747 tanker

[stupidpilot]

You've got no aerial firefighting experience, do you?

It shows.

Ouch!

 

[mvedepo]

You've got no aerial firefighting experience, do you?

It shows.

Sooooo you are saying being able to fly 200 - 600 ft higher then other drop planes isn't a benefit? I bet the crew on the DC-10 would have liked to have an extra couple hundred feet of altitude when they mowed down those trees last year.

Enlighten me one who is all knowing....

 

[mvedepo]

Evergreen has invested over $50M and 20,000 engineering hours to introduce and deploy this exciting technology during this fire season, with a strong focus on effectiveness, safety, and operational efficiency.

A development effort from the family of Evergreen Companies, the Supertanker brings a massive payload of over 20,000 gallons of fire fighting agent (about 7 times the volume of the federal government's largest air tanker), and a revolutionary pressurized system that allows fires to be fought from higher, safer altitudes. The Supertanker also brings an innovative capability - the ability to fight fires at night - while they are "dormant" and most vulnerable.

You really should call Evergreen also and let them know they wasted $50,000,000 because their setup is obviously inept compared to conventional drop methods. You could be a hero and prevent them from wasting anymore money.

Here's the number:
503-472-9361

Ask for Del.

 

[avbug]

Sooooo you are saying being able to fly 200 - 600 ft higher then other drop planes isn't a benefit? I bet the crew on the DC-10 would have liked to have an extra couple hundred feet of altitude when they mowed down those trees last year.

It struck the trees because it was being flown by an inexperienced crew that wasn't qualified to be there, who flew improperly, and struck terrain. It's a big source of contention in the fire industry. It's also part of the reason that the federal government refused to contract the DC-10.

Is flying higher not a benefit? No, it's not a benefit. Flying higher means more time for the retardant in the air, more time to be affected by winds, more drift, more wasted retardant, weaker targeting, and a less effective drop.

Retardant delivery in general needs to be dropped just high enough that it stops it's forward motion and falls vertically. If it has horizontal motion of consequence, then "shadowing" occurs in which part of the fuel is coated. The result is an ineffective retardant line and a burn-through.

Evergreen has been pushing the 747 for several years now. Do you see it being used on fires presently? Wonder why?

Del used to be a player in the fire business. He'd like to be again. Presently, he's not.

"Super tankers," while having some limited use on a few fires, primarily in the Region 5, southern California area, are slow to turn around, slow to load, can operate from just two tanker bases in the country, tend to drop too high for precise targeting on many fires, are too few in numbers, far too expensive per gallon of delivered retardant, and in the case of the DC-10, require their own dedicated leadplane.

 

[mvedepo]

It struck the trees because it was being flown by an inexperienced crew that wasn't qualified to be there, who flew improperly, and struck terrain. It's a big source of contention in the fire industry. It's also part of the reason that the federal government refused to contract the DC-10.

Is flying higher not a benefit? No, it's not a benefit. Flying higher means more time for the retardant in the air, more time to be affected by winds, more drift, more wasted retardant, weaker targeting, and a less effective drop.

Retardant delivery in general needs to be dropped just high enough that it stops it's forward motion and falls vertically. If it has horizontal motion of consequence, then "shadowing" occurs in which part of the fuel is coated. The result is an ineffective retardant line and a burn-through.

Evergreen has been pushing the 747 for several years now. Do you see it being used on fires presently? Wonder why?

Del used to be a player in the fire business. He'd like to be again. Presently, he's not.

"Super tankers," while having some limited use on a few fires, primarily in the Region 5, southern California area, are slow to turn around, slow to load, can operate from just two tanker bases in the country, tend to drop too high for precise targeting on many fires, are too few in numbers, far too expensive per gallon of delivered retardant, and in the case of the DC-10, require their own dedicated leadplane.

I understand what you are saying but this thread was about the 747. I was just pointing out that that the 747 has certain advantages over the DC-10 when someone brought it up. I am not comparing the drop efficiency of EITHER of the "Supertankers" to the P-3, CL-415, JRM-3, or any of the other standard application aircraft in operation today.

 

[stupidpilot]

It struck the trees because it was being flown by an inexperienced crew that wasn't qualified to be there, who flew improperly, and struck terrain. It's a big source of contention in the fire industry. It's also part of the reason that the federal government refused to contract the DC-10.

I beg to differ, the crew all were extremely experienced DC-10 pilots. It was more of a matter of learning how a DC-10 could be utilized to fight fires. The chase plane they were following ventured too close to the terrain and the crew did not realize what was happening until it happened. Chalk it up to learning how to fly a big plane close to the ground where there are fires. Also, the fed govt refused to contract the DC-10 is because the other fire fighter tanker pilots were whining about how they would lose their jobs, it had nothing to do with the tree strike.

 

[avbug]

I understand what the thread is about. However, the use of a pressure system offers no advantage to retardant delivery.

The selling point that Evergreen is attempting to make is that the "pressurized" system creates a better delivery pattern.

Unfortunately, part of the reason that the DC-10 finally got in the field and got picked up by CDF, and the 747 did not, is that the drop pattern for the 747 was unacceptable.

There's no disadvantage to a "gravity" system using standard tank doors.

Pressurized delivery systems such as the AeroUnion MAFFS unit presently in use in military C-130's is an example. They offer no particular advantage, save for that application in which they are modular and require no door system.

A large, swept wing aircraft with low maneuverability isn't necessarily the best possible option for tactical firefighting.

There's a reason that Evergreen's airplane is still hauling freight, and not dropping on fires.

 

[avbug]

I beg to differ, the crew all were extremely experienced DC-10 pilots.

Irrelevant. They were not experienced fire pilots and had no business being there. That they hit the ground is proof enough.

The chase plane they were following ventured too close to the terrain and the crew did not realize what was happening until it happened.

Rubbish.

It's not a "chase plane." It's a leadplane, and high or low, the position or the lead is irrelevant. If the lead flew into the hillside, would they do so too?

The lead isn't there to teach them how to fly. They're supposed to be competent enough to do that all by their lonesome. The lead is there to investigate the route into the drop and out, to investigate the air (downdraft, turbulence, etc), give input on the proper drop, fire behavior, and coordinate with the air attack and incident commander or his representive, and then to give a guided run to help identify drift and the proper approach line and drop point.

The lead is NOT there to prevent an aircraft that he can't see, from flying into the ground.

Chalk it up to learning how to fly a big plane close to the ground where there are fires.

Chalk it up to an unqualified, inexperienced crew not being where they should have been and flying their airplane into the ground.

No matter what one's assignment in the air, we all operate under one basic tenet which is universal; don't fly into the ground. They did that.

Trying to pawn it off on the leadplane pilot or anybody else just doesn't cut it. Their excuse? They hit a "downdraft."

Also, the fed govt refused to contract the DC-10 is because the other fire fighter tanker pilots were whining about how they would lose their jobs, it had nothing to do with the tree strike.

No. The DC-10's failure to obtain a federal firefighting contract had nothing to do with other pilots. Clearly you know nothing about contracting, but rest assured that "pilots whining" has no place, nor consideration in the contracting process...nor has it ever had any influence in obtaining or denial of a fire contract.

The DC-10 was overpriced. They lowered their price enough that CDF grudgingly brought them on, and is trying very hard to justify their use presently.

The DC-10 can't use other lead aircraft; it has a dedicated lead, which function alone restricts it from most fire operations, and it can't drop unless it's dedicated lead is present. It's inability to use most tanker bases, it's long reload times and turnaround times, and it's inability to operate in most of the US for firefighting operations also killed it's viability for federal fires. It's been used on federal fires within California...but it's too expensive to fly far to drop a load, and can't go anywhere else to reload...there are few places that can accomodate it.

Furthermore, attempting to use it tactically on fires is futile. It's a broad brush for long firelines. It's chief value is putting down retardant to cool a fire...but retardant isn't used to cool fires; it's used to build precise lines to direct and control fire behavior, for structural protection, etc. It's often used in close direct support of ground troops, reinforcing dozer lines, protecting landing zones, etc...all things not suited to the DC10. Additionally, whereas many tanker operations require radican maneuvering, steep descents, and operations not above terrain but among terrain in canyons, etc...the DC10 (and the 747) is NOT suited for those operations.

Furthermore, many fires have significant debris above the fire which can break windscreens, FOD engines, etc...big open fans don't tolerate that well. The aircraft presents considerably higher maintenance expenses (which factor into not only the operational contract, but off season expenses to the government), etc.

One of the primary values of a tanker is the ability to move it to a fire area where it can have short turnarounds and make frequent visits to the fire, or can catch a fire early. With the amount of time required to mobilize the DC10 or B747, it's not much of a tactical response tool, and is therefore limited further in it's utility.

These fieldings are certainly viable tools in the firefighting toolbox, but limited ones...and their advantages are not the ones you think.

 

[DC4boy]

I beg to differ, the crew all were extremely experienced DC-10 pilots. It was more of a matter of learning how a DC-10 could be utilized to fight fires. The chase plane they were following ventured too close to the terrain and the crew did not realize what was happening until it happened. Chalk it up to learning how to fly a big plane close to the ground where there are fires. Also, the fed govt refused to contract the DC-10 is because the other fire fighter tanker pilots were whining about how they would lose their jobs, it had nothing to do with the tree strike.

Who the ef' told you that!?

I was on that fire when it happend, the LEAD executed a picture perfect run on realitvely mild day in the Tehachapi's. The pilot flying the lead is perhaps the most seasoned, and without a doubt, the best in the industry. I wish I could show the video here, it would show just how bad the -10 crew f'd up.

Not a single pilot was whining about any job. The DC-10 (at the time) did not meet the USFS requirments regarding operational service life. If it had been allowed to operate in the fire environment on Federal land, every operator who had aircraft parked in 2004 due to lack of OSL data, would have had grounds for a law suit.

Experience; yes the Omni/Tanker 10 LLC crew is very experienced in the DC-10. To obtain an Inter Agency Initial Attack Card, one most go through extensive training in the fire environment. As well as 100+hrs low level/mountainous terrain, supervised drops, lead plane join ups, all of which takes at least two season to obtain. All of wich the DC-10 crew did not posess, and it showed.

I don't mean to come off as condecending, but you are wrong.

 

[DC4boy]

ahhh you beat me to it!