747 Fire Bomber

[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.