's not luck.
The Andes hold some special technique that's only applicable to that chain of mountains, perhaps?
And yes...I have.
Think about it.
As for the "dark ages," there's a reason that the statistics are much better today than they were 10, 20, and 30 years ago. It's not luck.
The Andes hold some special technique that's only applicable to that chain of mountains, perhaps?
And yes...I have.
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
furloughfodder
Membar
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2004
- Posts
- 508
Don't take it personal Cat Driver. Avbug is an expert on a lot of things.
Avbug, we realize you have vast experience fighting fires, but just curious how much 747 time you have? You seem extremely knowledgeable about the inadequacies of this aircraft and its use as a fire fighting platform.
Avbug, we realize you have vast experience fighting fires, but just curious how much 747 time you have? You seem extremely knowledgeable about the inadequacies of this aircraft and its use as a fire fighting platform.
Last edited:
Freddie Spencer
"That's Hot"
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Posts
- 235
Tell me this, mate. I see you fly the 747. How much time have you got flying it low and slow, 200' at landing airspeeds in mountainous terrain in zero visibility in extreme turbulence with large objects flying about, loaded to gross? Do it in formation flight with dissimiliar aircraft, with up to 50 others nearby (hint; you might need to maneuver suddenly). Then turn around and buster home, for the fastest hot turnaround of your life. While you're at it, be prepared to work on it; you'll be doing a lot of the maintenance. You'll need a support squadron to follow, of course...but is it sounding like your cup of tea, yet?
Wanna give it a shot? You do that; you go fly in the fire environment and then tell me what a great platform you think it will make.
You then go down on the fireline and work a few seasons. Get hit with a drop or two. Tell me how you feel about getting sixty thousand pounds of water in your face, coming hard at 150 KIAS. Then tell me how appropriate that kind of a low level load is for the fireline.
Catdriver, I see your site indicates you're providing PBY training. Must be a big market for that...especially as you require the customer to provide the airplane. I'm not going to tell you how to teach...so long as it's not teaching firefighting. If you are, then it's probably time to attend class before getting back in the game. The game has changed...considerably for the better.
Wanna give it a shot? You do that; you go fly in the fire environment and then tell me what a great platform you think it will make.
You then go down on the fireline and work a few seasons. Get hit with a drop or two. Tell me how you feel about getting sixty thousand pounds of water in your face, coming hard at 150 KIAS. Then tell me how appropriate that kind of a low level load is for the fireline.
Catdriver, I see your site indicates you're providing PBY training. Must be a big market for that...especially as you require the customer to provide the airplane. I'm not going to tell you how to teach...so long as it's not teaching firefighting. If you are, then it's probably time to attend class before getting back in the game. The game has changed...considerably for the better.
dash8driver
Foamy Specialist
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 1,217
Cat Driver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Posts
- 257
Avbug:
I would never dare to put myself in your category. :
I don't think I would live long enough near the expert you are.
By the way an expert is a " has been, drip, under pressure "
You take care now and dont hurt yourself banging that big head into hard objects.
Furlough..... Avbug is delusional, probably loads the tankers and hears wrong in the bar after hours.
Cat Driver:
I would never dare to put myself in your category. :I don't think I would live long enough near the expert you are.
By the way an expert is a " has been, drip, under pressure "
You take care now and dont hurt yourself banging that big head into hard objects.
Furlough..... Avbug is delusional, probably loads the tankers and hears wrong in the bar after hours.
Cat Driver:
Share this page
Latest posts
-
Question Any Other NXCub Drivers Out There?- Latest: lrobichaux
-
-
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
