747 Fire Bomber

[wt219200]

Anyone seen this beast? I think it could put out the sun.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1089683/M/

 

[dash8driver]

here we go again..... *wince*





.

 

[wt219200]

Did I miss something? Has this already been covered here?

 

[wt219200]

I just searched for previous posts and didn't realize the sh**storm about to rain down. I think AvBug might have something to say about this.

 

[Tram]

Who cares if it's been posted before..

Not all of us can sit around and make sure what we post hasn't been posted before...

I mean, yeh, I knew about the firebomber, but people.. relax..

 

[propsarebest]

Now she has a pretty red tail and a nice three digit number...

 

[XLDaddy]

Anyone seen this beast? I think it could put out the sun.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1089683/M/

very cool shot.

 

[Rogue5]

It was the cover story in AW&ST last week:

Evergreen 747 Supertanker Promises to Alter Aerial Firefighting Tenets
Aviation Week & Space Technology
07/31/2006, page 64
William B. Scott

Turning from base to final approach, Boeing 747-200 captain/pilot Cliff Hale calls for full flaps and adjusts engine power to keep the aircraft on a controlled flight path, aimed at a San Bernardino, Calif., airport taxiway. First Officer Bob Roshak calls altitudes as the huge aircraft descends. Several hundred feet above the ground, Hale gently pulls the 747's nose up, leveling at about 180 ft., then holds a 3-4-deg. nose-up attitude and 150-kt. airspeed.

"Stand by . . . ," he calls. Behind and to Hale's right, Steve Goddard, the flight engineer, double-checks a small display and control panel, confirming its settings are correct.

A few seconds later, I hear a loud, extended "whoosh" behind me, signaling that Hale has punched a "pickle button" on his control yoke. He slowly pulls four throttles back, maintaining the 747's slight nose-up attitude as 20,500 gal. of water blast through four 12-in. ports on the aircraft's belly. Driven by eight tanks of air pressurized to 165 psi., the 10-sec. deluge drenches several hundred yards of the targeted taxiway. The intense manmade rainstorm terminates as we fly past a crowd gathered near the airport terminal.

Monitoring the flat-panel display, Goddard calls, "That's it." Hale pushes the throttles forward, calls for flaps up, starts a climb, then banks left to downwind. A few minutes later, we're on the ground, taxiing slowly toward that waiting crowd. With its San Bernardino water drop, Evergreen Aviation's 747 Supertanker completes a five-state demonstration tour aimed at introducing this new tool to the aerial firefighting community. And this Aviation Week & Space Technology editor is a step closer to fully understanding what a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) executive suggested: High-capacity, next-generation air tankers could radically alter the aerial firefighting business.

Armed with 10,000-20,000 gal. of water/fire retardant, these aircraft might be able to extinguish relatively small fires, protect valuable structures single-handedly, and even alter the humidity over a fire at night, forcing the blaze to "lay down," so ground crews can contain them sooner.

A few wide-body air transports have been modified as air tankers in recent years, but their operators have yet to sign long-term contracts in the U.S. A Russian Ilyushin Il-76 has seen service overseas, yet a variety of political factors, resistance among veteran firefighters and severe cost constraints have kept the approximately 11,000-gal. tanker offshore. Evergreen Aviation's new 20,500-gal. 747 Supertanker and "10 Tanker STC's" 12,000-gal. DC-10 Supertanker are angling to get on U.S. fire lines, hampered primarily by scant USFS budgets and lingering questions about the suitability of high-capacity firefighting tankers. But that may change during this fire season.

Evergreen is negotiating for a USFS demonstration contract, but has a number of FAA and USFS hurdles and procedures to clear first. As of last week, the company had not secured FAA-certification of its firefighting system, nor Interagency Air Tanker Board (IATB) approvals to fight fire.

The "10 Tanker STC" DC-10--a joint venture that includes Omni Air International--has its FAA Supplemental Type Certificate covering tanker-related modifications, and recently received IATB approval of its external, gravity-drop tank system. In mid-July, though, the DC-10 Supertanker dropped two loads of retardant on a fire under a "call-when-needed" contract issued by the State of California.

The DC-10 has not completed a USFS Supertanker Operational Assessment Project (SOAP), which could preclude getting a federal demonstration contract this year. The Evergreen 747 completed its SOAP flights last spring, erasing a number of critics' concerns about the feasibility of supertankers.

In 2003, I flew on several firefighting flights to gain an appreciation for the challenges and demands of this unique sector of aviation (AW&ST Nov. 3, 2003, p. 62). Many air tanker, lead plane, air attack and other professional aerial firefighters I met were highly skeptical of a 747- or DC-10-size aircraft being used as an air tanker. "Not maneuverable enough to get down in the canyons. That much water/fire retardant will wash ground firefighters and equipment off the mountain," they predicted.

But the Evergreen 747 SOAP evaluation earlier this year dispelled many of those preconceptions. "The entire SOAP team was surprised at how maneuverable the 747 was in the confines of a fire traffic area," says Pat Norbury, USFS national aviation operations officer. "We expected much larger [flight] patterns and less utility in rough terrain. But it was actually quite maneuverable. It had no problem working with the lead plane [a King Air 90] . . . and making drops." The team concluded that "the [Evergreen] 747 appears to be a very viable resource for fire retardant and water delivery," she says.

My flight on the 747 Supertanker, plus myriad discussions with its designers, pilots, program managers and maintenance personnel, underscored the SOAP conclusion: this aircraft has considerable potential as a firefighting tanker. From an engineering and operations standpoint, Evergreen clearly has developed the sort of next-generation, purpose-built tanker the USFS has needed for some time. But a lot of nagging questions about its ultimate value will be answered only by putting the 747 into service, fighting fires.

"The key is cost-benefit. What's the value [delivered]?" Norbury asks. "In a high-value structures-protection situation, having one [tanker] with 20,000 gal. overhead could have tremendous value. It's unlikely you'd ever have that much conventional tanker [capacity] overhead at one time." Still, high per-flight-hour costs will have to be justified by clear benefits.

Evergreen says one 747 Supertanker can be as effective as seven P-3A Orion air tankers, which have a 3,000-gal. capacity. But with only 18 P-3s and smaller-capacity P2V Neptune tankers available under USFS contract this year, it's unlikely that a ground-based incident commander will ever have more than two or three available. That may open the door for supertankers, if critical resources (homes and entire communities, for example) are threatened by wildfires--assuming the big aircraft meet forest service safety and operational requirements.

"There are a lot of federal criteria [the 747 and DC-10] have yet to satisfy," Norbury cautions. "Every air tanker has to meet them." Despite congressional pressure to get both into firefighting service soon, hands are tied by USFS operational standards and regulations "written in blood," one official says. Many of those procedures have roots in past accidents.

Evergreen has invested more than three years and $40 million to develop its 747 Supertanker, and is anxious to start generating revenue. A company-owned "convertible" (cargo or passenger) version of a 747-200 was taken off profitable cargo routes and modified by adding internal tanks and a pressurized delivery system. Key features include:

*Ten fluid tanks that, collectively, hold about 20,500 gal. of water or fire retardant. These are installed on the aircraft's main cargo deck, mounted on removable pallets. The interior of each tank is painted and fitted with a rotating, 13 gal./min. water nozzle to clean the vessel and prevent corrosion.

"We have more than $1 million in these tanks, so we're concerned about getting more than two [fire] seasons [from] them," says Christopher B. Harris, vice president of maintenance for Evergreen International Airlines. He and Hale, the primary 747 Supertanker pilot and vice president of operations for Evergreen Supertanker Services, conceived of the system and have shepherded it through design, development and testing. Another key player was Dan Kottman, a former Evergreen engineer. The entire effort has enjoyed strong support from Evergreen's chairman and founder, Delford M. Smith, as well.

*Eight air tanks bolted to the transport's floor on the aft cargo deck. These tanks provide air pressurized to 165 psi., which forces water/retardant from the 10 fluid tanks.

*Four 12-in. ports or nozzles on the 747's belly, running along the centerline. When delivering water/retardant at "full power," they produce 50,000 lb. of thrust.

*A $250,000 data acquisition system that captures air data, fuel quantity, GPS position and tank-related parameters. Structural data are collected by 141 strain gages and five accelerometers on the flap tracks, vertical and horizontal tail surfaces and other locations. That system and the supertanker engineering design and FAA certification work were handled by South West Aero Group.

 

[Rogue5]

Part II:

The 747 Supertanker is based on a self-contained concept-of-operation. "There was a lot of concern in the firefighting community about how they'd service this [huge tanker]," explains Harris. "So, we designed it as a turnkey operation. Just give us a fire hydrant, a forklift and a place to put a ground [water tank] bladder, and we're ready to go." Spare parts, ladders, hoses, maintenance personnel, and full galley are carried or installed on the aircraft. The tanker can operate from "any airport that has [sufficient] ramp space and an 8,000-ft. runway," Harris adds.

A large swimming pool-like bladder tank is assembled on the ramp and filled from a fire hydrant. Water or fire retardant is pumped from there into the 747's fluid tanks using an onboard hose-and-reel system.

The aircraft operates about 200,000 lb. under maximum gross weight, which gives it a substantial performance margin during firefighting ops. "We plan to drop at 400 ft. [altitude], but that depends on wind-drift. We can go down to 200 ft., terrain permitting," Hale says. "Drop speed will be 140-150 kt. Even in steep terrain, we can go to max-power, flaps 20 [deg.] and climb out, straight ahead. We use the same procedures as a missed approach. Even though we like a longer run-in, we don't need as much room on the other end [as today's prop-driven tankers]. In total space used, it's about the same."

The biggest challenge, Hale says, "is airspeed control--or, really, mass control. You don't want to let a heavy jet get slow, and it takes experience to know when it is."

Because the 747 delivers water/retardant under pressure, literally blowing fluid straight down, it can fly at higher, safer altitudes than tankers relying on gravity-drop systems. Still, piloting finesse is necessary to ensure a uniform pattern of water/retardant on the ground.

"We try to hold the deck angle at roughly 3 deg. nose-up," Hale says. "As the weight is reduced [during a 20,500-gal. delivery], the airplane wants to climb about 100 ft. So, we come back on the power about 20% and maintain a positive pitch angle. It's very much seat-of-the-pants flying at that point."

"This [tanker] could change the aerial firefighting paradigm," concludes Nels Jensen, a retired USFS pilot serving as an operations consultant to Evergreen. "In multiple-fire situations, where you need load after load [of retardant], it could change outcomes."

 

[IFollowRoads]

They asked me how I knew
My true love was true
Oh, I of course replied
Something here inside cannot be denied

They said someday you'll find
All who love are blind
Oh, when your heart's on fire
You must realize
Smoke gets in your eyes

 

[mzaharis]

50,000 lb of thrust straight down? Sounds like it's making an embryonic attempt at doing a Harrier imitation!!!!

 

[richav8ter]

Pinal AZ

I saw the 747 doing water drops ON the runway at Pinal Airpark in AZ. We watched it and the Evergreen T-28 photo bird showing off for the big wigs. Even flight instruction has its good days. ..and me without my camera.

 

[El Bucho]

I read somewhere that they couldn't keep the main wing spar from cracking due to the sudden release of that amount of weight. Anybody else know something about that one?

EB

 

[Flyin Tony]

There is also a DC10 out here at VCV thats doing the same thing

 

[agpilot34]

I read somewhere that they couldn't keep the main wing spar from cracking due to the sudden release of that amount of weight. Anybody else know something about that one?

EB

Hadnt heard that one, but, only time will tell. It's still an aircraft that's doing a job it was NEVER designed to do. LOTS of stress on the wings during a drop. I'm just curious how the logistics of this thing will work out... as far as I know, it's too big to land at most of the tanker bases and get back out with a full load. I'm only about 15 miles from Ardmore Muni (KADM) which has a 7000 ft runway. Two P-3's and a couple of SEAT's worked out of there for almost two months back the first of this year, and did a HELL of a good job. The 747, on the other hand, would have had to come from OKC, DFW, or maybe Clinton/Sherman (or wherever they plan to base it), because I dont think it could get out of here with a full load, especially as hot as it's been here lately with temps over 100 every day. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. Time is everything around here when the whole world seems to be on fire. BTW, we've got two SEAT's based at Ardmore right now... tankers 459 and I think 460 (both Air Tractors), and a Jet Commander lead plane from UT. Good bunch of guys.

 

[wolf]

I don't know everything about aerial firefighting, but what I do know is that all the different types of airplanes and helicopters have their use. They are all tools in the toolbox, each has it's abilities and limitations.

The SEAT'S, AgCats, and Dromaders, are agile and nimble, can work steep terraine, box canyons and such, and do a run at low altitude, laying a line of retardant in places that the heavy's can't get to or can't safely get low enough to be effective. But even with the SEAT'S agility there are places that even they can't get to to safely in order to lay a line of retardant. Seat's are also great as initial attack resource as the first equipment to show up at the start of a wildland fire.

Helicopters can do things fixed wing aircraft can't, they can hover over a fixed location and do an enormous drop right on a specific spot, also great for initial attack and cleanup after a fire has layed down.

The p-3's and other airplanes in their class also are highly manueverable and can deliver enormous capacities when they drop. They are very effective in many different kinds of applications.

The 747 has it's areas that it is effective, but it's definitely not able to manuever through the rugged mountain terrain as the smaller aircraft would be where most mountainous fires would occur, but for flatter terrain such as grass fires, Oaklahoma, Texas, Florida fires, etc the application would be effective. The drop, even for a larger aircraft still has to occurr low to the ground so the water doesn't evaporate due to the temperatures in a fire, and with the retartdant so it doesn't dispurse or drift too much with the huge winds that occur with large wildland fire, which is harder with mountainous terrain, where the low and slow is not as easy for this aircraft. The 747 probably has the narrowist range of conditions it's able to be effective in, and have close bases to fly out of. And the benificial quick turn around times for reload and return would be longer for the 747 if an appropriate runway is not as near, and they would also take longer to reload due to the volume.

All aircraft whether they're the different fixed winged or helicopter, have their own attributes that are effective for each particular type of mission, and they also overlap where either will provide similiar results. All are tools in the toolbox.

 

[Grumman guy]

I keep hearing this "all are tools in the tool box" analogy, and to be honest with you right now we need some hammers and the box is full of screwdrivers!

 

[AirBadger]

It's not the size of the tool, it's how hard you bang it.

 

[Rick1128]

A couple of points. First the 747 normally runs about 200K under max structural weight in this configuration. Second it doesn't drop that 20,000 gallons in one time. It is pumped out at a high rate so there isn't that rapid stress on the spar like the other tankers. It is running at about 160 kts t flaps twenty so it is quite maneuverable in that configuration. Plus anyone that is familiar with Boeings, you disassemble the wing for takeoff and landing. So it will come out of shorter runways than most people think. American and Braniff used to use Longview for takeoff and landing practice in the 747 in the old days when the sims couldn't be used totally.

 

[check6]

There is a company in Minden, NV doing a conversion on an AVRO. That seems cool enough to me.

 

[agpilot34]

Well, at any rate, I've got alot of respect for the tanker drivers, whether it be SEAT pilots OR heavys. Being a volunteer firefighter here in the town where I live, I've seen what they can do up close and personal. One of the P-3's that based out of Ardmore back in Feb. and March really saved our a$$es on a couple of occasions up in the Arbuckles. I'd love to get a SEAT position, and I've got enough ag hours to probably do it, but the away from home time just wouldnt work out for me. My hats' off to you guys, though.

 

[stearnst]

PRC has a fairly large USFS base on the airport with a number of P2's, P3's, heavy-lift choppers, and all their support (King Air's, Bell's, etc) based on the field for a couple months during the summer. Just like agpilot mentioned about ADM, PRC has a 7,500' runway, except it's at 5,000' MSL, and when the temps get up into the 90's on a regular basis during the summer those loaded tankers use up every available inch of the runway on takeoff, so there would be no possible way a 747 would be able to be based here. There are only a few strips in the state the I could see a 747 feasibly operating out of, in my opinion. So what the forest service would be gaining in quantity, they would be sacrificing in location, I imagine. What I'd give to watch one drop, though!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1790531163526393852&q=prescott+tanker&pr=goog-sl