747 tanker

[inline]

Saw a picture of Evergreen's 747 tanker. Awesome!

 

[propsarebest]

Too bad its flying freight right now...


We are almost done with a second one, and this one will be a tanker 100% of the time.

 

[Zoneload]

The Evergreen Supertanker has completed its certification and is now available for service and ready to assist agencies with fires during the remainder of the 2008 fire season. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[stupidpilot]

Omni's DC-10-10 tanker is pretty cool too!

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/3/4/1208436.jpg

 

[mvedepo]

Evergreens is much more versatile then the DC-10. There are huge advantages of the pressurized system opposed to the gravity drop.

 

[avbug]

How so?

 

[mvedepo]

The biggest is safety. Having a pressurized system allows the Supertanker to fight fires from a higher altitude over conventional gravity drop systems.
Among other things it allows you to be more versatile in regard to what you are carrying. The Supertanker has numerous other possible functions such as oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather alteration.

 

[richav8ter]

I saw this thing in action at Pinal airpark AZ. Evergreens T-28 photo bird was doing action shots of it dropping water. Most cool , in front of the setting sun.

 

[stupidpilot]

Evergreens is much more versatile then the DC-10. There are huge advantages of the pressurized system opposed to the gravity drop.

I believe the Omni bird is pressurized as well, I know there are several pumps in there. Honestly I'm not sure.

 

[avbug]

The biggest is safety. Having a pressurized system allows the Supertanker to fight fires from a higher altitude over conventional gravity drop systems.
Among other things it allows you to be more versatile in regard to what you are carrying. The Supertanker has numerous other possible functions such as oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather alteration.

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

It shows.

 

[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.