Omni Fire-bombing in a DC-10

[potrack]

Does anyone got pictures of that DC-10-10 that Omni is modifying to do water drops on forest fires? I hear there is a pretty interesting test video of the system.

A friend of mine who flys for Omni says they will be stationed in Boise for part of the year.

 

[moving2vegas]

DC-10 BIG ENOUGH?

How about the 747 evergreen is turning into a fire tanker? 23,000 gallons! Artist renditions are on the website but word is it's underway in the AZ desert somewhere.

 

[avbug]

It's down at Marana until the middle of next month.

The practicality of the concept remains to be seen...but will only be applicable to a narrow range of applications.

 

[Cat Driver]

There is a practical limitation on drop speed , long term retardant will really vaporize above 140 knots or so.


The smaller the droplets the less effective it will be as a retardent, however for a direct hit on a flame front, drop speed becomes less of a factor as it will still take heat from the triangle that feeds fire.

 

[Duke Elegant]

Hey Cat Driver.

I guess we were a little too premature in our careers as Fire Bombers. A DC10! Gadzooks man! Can you imagine?
Obviously we were on the "bleeding edge of technology".

I'll bet those DC10 boys will never have as much fun as we did , eh?

I have over twenty years in the fire industry and have seen many starnge attempts to do it better,
Remember the 737 tanker concept? I just happen to have a type rating on the 737 and had to learn to fly all day at 4 degrees nose up. Somehow I can't see that being conducive to the required visibility close to the ground. And how the hell are they going to get down a steep mountain at a hundred feet with the nose up. ... and try to peel out of a tight valley without taking a dirt nap? A jet can only be used in flat terrain from my viewpoint. The expensive trees are up in the hills unfortunately.
Nothing like burning ten thousand pounds of fuel at low level to balance the pollution equation.

Oh well! Best of luck to them. Hope nobody gets hurt.

 

[Cat Driver]

Hey Duke, how goes the battle?

Yeh we were lucky to have been in the business when we were, I only fire bombed for fifteen years but I started before you...ha ha .

And if I had not spent so much time in jail or hanging around whore houses I would have flown more years, but seriously I just got fed up with all the B.S. as more and more morons in the government started to screw up the business.

Yeh I agree the jets would only work on relatively flat terrain but what a fu..ing load they would carry.

All the best mate, nice to hear from you...by the way when are you coming around so I can give you some more dual to sharpen up your flying skills?

Chuck

 

[Duke Elegant]

Hey Cat Driver.

I remember when your'e first old lady shot you. I can't remember what gun it was .... must be getting old. You were such an a#sehole back then we didn't pray ALL that hard for your recovery

You gonna give me some dual in the Cri-Cri?

 

[Cat Driver]

Yeh , Duke :

It was my second wife and it was with my 357 Magnum, in fact it was my very favorite weapon a Colt model 19.

Boy I can assure that fuc.r sure packs a punch, the doctors said it would have killed a higher form of life.

When I get the new engines for the Cri Cri I'll let you fly it, you would love the little bastard. It is stressed for 9 G's positive and 6 G's negative and the roll rate will twist your knob right off.

Yeh, you just can't trust a woman when she gets ahold of your weapon, especially a 357, Jeses that was a long time ago, I think we were still flying out of Footner lake tanker base then.

Cat Driver:

 

[avbug]

There's no limitation that requires drop speed below 140 knots; the door drop speed on the C-130A was 150 KIAS. The P-3A is comparable. The forward speed limits drop height; the concept is getting the retardant to fall straight down, and reduce forward velocity to as little as possible in order to prevent shadowing of fuels. I've made a lot of drops above 140 KIAS.

Airspeed doesn't cause droplets to vaporize, or necessarily determine the atomization of the load. Speed has more to do with coverage level, which is defined as the number of gallons per square hundred feet. A coverage level set at 120 knots will drop to a lower number at 150 knots, due to increased ground speed and less retardant for a given distance.

Smaller droplets are not necessarily less effective. They may be considerably more effective, if coverage is more uniform. The particular application and tactic also places particular demands on the type of retardant, droplet size, and coverage at the fuel level.

Retardant application is seldom direct on the fire. Water is a direct agent, but retardant is more often useful building line, or working indirect attack to support ground operations.

 

[Duke Elegant]

Avbug

I've seen 150 knot drops in Hercs and P3... it comes out like coolaid. Your theory is correct , for small trees , that is. Or scrub. Or grass.

When you have trees a coupla hundred feet high you have to have some penetration. Then some shadowing is acceptable and at least the retardant is on the uphill side of the tree ... that's where the fire is going for the most part. We have steeper mountains here in Canada and should I dare say , bigger trees on average.

I would be very interested in your assessment of the large jet concept.

Sadly , I lost two friends last year in the crash of an L188.

 

[bocefus]

jet fire bombers

How about Hawkins & Powers buying the fancy smancy jet flying boat bombers from the Ruskees?

 

[sky37d]

I always thought that the Beriev's would be cool for fire fighting. I obviously don't know squat about the physics of it, just a cool idea.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: jet fire bombers

...fancy smancy jet flying boat bombers from the Ruskees?

"Ruskies?" What is this, 1963?

 

[Jump Pilot]

We have steeper mountains here in Canada and should I dare say , bigger trees on average.

I could not resist.


The Trees

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

 

[avbug]

Most of my 4Y drops and Herc drops have been into heavy timber and 1,000 hour fuels, and many of those drops have been at higher speeds. Retardant needs to fall vertically for the best effectiveness. Slower is generally better for a drop, no doubt...I'm level 1 carded for SEATs and I try to get as slow as possible due to our reduced drop heights (40', raised by regulation to 60' this year). However, retardant does just fine at much higher speeds.

The H&P venture is interesting. I'm interested to see if it really happens. Those aircraft are very expensive, and having a personal knowledge of that operation, I'm curious to see how they manage to fund such an endevor. I think if they can get them and make them operational, the BE200 wil make a great tanker. I wouldn't mind flying one myself.

As far as the large tanker concept, it's one tool in a field of many. It will have very limited application with a small selection of tanker bases that can accomodate it and the long runways that they will require. The shortage of appropriate runway facilities will mean longer ferry distances, quite likely negating any advantage gained by carrying more retardant.

The amount of FOD over the fire is going to be tough on those engines, both in terms of loading up the compressor, and in terms of potential damage to fan blades by large objects such as trees and other materials in the smoke column. The additional risk of flame-out is a real concern.

Swept wing aircraft over the fire in a slow condition in the fire environment have yet to be proven, and may present some certain challenges that might provide more risk than benifit.

These aircraft were never designed to be loaded and unloaded like a tanker is, nor to fly into extreme turbulence and unload or maneuver...nor to maneuver in the close proximity that's required of a tanker operation.

I see the primary role of the so-called super tankers as more of a cooling project that either builds very long lines (not many operations call for the kind of line they could build), or simply overhead assets to provide some degree of cooling to the fire to reduce flame spread. They could do some serious pretreating, however.

Time will tell. There are so many different assets that apply over the fire, each with a different advantage and drawback. Heavy fixed wing, single engine fixed wing, various rotorwing, air attack, leads, jumpships, etc, all have their roles, and none is better to the exclusion of the others. All have their place, all are tools to be used. I wish Omni and Evergreen luck in their efforts.

Personally, I want to see the turbine P2V project go forward that H&P started years ago. They were stalled due to the lack of T-56 engines...but the project they had used a glass cockpit with turbine engines on a P2V-7 airframe, and would have made a great tanker. I'd like to see the same engines put on the C-97; there are at least 3 available STC's for it...that would be a great tanker. Again, time will tell.