747 fire bomber

[Hugh Jorgan]

wow.. i can almost hear the chest thumping from here.

I hear the thumping too, but that's not his chest. He IS talking about flying firebombers after all.

 

[flyingwildfires]

Boys, boys!

Don't make me come back there.......

 

[Dutch]

Crap, I just spent way too much time reading this thread. This site is like crack...even when its a stupid argument like this.

 

[moving2vegas]

take it from those that know

I spent four years on the ground with a USDA hand crew. Over the years I heard a million plans to change aerial firefighting. Some (like the A-10 tanker plan) were solid ideas worth researching further. I can honestly say (as a former wildland firefighter turned pilot) that this 747 tanker program is the worst thing I've ever heard. I agree that evergreen is a great company, managed by very intelligent people that know the performance capabilities of the 747. However, they’re not firefighters. The last few years have been disastrous fire seasons and evergreen sees the profit potential available in the chaos. They are interested in money first, product second. If they weren’t they would be listening to firefighters (and the forest service) and be developing smaller, more maneuverable tanker platforms. Aerial firefighting from it's inception has been a work in progress. Every year it's re-evaluated for effectiveness, and changed if needed. The USDA is starting to see what CDF did all along, smaller is better. The SEAT (single engine air tanker) program has grown drastically in the last few years and is more popular than ever. From a ground pounder standpoint, 800-2000 gallons used properly will be much better than 10,000 gallons spread all over the country. If you think a 747 can do the things that today’s tankers (P3's, P2's, PBY's, S2's) are doing, then your sadly mistaken. I've seen P3's run down ridges, 70 degrees nose down, dump their load and skim the tree tops on there way out. Not to mention seeing P2's running through a saddle ridge, straight at a mountain, dump and turn in time. There is no 747 plane or pilot that can do it. What do you 74 drivers think, you just hit the dump and fly straight and level for 5 miles? Sorry, it doesn't work that way and of the thousand or so fires I've been on, not one of then burned straight or over flat ground. A wildfire is not won from the air, it's controlled by the men and women on the ground that scratch a line in the dirt. A tanker has to support that line. A line that snakes across, up and down the mountain. In the last 30 years the USFS has used countless aircraft types for tankers, while CDF has (and continues to) use one. Who do you think understands the role of an airtanker? Evergreen should've put that 747 money into researching what firefighters wanted all along. A solid, highly maneuverable tanker carrying about 1500 gallons. I personally think the A-10 or C-2 Greyhound warrant serious consideration and should be researched as potential platforms. The so cal fires last year, and the huge arizona fire 2 years before has created such a panic, people believe we need a giant tanker of water above us. But what the %&^$, it's just our tax dollar hard at work, right?

 

[avbug]

Actually, Evergreen has a solid firefighting heritage operating heavy tankers. Tanking an airplane isn't a new endevour for them.

The A-10 program was originally a CIA program to funnel aircraft to foriegn interests. The more recent effort was nothing more than ex A-10 drivers trying to create a job niche for themselves. It never had any real promise.

 

[furloughfodder]

Avbug, you obviously have done zero research on this program that is sponsored by the Department of Defense, Boeing, and the US Forest Service, as well as Evergreen, who has been in the firefighting business since 1924 and Johnson’s Flying services. Your lack of research is evidenced by your previous post. Nearly everything you said in the first paragraph is either completely wrong or highly exaggerated. You have this vision of them trying to use the Supertanker exactly the same way you operate the current platforms. Wrong.

You talk about them flying at 200 feet loaded to gross at low vis. This aircraft has a pressurized drop system allowing it to fly much higher (800 feet) and deliver it’s payload with minimal evaporation. Even fully loaded with 24,000 pounds of retardant it will be 150,000 pounds under max takeoff weight (that cushion is more than the heaviest airplane you have flown I would guess). It will also be below max landing weight at all times. This means it will not have to dump the entire load before landing. I know when you guys take off it is usually right at MTW. They will be equipped with GPS and Forward Looking Infrared, allowing them to even fly at night to a limited extent.

It will rarely drop its entire payload at once. This is another misconception. It has the ability to drop it in segments. Therefore, it can stay aloft longer, hit multiple targets, or the same one repeatedly. So where a P3 would make 7 round trip flights this aircraft would make one. Sure it will not be able to take off from 3000 foot dirt strips, but it can utilize any number of civil or military strips all over the world, and cruise at Mach .84 or better to get to the scene.

What you don’t realize is the 747 is just an airplane like the one you fly. It may not be as maneuverable, but it is surprisingly responsive. You seem to think all it can do is fly straight and level. If you get away from the delusion that it will be operated the same way current platforms are utilized, you may realize its potential to aid and compliment your work. It will just be another tool, and is not meant to replace the current models whatsoever. Why not encourage and welcome additional help in this arena?

 

[Duke Elegant]

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Fly to the fire at Mach.84 !!!!!!!.....HE!HE!HE!HE!

Oh man you crack me up.....

I can't remember the EXACT average dispatch distance to a fire but it's aroung sixty miles I believe.... Mach .84..he he he

What about the 250kts below ten thousand feet rule?

Imagine this eh avbug?

"747 N123 you're not lined up properly , go around and follow my lead" ..... another ton of pollution puked into the air..three mile wide cuircuit.... better clear the surrounding ten miles of other tankers and support aircraft.

How the hell are you going to see out of this beast going downhill with the nose up? Beats me.

But then again , I only have twenty five years flying tankers... what would I know?

 

[Duke Elegant]

"Lead 45 , this is 747 N123 , we're inbound with a load , leaving FL350 , what's our target today?"

"This is lead 45 , um ... you're target for today is Montana"

"N123 copy , copy. Yep! we did Idaho yesterday , are we doin' Californy tommorow?"

"N123 , this is lead , cleared in , we have evacuated all other tankers for a five mile radius and all helicopters are on the ground and ground personnel are being flown out in Hercs , so it's all yours."

On a more serious note , did you know that retardant on healthy trees renders them DEAD after a few years. It blocks the ability of the needles to convert CO2 or something... I forget the details.

 

[DC4boy]

Walter P. once told me you can be ignorant or arrogant in this business, but you cant be both....................

 

[Cat Driver]

DC4boy:

We have living proof you can be both ignorant and arrogant right in this group.

All you need do is go back and read Avbugs comments on my Flying boat training business and there you have the perfect example.

All that needs to be decided is is he mostly ignorant or mostly arrogant?