747 fire bomber

[avbug]

Did I say it is a mistake?

I did not.

I merely reviewed the facts.

Perhaps based on your own extensive fire experience, you would care to refute them?

 

[dash8driver]

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.

 

[Cat Driver]

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.

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[Cat Driver]

No.

Avalon Aviation and The Flying Fireman in Canada.

 

[urflyingme?!]

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!

 

[dash8driver]

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.

 

[urflyingme?!]

EXACTLY
BEWARE dash driver!!! THEY are reading
from now on, chemtrails wil be known as
GARLIC TOAST
ok?

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[007]

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.