747 fire bomber

[Cpt. Underpants]

The way I read it, that's the point AVBUG is trying to make - if it can't be flown the same way that current machines are flown, how effective can it be? As big as the whale is, you would have to wonder how much fire retardent it could carry - water is heavy - to have a fundamentally different SOP.

I would have to believe that a fleet of smaller, purpose-built machines like the CL415 would give you far more flexibility in ops, plus proven issues like FOD ingestion, G tolerance, fatigue index, etc.

I think I'm going to watch Always while I'm on standby today...a chick-flick, but some cool flying scenes...

 

[Cat Driver]

Capt. Underpants:

Aerial fire suppression is not nearly as dangerous as it is sometimes made out to be.

To support my position, may I ask you the following.

Would you like to fly your 47 and have the option of pushing a button and getting rid of all the payload..or portions thereof?

Suppose you are at all up weight and lose an engine or some other critical component just at lift off and you could drop the payload by pushing a button.

Now to the actual fire suppression run to the drop it is not as hairy as one may beleive....providing you are flying with due regard to safety such as proper visibility for the run in and exit after the drop. and providing the run in and exit gives you safe decent and climb gradients.

Also if you plan on living a full life span you will not fire bomb in turbulence that will endanger you and the aircraft.....you getting the idea here?

I was Chief pilot for a large waterbombing company and training pilot for 12 years, one of the methods that I used to demonstrate how safe the run in, drop and exit from the drop zone should be was to simulate feather on the critical engine and fly a profile to the drop that could safely be done on one engine....at the drop point the aircraft could be safely exited from the drop zone using the inertia provided from the loss of nine thousand pounds of liquid and climb power on one engine.

Like any other segment of flying fire suppression is not a job that requires super pilot, rather it requires a thoughtful and professional handling of the aircraft based on each circumstance.

So just close your eyes and imagine departing some tight airport with your 47 and all hell breaks lose with a serious mechanical malfunction, wouldnt it be wonderful to go from Gross TO weight to empty at the push of a button?

Naw it ain't all that glorious and dangerous, it just requires accurate flying laced with common sense.

At least those are my thoughts on it.

Cat Driver:

 

[avbug]

Also if you plan on living a full life span you will not fire bomb in turbulence that will endanger you and the aircraft.....you getting the idea here?

Never fly in turbulence, never fight fire. It's that simple. Most fires are wind driven, and fast moving...and it's either don't fly, or fly in turbulence. Particularly in mountainous terrain. Not always the case, but often it is.

Like any other segment of flying fire suppression is not a job that requires super pilot, rather it requires a thoughtful and professional handling of the aircraft based on each circumstance.

On that, you and I both agree.

 

[Big Duke Six]

Whew!

 

[Cat Driver]

Avbug:

Not only are you a know it all but you have a corresponding lack of comprehension.

Either that or you fly in turbulence "that will endanger " you and your aircraft...

I'll give you this much Avbug I may wonder about your flying skills and decision making process but you don't lack for arrogance to suggest that after fifteen years flying tankers I would not understand the basics..

I'm finished this this discussion...

Cat Driver

 

[avbug]

You can't even handle someone agreeing with you, ya pathetic dolt. Good grief.

I suspect that if I posted a period, you'd argue with that, too.

...but you don't lack for arrogance to suggest that after fifteen years flying tankers I would not understand the basics..

You apparently don't, from what you've posted. No question about that. Wasn't it you that said 80% of the time you attack the head? That's something one expects of a first year tanker co-pilot, not an experienced hand. I don't know you; all I can go by are your words, but apparently they hang you. You should probably stop speaking them.

Either that or you fly in turbulence "that will endanger " you and your aircraft...

Endanger me or my aircraft? As opposed to flying into a fire? Endanger me compared to what?

Is severe turbulence common over a fire? Yes, without question. How is severe turbulence defined? According to the Aeronautical Information Manual, severe turbulence is defined as:

"Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. . Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about."

If you don't understand that, you don't understand flying over a fire, period. The bigger and heavier, the better the ride over the fire, to be sure...but it can be rough overhead no matter how you slice it. I was on a fire last summer in which an aircraft returned with retardant all over the top of the aircraft. Figure out how that happened.

Does extreme turbulence also occur over the fire? Yes. It's defined as "Turbulence in which the aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control. It may cause structural damage. " It does occur. Two years ago two airplanes broke up over fires...not necessarily due to turbulence over the fires, because that wasn't the case. But those aircraft had been exposed to more than ample turbulence over the previous years. I know, because I was in them.

Last summer I made the first IA run on a fire. A lead showed up behind me, asked for my assessment. I stated that no aircraft should be put on the fire; I made the run and decided that it was too dangerous. The lead made the run, doubting what I said, and immediately came out with a broken headset, and a direction for all aircraft to return and hold. I'd call that severe to extreme. Three times I made the call that it was unsafe, and to ground air assets last year, and three times it was done.

I don't wear a helmet because it looks cool, and I don't wear a helmet because I'm afraid of crashing an airplane. I wear the helmet because it's regulatory, and because it keeps my head from bouncing off the canopy. T-u-r-b-u-l-e-n-c-e. Get it?

I'm finished this this discussion...

Thank heavens. You had overloaded me with your whit and insight.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

regarding the thumping noise:

I have no idea what that means.

I never thought I'd see the Dalai-Bug write those words.

It means you're a jerk-off.

 

[avbug]

This from one who labels himself after genetalia, sir organ?

I still haven't a clue. Why don't you spell it out, "hugh?" I imagine you do know how to do that, don't you?

If your inference is that I don't know whence I speak, you might start by disproving or countering it with more than flatulent talk. But can you do it?

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I still haven't a clue. Why don't you spell it out, "hugh?" I imagine you do know how to do that, don't you?

That would take the fun out of seeing it go over the heads of those less cerebral than yourself. I think I'd be able to manage most spelling endeavors if faced with the challenge.

If your inference is that I don't know whence I speak, you might start by disproving or countering it with more than flatulent talk. But can you do it?

I thought your reading comprehension was better than that. Perhaps I've overestimated you. I don't contend-and never have-that you don't know "whence you speak". I don't know much about the type of flying you do. It's obvious you do. It's so unfortunately excruciatingly painful to learn anything about it from you since you are such a condescending a$$hole. As I've said before, what a waste of a perfectly gifted cranium.

 

[Cat Driver]