747 fire bomber

[avbug]

The "fireboss" got lousy reviews...hopefully something has been done to improve it. The AT-802F gets lots of publicity, but still cannot do what the more available and less expensive Dromader can do. Both have their place.

Scoopers work great in Minnesota and other places with ample water sources...hence the reason Minnesota got their own CL-215's. However, they offer no benifit over a strictly land-based tanker in Nevada, or most of California, or most of...any place without immediate convenient water sources.

Different tools for different purposes. Helitanking is an effective tool when used properly. So is water tanking with a scooper. (incidentally, cat...I do have water experience...don't get too full of yourself there. Water flying is fun, not difficult). The same can be said for any resource. I have never said differently.

I have stated repeatedly that I hope evergreen succeds. You might recall my saying, right off the bat,

I hope they succeed, I really do.

Or perhaps he missed me saying

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.

Furloughed apparently cannot read. Pity.

I have stated that Evergreen has a solid heritage of firefighting. You might recall reading

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

Again, apparently furloughed can't read. Once more, pity.

I can tell you right now that Dell Smith at Evergreen doesn't put money into something unless it is going to work. It is a done deal.

Of course, that's why they're still in the firefighting business.

I made an inaccurate posting here? Really? Can you refute it, furloughed? You obviously cannot read, nor did you read previous posts on this same subject by myself, and others, or you'd understand how wrong you are. Again, pity. And thanks for playing.

Walter P is certainly missed, by many. Along with many other good hands.

The tanker pilot that was lost, to which I referred, was a SEAT pilot in a piston Dromader at Safford, during the "flatrock U" exercise this year. It was a loaner by New Frontier.

Can you imagine spending those bucks on re-engining aircraft like the Neptune with bigass Allisons ... now there's a tanker.

Already been done, by H&P. The only thing that stopped the project was lack of engines and the inability to fund them. It had a glass cockpit, too. Get the government to turn over -14 engines instead of the -9's that were being hung, and it would be a good start. The project is still sitting out back at GEY, with the glass cockpit (now quite outdated) in a box in the basement of the office.

 

[Cat Driver]

Avbug :

I see you just can not help being smug and arrogant, huh?

I never intended to be "full of myself." I was merely responding to your attitude.

So now that you have broached the fact that you have "water" experience and are telling everyone that it is " fun, not difficult"

Why would you put it in that context??.....I did not comment on if it was difficult or not.

So tell me all about your "water" experience...... Come on now, I know you are just dying to impress the great unwashed out there reading about how much you know........

So put me back in my place Avbug.

 

[avbug]

Why would you put it in that context??.....I did not comment on if it was difficult or not.

Didja not, ya old windbag? Come now, is your memory that short? I believe you said...

Me thinks a few minutes in a PBY on the water may be a good start to let some air out of Avbug.

Or was that just someone else using your "handle?"

You wanna beat on avbug...fine. Can't refute anything that's been said with useful, accurate, or factual information...but just wanna argue. That right? Beat away, beatnik.

So tell me exalted master of the watercraft, just what is it about the catalina that you've found deflates mankind so quickly? Deeply challenging? Rocket science? Twas not I that threw it out there; it's your quote to which I responded.

This is a thread about the 747 as a tanker, to which end I stated repeatedly that I hope Evergreen succeeds. I supported that discussions regarding both sides of the coin in light of present, modern fire doctrine. At length, I might add. You appear to want it to be a thread about you. Isn't your web site garnering enough attention, or are you running short of PBY owners to pay you to train them in their airplanes?

Thank you for the condescending sermon on how to fly water bombers.

Actually, the post to which that quote refers had nothing to do with "flying waterbombers." Your ego only inferred that it did. As it dealt with fire, it must be all about you, right? The post to which you refer did discuss fire tactics and doctrine, which is current doctrine in use today...perhaps you find current, accurate doctrine condescending. I can't say.

So let's make it about you, shall we? Let's talk about catmaster. The man who has done more drops in a day than the average pilot landings in a lifetime, who has smothered fires across the globe with the mighty power of water, who swears by the doctrine of attacking the head with a waterdrop. Tell us all about it. Have a go at the National Aerial Firefighting Academy, while you're at it. I'm sure the staff will be amused.

Better yet, haunt the AAP web site and play scooper-martyr with the CL crowd...they're a minority and could use some help.

And by the way did you do many drops in the Andes Mountains?

I'm still on the edge of my seat to learn all about the special andes technique for firefighting. Things burn differently there. The fire whorls go counterclockwise...is that it?

...like divorces and pissed off ex-wifes

That's divorce, as in singular. One. One is enough. If there were more than one wife, it would be wives, not wifes, and there's one ex...again more than enough for this lifetime. One can only hope she's pissed off enough to have stroke. It might be the only bright spot in the day.

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

I have no idea what that means.

Now don't you think this is all a little ridiculous? Or would you like to talk about YOU some more? I'm all ears.

 

[Cat Driver]

Avbug.

I would not really prove much by arguing with you, so I'll pass you back to your admirers here.

Obviously you have some trouble with your own rhetoric, you claim to have "water" experience and sluff it off as being fun but no big deal.

So back to the flying boat thing.........first off my web site is not how I get my customers I get them through referrals from previous customers.

And I have a slight suspicion that you may find that trying to fly a large flying boat would not be the cake walk you make it sound.

Remember not to bang that big head on hard objects, and stay out of the 47, the cockpit is to small to hold both you and your ego.

Cat........

 

[furloughfodder]

pity.

Avbug says: I made an inaccurate posting here? Really? Can you refute it, furloughed?

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?

Refuted by furloughfodder:

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.

Apparently it is you who cannot read, pity.

 

[avbug]

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.

The USFS is putting how many dollars into Evergreen's program?

DoD wants more tankers? Getting slow at the MAFFS units, is it?

Boeing certainly has a vested interest, don't you think? Just as much as Evergreen.

Lessee, my previous post, the one to which you refer, the one that lacks research, specifically stated that Evergreen has a heritage of fire experience. Seems you said the same thing, and then accused me of not knowing it. Rather stupid arguement, don't you think?

Of course, you're referring specifically to the post in which I identified the A-10 brokership as a CIA program intending to funnel airplanes to contractors as a means of getting them to foriegn interests. The more recent program, Firehogs, is about ex-warthog drivers trying to make a job for themselves. But the original deal, the Regan program, was nothing of the sort...the entire purpose for providing P-3's and C-130s to contractors was to cover the real intent of the deal, the part that never saw fruition; the transfer of the A-10's to foriegn interests. As long as your'e up and refuting, have a go at that one, too.



Nothing I said in the "first paragraph" is in the least inaccurate, exaggerated in any way, shape, or form, or wrong. Please address it, if it is. We could all use the education.

And I have a slight suspicion that you may find that trying to fly a large flying boat would not be the cake walk you make it sound.

Whomever said anything about walking around cakes? I said water flying is fun. And it is. Or are you going to argue that, too? Are you really just clownpilot returned from the dead with yet another screen name, now? Les Paul too obvious? Is it just about the arguement, then?

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?

Now why didn't I think of that? No, wait. I did. Repeatedly I said it is simply another tool to be used on the fire. A limited use tool, but another tool. Seems I said the same thing, said it first, but I'm delusional. Seems it's not about this issue at all, but about someone who just wants to argue. Someone who didn't get enough cookies before his nap, perhaps? Must be, for someone who feels that their own words are "delusional." You can get help. They know what causes it, now.

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

So which is it, brightspark? Factual, it is. If factual is ignorance, then what can one say? If factual is arrogant, so be it. Facts are facts.

Avbug quoted above "Aerial firefighters dont fight fire

I beg to differ............................"

Beg after you've worked the fireline from the ground; the groundpounder perspective is different. Seems to me I recall someone saying once that we're firefighters first and pilots second. I disagree. Perhaps both at the same time...not enough of either one can get a body killed. My point was simply this: it's the groundpounders who do the real work. We are there to support ground firefighters. Again, not my doctrine. But certainly that of the USFS, BLM, etc. Current fire doctrine, and the basis of all aerial fire tactics.

Yes, IA is important; it's the crux of what we do. Or must be qualified to do. But once a fire has been IA'd, it still needs ground support. I hit a lot of single trees last summer; boxed them, x'd them, etc. But not with the intent of it being a standalone effort; my retardant was there to hold the fire or slow it until ground personnel could work it properly. And that's all. I don't fight fire; I just support those who do.

Even catdriver agrees:

"BUT" fires are put out by ground crews...aerial attack is a holding method.

.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

AVBUG...one smart cat

He's a knowledgable dude, but I think the personality genes ran down his mother's leg...

What a waste of a perfectly gifted cranium.

 

[furloughfodder]

Lessee, my previous post, the one to which you refer, the one that lacks research, specifically stated that Evergreen has a heritage of fire experience. Seems you said the same thing, and then accused me of not knowing it. Rather stupid arguement, don't you think?

Please cut and paste exactly where I told you that you didn't know Evergreen had a heritage of fire experience? I simply stated that they had a history of firefighting, I never said anything about you not knowing that.

Nothing I said in the "first paragraph" is in the least inaccurate, exaggerated in any way, shape, or form, or wrong. Please address it, if it is. We could all use the education.

I am not sure how many more times I need to post this completely inaccurate "first paragraph" of your post before you acknowledge that you are misinformed, but here it is again (and I didn't even bother addressing your statement about "flying around at landing airspeeds").

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 BLAH BLAH BLAH

You must be a treat to fly with.

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

I know NOTHING about aerial firefighting, but a whole lot about flying 747's - 9500 hours worth.

There is NO WAY a 747 can be thrown about the way I've seen any aerial tankers being flown - I have a place in Victoria, BC, south of Sprout Lake, where the Martin Mars bombers are based. They are big airplanes, and having seen them in operation on fires just West of CYYJ (Victoria) in hills, not mountains, makes me believe that even that is pushing it. Beautiful to watch, but not efficient. The Trackers are way better.

I respect the men that do this for a living - AVBUG and Cat Driver - immensely, I don't have the cajones for it, and I would have to add that whatever the pay, it isn't enough.

Thanks to both of you. Great thread, good arguments, pity some take it personally.

 

[414Flyer]

I know NOTHING about aerial firefighting, but a whole lot about flying 747's - 9500 hours worth.

There is NO WAY a 747 can be thrown about the way I've seen any aerial tankers being flown - I have a place in Victoria, BC, south of Sprout Lake, where the Martin Mars bombers are based.

I do not think it is intended to be flown as the same altitudes and speeds as current tankers.

I have heard one of the potential uses (I am not making statements on how effective it will be, so dont pin that on me) is a direct attack on a fire, with 24000 gallons of water. 800-1000 AGL is how I think it would be used, and the pressurization system would aid in that.

I do think it is an interesting concept, as for how it would work, only time will tell.