DC-10s as Water Bombers? [Archive]

R. Hubbell

November 9th 03, 03:17 PM

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:30:32 GMT
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Over on the binary channel "alt.binaries.pictures.aviation" someone has
> posted a supposedly authentic picture of an experimental DC-10 jetliner
> dropping a prodigious (to say the least) amount of water on a ground target.

I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that was
designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for delivering
fire retardants. Don't have all the specifics but apparently it's the
differences in the "cargo" that makes them poor for fire duty. There has
been some debate recently on this topic and in a perfect world the planes
should be designed as retardant delivery platforms from the ground up.
(no pun intended)

R. Hubbell

>
> It looks like they could have extinguished the recent Southern California
> fires single-handedly with one of those babies...
>
> Anyone heard of this project?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Jim Weir

November 9th 03, 06:04 PM

Except that...

The S2F/T is possibly the best designed retardant delivery platform that we have
ever known, and nobody around here that flies them can suggest any improvements
on the design. The S2 was a Grumman 1950s sub chaser that was converted to
turbine power a few years ago and is damn near bulletproof.

We had one come home last year with the top two feet of an 8" diameter fir tree
firmly imbedded in the port wing outboard of the nacelle. It took the skin back
to the forward spar, which snapped it off like a twig. Two days later it was
back on the line after a little tinbending repair.

Of course, ten years ago we had one try to move a house. They really can't
stand up to that {:-(

Jim

There has
->been some debate recently on this topic and in a perfect world the planes
->should be designed as retardant delivery platforms from the ground up.
->(no pun intended)

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Peter Duniho

November 9th 03, 07:53 PM

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:gUsrb.10899$7B2.8992@fed1read04...
> I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that
was
> designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for
delivering
> fire retardants.

You "know" that? How do you "know" that? Maybe you should share your
expertise with those operating such airplanes as the Martin Mars (originally
designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire fighting)
and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds
(apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers, as
have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).

> Don't have all the specifics but apparently it's the
> differences in the "cargo" that makes them poor for fire duty.

How can you "know" what you claim to know, and yet not have the specifics?
You seem to have a pretty low threshold for "knowing" something.

> There has
> been some debate recently on this topic and in a perfect world the planes
> should be designed as retardant delivery platforms from the ground up.

Sure, in a perfect world EVERY airplane would be designed from the ground up
for the specific purpose for which it will eventually be used. That goes
without saying.

But we don't live in a perfect world. It turns out that passenger aircraft
ARE quite capable of being converted to water bombers, they perform just
fine as such, and it's often more economical to operate such an airplane
rather than a purpose-built water bomber (I can only think of two
purpose-built water bombers off the top of my head, and you can bet they are
expensive).

> (no pun intended)

I didn't see anything even resembling a pun. I guess you're off the hook on
that one.

Pete

R. Hubbell

November 9th 03, 09:11 PM

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:53:52 -0800
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:gUsrb.10899$7B2.8992@fed1read04...
> > I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that
> was
> > designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for
> delivering
> > fire retardants.
>
> You "know" that? How do you "know" that? Maybe you should share your
> expertise with those operating such airplanes as the Martin Mars (originally
> designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire fighting)

Pretty sure it was designed as a bomber nad bombers do make a good platform,
generally, for fire tankers.

> and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds

But I don't think it was designed to carry passengers.

> (apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers, as
> have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).

They were suitable, but saying that they were a great success is stretching
it a bit.

>
> > Don't have all the specifics but apparently it's the
> > differences in the "cargo" that makes them poor for fire duty.
>
> How can you "know" what you claim to know, and yet not have the specifics?
> You seem to have a pretty low threshold for "knowing" something.

Geez man, take it easy.

>
> > There has
> > been some debate recently on this topic and in a perfect world the planes
> > should be designed as retardant delivery platforms from the ground up.
>
> Sure, in a perfect world EVERY airplane would be designed from the ground up
> for the specific purpose for which it will eventually be used. That goes
> without saying.

Why say it then? ;)

>
> But we don't live in a perfect world. It turns out that passenger aircraft
> ARE quite capable of being converted to water bombers, they perform just
> fine as such, and it's often more economical to operate such an airplane
> rather than a purpose-built water bomber (I can only think of two
> purpose-built water bombers off the top of my head, and you can bet they are
> expensive).

Capable of is not the same as prefectly suited for and most passenger aircraft
are used because it's economical and that's where the imperfect world comes in.

>
> > (no pun intended)
>
> I didn't see anything even resembling a pun. I guess you're off the hook on
> that one.

A sense of humor can help everything go easier.

>
> Pete
>
>

R. Hubbell

November 9th 03, 09:14 PM

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 10:04:00 -0800
Jim Weir > wrote:

> Except that...
>
> The S2F/T is possibly the best designed retardant delivery platform that we have
> ever known, and nobody around here that flies them can suggest any improvements
> on the design. The S2 was a Grumman 1950s sub chaser that was converted to
> turbine power a few years ago and is damn near bulletproof.

Not familiar with that plane, will have to look into it. Are there many left?
Where do they fly from?

>
> We had one come home last year with the top two feet of an 8" diameter fir tree
> firmly imbedded in the port wing outboard of the nacelle. It took the skin back
> to the forward spar, which snapped it off like a twig. Two days later it was

That takes some doing, 8" fir trees are pretty sturdy.

> back on the line after a little tinbending repair.

Now what would have happened to a composite wing?

>
> Of course, ten years ago we had one try to move a house. They really can't
> stand up to that {:-(

Sounds like a bad match.

R. Hubbell

>
> Jim
>
>
>
> There has
> ->been some debate recently on this topic and in a perfect world the planes
> ->should be designed as retardant delivery platforms from the ground up.
> ->(no pun intended)
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

B25flyer

November 9th 03, 11:24 PM

Everyone might be surprised at what shows up next fire season. Rumor has it
that a 747 program is in the works as a retardent bomber. Seems that a certain
company, with some older 747s, based in a smaller town in Oregon is looking
into making it happen.

Walt

Newps

November 10th 03, 12:46 AM

Never happen. Costs too much to operate and too limited on where they
can land. Doesn't do you any good when you are 100+ miles away from the
fire, no matter how much you can carry.

B25flyer wrote:
> Everyone might be surprised at what shows up next fire season. Rumor has it
> that a 747 program is in the works as a retardent bomber. Seems that a certain
> company, with some older 747s, based in a smaller town in Oregon is looking
> into making it happen.
>
> Walt

EDR

November 10th 03, 01:33 AM

In article >, B25flyer
> wrote:

> Everyone might be surprised at what shows up next fire season. Rumor has it
> that a 747 program is in the works as a retardent bomber. Seems that a certain
> company, with some older 747s, based in a smaller town in Oregon is looking
> into making it happen.

747 and DC10 are interesting 'lab' projects, but I doubt if they would
be efficient. From what I understand about fire bombing, you have to
get down on top it and release. Some of the worst turbulence
imaginable.
I doubt the airliner's design was speced for that many constant g's.
Also, their minimum speed would be too high and maneuverability is too
limited.

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 01:38 AM

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:b4yrb.11482$7B2.3468@fed1read04...
> Pretty sure it was designed as a bomber nad bombers do make a good
platform,
> generally, for fire tankers.

It was not. I already told you, it was originally designed as a military
troop transport. You don't need to take my word for it. Just read up on
the history of the Martin Mars.

> > and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds
>
> But I don't think it was designed to carry passengers.

Of course it was. It was specifically designed for a combined
cargo/passenger transport role. It certainly was not designed to be a
bomber.

> > (apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers,
as
> > have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).
>
> They were suitable, but saying that they were a great success is
stretching
> it a bit.

I don't know what else you could call it. They have been putting out fires
for decades.

> > > Don't have all the specifics but apparently it's the
> > > differences in the "cargo" that makes them poor for fire duty.
> >
> > How can you "know" what you claim to know, and yet not have the
specifics?
> > You seem to have a pretty low threshold for "knowing" something.
>
> Geez man, take it easy.

Not sure what you mean. You claimed to know something. You failed (twice)
to provide any basis for that claim. I'm just pointing out that your
"knowledge" is not in agreement with reality. Not sure how much easier that
could be, actually.

> Why say it then? ;)

You tell me. You're the one who said it.

> Capable of is not the same as prefectly suited for and most passenger
aircraft
> are used because it's economical and that's where the imperfect world
comes in.

Practically no water bomber is "prefectly [sic] suited for" water bombing,
nearly all of them being converted from some other use. I'm not saying any
ARE perfectly suited (other than those few specially built for the purpose).
I'm saying your claim that aircraft originally designed to carry passengers
make terrible water bombers is ludicrous.

Pete

Verbs Under My Gel

November 10th 03, 02:18 AM

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<e7yrb.11486>
> Not familiar with that plane, will have to look into it. Are there many left?
> Where do they fly from?
>

Take a look at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/FireEmergencyResponse/Aviation/Aviation.asp

Paul Tomblin

November 10th 03, 02:56 AM

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" > said:
>You "know" that? How do you "know" that? Maybe you should share your
>expertise with those operating such airplanes as the Martin Mars (originally
>designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire fighting)
>and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds
>(apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers, as
>have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).

You notice one thing in common between all of those aircraft and most of
the other successful water bombers? They were all built for the military.

Ok, only 1/4 of the DC-6s built were built for the military, but I bet
they could take more Gs than the DC-10.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"This also tells they understand our language. They are just not willing to
speak to us using it." "Who knew they were French?" - Babylon 5

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 03:18 AM

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> You notice one thing in common between all of those aircraft and most of
> the other successful water bombers? They were all built for the military.
>
> Ok, only 1/4 of the DC-6s built were built for the military, but I bet
> they could take more Gs than the DC-10.

Could very well be. If I've read Part 25 correctly, the load limits
mandated for transport aircraft are not even as strict as those for Part 23
aircraft.

But it's not the "bomber" aspect that necessarily makes a good water bomber,
nor does a "passenger" design necessarily make a bad water bomber. In fact,
most large passenger aircraft (airliners) were derived to at least some
degree from existing military designs, just due to the coincidence of how
aviation developed, so it's not like one can simply say "passenger aircraft
make lousy water bombers".

In any case, I expect someone making a claim like that to at least be able
to provide *some* kind of guess as to why they think the claim is true.
That's obviously not the case here.

Pete

R. Hubbell

November 10th 03, 03:57 AM

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:38:47 -0800
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:b4yrb.11482$7B2.3468@fed1read04...
> > Pretty sure it was designed as a bomber nad bombers do make a good
> platform,
> > generally, for fire tankers.
>
> It was not. I already told you, it was originally designed as a military
> troop transport. You don't need to take my word for it. Just read up on
> the history of the Martin Mars.

Somtimes the facts don't agree. I guess we can all believe what we want to.

>
> > > and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds
> >
> > But I don't think it was designed to carry passengers.
>
> Of course it was. It was specifically designed for a combined
> cargo/passenger transport role. It certainly was not designed to be a
> bomber.

Saying it was designed to carry passengers is like saying a pickup
truck bed was designed for carrying passengers. It's primarily role
is for cargo, large cargo. Yes people can also board it and fly along.
But you won't hear a lot of rave reviews of the travel experience
from the passengers.

>
> > > (apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers,
> as
> > > have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).
> >
> > They were suitable, but saying that they were a great success is
> stretching
> > it a bit.
>
> I don't know what else you could call it. They have been putting out fires
> for decades.

I call it making do with what's feasible.

>
> > > > Don't have all the specifics but apparently it's the
> > > > differences in the "cargo" that makes them poor for fire duty.
> > >
> > > How can you "know" what you claim to know, and yet not have the
> specifics?
> > > You seem to have a pretty low threshold for "knowing" something.
> >
> > Geez man, take it easy.
>
> Not sure what you mean. You claimed to know something. You failed (twice)
> to provide any basis for that claim. I'm just pointing out that your
> "knowledge" is not in agreement with reality. Not sure how much easier that
> could be, actually.
>
> > Why say it then? ;)
>
> You tell me. You're the one who said it.
>
> > Capable of is not the same as prefectly suited for and most passenger
> aircraft
> > are used because it's economical and that's where the imperfect world
> comes in.
>
> Practically no water bomber is "prefectly [sic] suited for" water bombing,
> nearly all of them being converted from some other use. I'm not saying any
> ARE perfectly suited (other than those few specially built for the purpose).
> I'm saying your claim that aircraft originally designed to carry passengers
> make terrible water bombers is ludicrous.

That's just untrue, they are used as water bombers because they make sense
to use since they are available.

You're looking for a fight which is trange to me. You won't find one here.

>
> Pete
>
>

G.R. Patterson III

November 10th 03, 04:26 AM

"R. Hubbell" wrote:
>
> I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that was
> designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for delivering
> fire retardants.

You know this how? The miltary has been using that plane as a tanker for
decades. It should make a fine fire bomber.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

Jim Weir

November 10th 03, 04:27 AM

Wind the clock back a bit...

1988...

The '49er fire burned down half my county. It was the first of the forest-urban
fires that we've seen over the last 20 years. Half of my neighbors had their
homes in ashes that week. The firebombers flew from sunup to sundown, load
after load, in an attempt to put out that fire.

We had a party the day that the fire was over at the county fairgrounds for the
firemen that helped with that effort. Most of us still had soot in our hair and
ashes in our shoes.

Halfway through the party, CDF launched the firebombers on a "practice mission".
They came over the fairgrounds about 200' off the deck and at full engine power.

Y'all ever seen ten thousand people hard-crying at once?

Jim
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

November 10th 03, 04:29 AM

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:38:47 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
>news:b4yrb.11482$7B2.3468@fed1read04...
>> Pretty sure it was designed as a bomber nad bombers do make a good
>platform,
>> generally, for fire tankers.
>
>It was not. I already told you, it was originally designed as a military
>troop transport. You don't need to take my word for it. Just read up on
>the history of the Martin Mars.

"Firefighting certainly wasn't what Glenn L. Martin had in mind for
the design of the Martin Mars. Originally conceived as a bomber for
long range missions and patrols, the production aircraft were
redesigned and classified for long-range general transport because of
the demonstrated heavy-lift capability of the prototype."
<http://www.martinmars.com/mars.html>

"Martin continued test flights on the aircraft until November 1942,
when the Old Lady was passed on to the Navy. By this time the Navy had
decided that big lumbering easy-target patrol bombers were not such a
good idea after all, and the flying boat was converted to a cargo
aircraft before it was handed over. All the turrets and guns, bomb
bays, and armor plate were removed, cargo-loading hatches and
cargo-loading equipment were installed, and the decking was
reinforced. The modified aircraft was designated XPB2M-1R."
<http://www.jimmyhoward.com/Martin-Mars-history.shtml>

"Design work for the Martin "Mars", the largest active-duty flying
boat the world would ever see, started in 1935. After reviewing
proposals submitted by Consolidated, Boeing, Vought-Sikorsky and
Martin, Martin received a contract for a long-range patrol bomber
designated the XPB2M-1 "Mars" on 23 August 1938. The patrol bomber's
keel was laid on 22 August 1940, and the aircraft, known
affectionately as the "Old Lady" was rolled from its hangar on 27
September 1941..." (Steve Ginter, author of MARTIN MARS XPB2M-1R &JRM
FLYING BOATS).
<http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF29.htm>

My Dad sent me a postcard of a Martin Marlin when he was
in the Philipines. Someday I hope to build an RC model of
it.

Marty

John Gaquin

November 10th 03, 05:27 AM

"B25flyer" > wrote in message
...
> ...... Seems that a certain
> company, with some older 747s, based in a smaller town in Oregon is
looking
> into making it happen.

I'm quite familiar with them. Using one of their 747s as a water bomber
would just be one more entry on the long list of bizarre ideas that they've
come up with. Ironically, some of those bizarre ideas have worked, and that
guy has spent a lot of years in the forestry/aviation arena, so don't put
anything off the table quite yet. However, I would think that mod costs on
a 747 would be easily prohibitive, not to mention operational logistics.

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 06:50 AM

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:Z0Erb.11547$7B2.9752@fed1read04...
> You're looking for a fight which is trange to me. You won't find one
here.

I'm just trying to get the facts straight. More than can be said about you.
You're right about one thing...you sure didn't put up much of a fight.

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 06:55 AM

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
> "Firefighting certainly wasn't what Glenn L. Martin had in mind for
> the design of the Martin Mars. Originally conceived as a bomber for
> long range missions and patrols, the production aircraft were
> redesigned and classified for long-range general transport because of
> the demonstrated heavy-lift capability of the prototype."
> <http://www.martinmars.com/mars.html>

Key word: "redesigned".

The prototype was never used as a water bomber. The airplanes in use as
water bombers (and not of the same design as the prototype) were never
intended for use as a bomber. Claiming that they were doesn't make it so.

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 06:56 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> "R. Hubbell" wrote:
> > I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that
was
> > designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for
delivering
> > fire retardants.
>
> You know this how? The miltary has been using that plane as a tanker for
> decades. It should make a fine fire bomber.

Obviously, he doesn't actually know.

Pete

Paul Tomblin

November 10th 03, 12:36 PM

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" > said:
>nor does a "passenger" design necessarily make a bad water bomber. In fact,
>most large passenger aircraft (airliners) were derived to at least some
>degree from existing military designs, just due to the coincidence of how

I'm sure the designers of the DC-10 and 747 would be extremely surprised
to hear that.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they
start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge

Bob Noel

November 10th 03, 01:20 PM

In article >, (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

> >nor does a "passenger" design necessarily make a bad water bomber. In
> >fact,
> >most large passenger aircraft (airliners) were derived to at least some
> >degree from existing military designs, just due to the coincidence of
> >how
>
> I'm sure the designers of the DC-10 and 747 would be extremely surprised
> to hear that.

Wasn't the 747 derived from Boeing's failed bid for the C-5?

--
Bob Noel

Ron Natalie

November 10th 03, 01:50 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message news:jdBrb.156759$Tr4.420869@attbi_s03...
> Never happen. Costs too much to operate and too limited on where they
> can land. Doesn't do you any good when you are 100+ miles away from the
> fire, no matter how much you can carry.
>
Landing isn't a problem, taking off with all that water aboard will be :-)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

November 10th 03, 01:52 PM

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:55:10 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
...
>> "Firefighting certainly wasn't what Glenn L. Martin had in mind for
>> the design of the Martin Mars. Originally conceived as a bomber for
>> long range missions and patrols, the production aircraft were
>> redesigned and classified for long-range general transport because of
>> the demonstrated heavy-lift capability of the prototype."
>> <http://www.martinmars.com/mars.html>

>Key word: "redesigned".

Right. Indicating a change in design. All that the other guy said
was that the Mars was intended originally to be a bomber.
Not a water bomber. A military bomber. When the Navy
changed its mind, the innards got redesigned so that they
could be used for other things.

>The prototype was never used as a water bomber.

Neither the original poster nor I claimed that it was.

>The airplanes in use as
>water bombers (and not of the same design as the prototype) were never
>intended for use as a bomber. Claiming that they were doesn't make it so.

You said we should read the histories. I went out on the net and
read enough to make me quite sure that the original poster's
point was accurate. Now you want to change the terms of the
debate.

You may have the last word.

Marty

Captain Wubba

November 10th 03, 01:52 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Firefighting certainly wasn't what Glenn L. Martin had in mind for
> > the design of the Martin Mars. Originally conceived as a bomber for
> > long range missions and patrols, the production aircraft were
> > redesigned and classified for long-range general transport because of
> > the demonstrated heavy-lift capability of the prototype."
> > <http://www.martinmars.com/mars.html>
>
> Key word: "redesigned".
>
> The prototype was never used as a water bomber. The airplanes in use as
> water bombers (and not of the same design as the prototype) were never
> intended for use as a bomber. Claiming that they were doesn't make it so.

Sorry Peter. You said in an earlier post:

"Martin Mars (originally
designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire
fighting)"

and

"It was not. I already told you, it [the Mars] was originally
designed as a military
troop transport. You don't need to take my word for it. Just read up
on
the history of the Martin Mars."

Clearly *you* were wrong here. You didin't say 'Originally designed as
a bomber, then redesigned as a troop transport'. You said 'Originally
designed as a troop transport'. It was clearly designed as a bomber,
and the 'repurposing' as a transport didn't involved structural
redesign of the wing or structural components of the fuselage. It
consisted of

"All the turrets and guns, bomb bays, and armor plate were removed,
cargo-loading hatches and cargo-loading equipment were installed, and
the decking was reinforced. The modified aircraft was designated
XPB2M-1R. "

So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
'originally designed' as a troop transport.

Yes it was repurposed, but don't you think it's rather ironic that you
chimed in on this thread to chastise the poster for being wrong about
the original purpose of the aircraft, and the being provably incorrect
about it *yourself*?

Cheers,

Cap

John Gaquin

November 10th 03, 02:20 PM

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
>
> So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
> designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
> 'originally designed' as a troop transport.
>

Looks like a medium, uniform shade of gray to me. I've done no research
other than read the cited site above, but that refers to the Mars being
"conceived" as a bomber, but delivered as a transport. "Re-design"
apparently occurred *during* the design phase, which could arguably be taken
as no redesign at all. I didn't get the impression that there was ever any
Mars delivered to an end user as a bomber. How gray do you want to get?

JG

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 06:11 PM

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> [...]
> So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
> designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
> 'originally designed' as a troop transport.

I was speaking of the airplanes actually *flying* as water bombers. They
*were* originally designed as transport aircraft, not bombers.

As I already pointed out, many (most) aircraft are not from-scratch designs.
They are generally redesigns to some extent of previous aircraft. When I
write "originally designed" I do not mean the very first aircraft in the
lineage, but rather the originally intended purpose of the specific aircraft
in question.

You might as well say that the 747 was originally designed as a bomber.

You are also losing track of the point here: all of the discussion regarding
the actual "design" is moot unless the person claiming only bombers make
suitable water bombers can explain what it is about the design of a bomber
that is unique. Obviously since bomber designs have been converted to
passenger designs, they really aren't all that different. There is no a
priori evidence that a passenger design cannot be used in a bomber role,
even if it's as a water bomber.

Pete

Peter Duniho

November 10th 03, 06:14 PM

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sure the designers of the DC-10 and 747 would be extremely surprised
> to hear that.

I doubt that they would. I can't speak directly to the DC-10, but my
history book on Boeing tracks the lineage of all of the Boeing aircraft, and
at each step along the way, each new aircraft borrows heavily from the
previously built aircraft. In many cases, the passenger aircraft projects
started as military contracts.

Pete

Paul Tomblin

November 10th 03, 07:43 PM

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" > said:
>You are also losing track of the point here: all of the discussion regarding
>the actual "design" is moot unless the person claiming only bombers make
>suitable water bombers can explain what it is about the design of a bomber
>that is unique. Obviously since bomber designs have been converted to
>passenger designs, they really aren't all that different. There is no a

Bombers are built stronger. Bombers converted to passenger planes have
never been all that successful, especially not if there is a commercial
competitor, because the extra structure they need to take military G loads
is extra weight that their competitors are carrying in passengers instead
of structure.

They are also designed to take some battle damage. I don't know of any
non-military aircraft where the spec said "must be able to take a 23mm
cannon shell hole in the main spar and keep flying", but I remember the
design spec for what became the UH-60 helicopter did have that provision
(ok, I don't remember seeing that in the spec for other military aircraft,
but the UH-60 and the AH-63 and AH-64 were the only ones that I read in
detail, and they all specified exactly what sort of battle damage they
must be able to take). To be successful as a water bomber, an aircraft
has to be able to maneuver in tight quarters, take high Gs, and maybe deal
with "battle damage" from hitting tree tops or other sources.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....if you squeeze a MS product into a small enough memory footprint there may
not be sufficient space for it to fall over, thus giving the impression it's
reliable. -- Geoff Lane

Ron Natalie

November 10th 03, 09:16 PM

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message ...

> To be successful as a water bomber, an aircraft
> has to be able to maneuver in tight quarters, take high Gs, and maybe deal
> with "battle damage" from hitting tree tops or other sources.

But of course, the nature of a water load and the nature of a bomb load
are a bit different. Aircraft designed as Tankers might be a better idea
(of which the DC-10 already has a variant).

G.R. Patterson III

November 10th 03, 09:30 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Maybe you should share your
> expertise with those operating such airplanes as the Martin Mars (originally
> designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire fighting)

The Mars was originally designed as a reconnaissance bomber, filling the role
of the Catalina. It semms, however, that none of the original bomber versions
were ever built. Martin then designed a transport version of the plane, but
orders for it were reduced with the end of WW II, and only five transport
versions were built. Four of them served well as transports during Korea. So,
while it's true that the existing aircraft were based on a bomber design, it is
equally true that all Mars aircraft produced were designed originally as
transports.

Source: "Wings Over Water", David Oliver.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

R. Hubbell

November 11th 03, 04:16 AM

On 9 Nov 2003 18:18:20 -0800
(Verbs Under My Gel) wrote:

> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<e7yrb.11486>
> > Not familiar with that plane, will have to look into it. Are there many left?
> > Where do they fly from?
> >
>
> Take a look at:
> http://www.fire.ca.gov/FireEmergencyResponse/Aviation/Aviation.asp

Now that S2T looks like a plane well suited as a fire bomber. I wonder if
they're concerned at all about the extra beating they took from carrier
operations? It seems to me that at only 1,200 gallons the trade-off is
that they can get in and out of tight spots and they can get back from
refills much quicker with those twin turbines.

R. Hubbell

alexy

November 11th 03, 05:14 PM

"R. Hubbell" > wrote:

>> We had one come home last year with the top two feet of an 8" diameter fir tree

>That takes some doing, 8" fir trees are pretty sturdy.

True, but the top two feet of such a tree is not a lot tougher than
the top two feet of a 2" (trunk diameter) tree. And for that matter,
not a lot less tough than the top 2 feet of a giant sequoia! I doubt
if he meant that the tree was 8" in diameter two feet from the top --
those are generally described as utility poles, not trees <g>.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Big John

November 11th 03, 11:04 PM

Pete (I think it's your post?)

Need to add a few pennies.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:53:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
>news:gUsrb.10899$7B2.8992@fed1read04...
>> I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that
>was designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for
>delivering fire retardants.
>
>You "know" that? How do you "know" that? Maybe you should share your
>expertise with those operating such airplanes as the Martin Mars (originally
>designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire fighting)
>and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds
>(apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers, as
>have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).

C-130 is a cargo plane and so structurally designed by Lockheed. To
haul passengers they have canvas seats that fold down from walls of
cargo area. The floor is strong enough (they carry fighting vehicles
in the cargo area) they can just build a tank and tie in the cargo
area with the ramp open and nozzles on the tank(s) they can air drop
the 'water'. Easy, cheap conversion. Think I have also seen some
commercial conversions with the nozzles built into the fuselage and
they can drop with the ramp closed.

There are some ANG and AFR C-130's that have the ability to fight
fires. There are six MAFFS (Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System)
systems (in the whole US) that can be used to configure birds in two
Squadrons (one ANG and one AFR) for fire fighting. System holds 3000
gallons and dumps over the open ramp. They are not used very often
(for political reasons) as the laws say that Fire Fighting Companies
must be hired first before any Military birds are used. That's so the
Military don't take any jobs away from civilians.

Since you didn't know this from your post apparently, you now do. All
can be validated on the Internet with a little searching.

Regarding the Mars, read the following extracted from Mars history.

Quote
Martin continued test flights on the aircraft until November 1942,
when the Old Lady was passed on to the Navy. By this time the Navy had
decided that big lumbering easy-target patrol bombers were not such a
good idea after all, and the flying boat was converted to a cargo
aircraft before it was handed over. All the turrets and guns, bomb
bays, and armor plate were removed, cargo-loading hatches and
cargo-loading equipment were installed, and the DECKING WAS
REINFORCED. The modified aircraft was designated XPB2M-1R.
Unquote

You can see that these aircraft were converted to a cargo
configuration by Martin before delivering to the Navy. Further
conversion to a fire fighting airplane would be easy (cheap) since
they are structurally cargo aircraft.

Passenger aircraft can be converted to haul 'water' but doing so is
not very cost effective due to the major remanufacturing required.

Ask Fedex what it costs them to convert a passenger aircraft taken out
of service by the airlines to a cargo configuration so they can load
the pallets to haul their packages. Have seen some figures in AW & ST
of several million dollars per airframe to remanufacture..

Maybe this info will stop the finger pointing and cat and dog fight
on this thread?

Bottom line is to work to get equipment to drop water/retardent to
control/ put out forest fires. Dirty, dangerous work.

Local well know duster was killed working on a fire out west a couple
of years ago when he hit a wire in a canyon. Looked back in the smoke
to check his drop and zap. His partner (friend of mine) quit dusting
and shut down their operation here. He died less that a year later of
cancer :o( Guess when your times up it's up.

Big John

>> Don't have all the specifics but apparently it's the
>> differences in the "cargo" that makes them poor for fire duty.
>
>How can you "know" what you claim to know, and yet not have the specifics?
>You seem to have a pretty low threshold for "knowing" something.
>
>> There has been some debate recently on this topic and in a perfect world the planes
>> should be designed as retardant delivery platforms from the ground up.
>
>Sure, in a perfect world EVERY airplane would be designed from the ground up
>for the specific purpose for which it will eventually be used. That goes
>without saying.
>
>But we don't live in a perfect world. It turns out that passenger aircraft
>ARE quite capable of being converted to water bombers, they perform just
>fine as such, and it's often more economical to operate such an airplane
>rather than a purpose-built water bomber (I can only think of two
>purpose-built water bombers off the top of my head, and you can bet they are
>expensive).
>
>> (no pun intended)
>
>I didn't see anything even resembling a pun. I guess you're off the hook on
>that one.
>
>Pete
>

Big John

November 12th 03, 12:33 AM

Pete

What about the:

737
757
767
7E7

I don't know of any of these that have a military counterpart.

Big John

If they quit fighting in Congress they may buy a modified civilian 767
as a tanker?

If they do it's a bad decission as the 767 doesn't have the range or
load to project air power around the world. For example it will take
two 767's to refuel the same gallons as a single KC-135.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:14:12 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm sure the designers of the DC-10 and 747 would be extremely surprised
>> to hear that.
>
>I doubt that they would. I can't speak directly to the DC-10, but my
>history book on Boeing tracks the lineage of all of the Boeing aircraft, and
>at each step along the way, each new aircraft borrows heavily from the
>previously built aircraft. In many cases, the passenger aircraft projects
>started as military contracts.
>
>Pete
>

Big John

November 12th 03, 01:13 AM

G.R.

What kind of a Military tanker???

Who refueled?

It's so slow I don't think the early jets, when they started being
eqipped with refueling probes, could slow down enought to refuel from
the Mars.

Don't know of any prop Fighters that ever had air refueling
capability.

Know the B-47 and B-52 could not refuel from the Mars. Nor did they
ever try to.

Big John

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:26:12 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>"R. Hubbell" wrote:
>>
>> I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that was
>> designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for delivering
>> fire retardants.
>
>You know this how? The miltary has been using that plane as a tanker for
>decades. It should make a fine fire bomber.
>
>George Patterson
> If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
> the problem.

G.R. Patterson III

November 12th 03, 03:24 AM

Big John wrote:
>
> What kind of a Military tanker???

From the tone of your post, it seems you think I claimed the Mars was used as
a tanker. I was talking about the DC-10.

The DC-10 was and is used as a tanker. I do not remember the military
designation, but our flying club was granted a tour of one at McGuire AFB two
years ago. You can also see one in the Harrison Ford movie where the pres gets
hijacked ("Air Force One??).

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

Bob Noel

November 12th 03, 03:32 AM

In article >, Big John
> wrote:

> If they quit fighting in Congress they may buy a modified civilian 767
> as a tanker?
>
> If they do it's a bad decission as the 767 doesn't have the range or
> load to project air power around the world. For example it will take
> two 767's to refuel the same gallons as a single KC-135.

I thought the 767 has a higher useful load than the 135. Can
you point to sources?

--
Bob Noel

Big John

November 12th 03, 04:57 AM

Bob

Believe it was an article in the rag, AF Times? I just spent 30
minutes looking using Google and can';t find a side by side comparison
of the two birds.

Best I can come up with is a statement that the 767 can down load a
LITTLE more than the 135. Then they go on to say the difference is
about 20% more.

That figure is suspect to me since I can't find a side by side set of
figures. Each bird has a max TO weight that includes both off load
fuel and mission fuel. Since the bird can use either tankage the
length of the mission determines how much they can off load. So
without side by side figures you could spec the 135 for a long mission
which would cut down on it's off load and spec the 767 for a short
mission which would give it more fuel to download. In this cat and dog
fight in Washington it would not surprise me to see those figures
*******ized a lot by the politicians who have a dog in the fight.

Need those figures to be able to compare apples with apples.

There's lots of politics in this procurement so you will hear many PR
figures that may not be supportable in operation since they will be
put out to sell project.

If anyone can find apples and apples would be interested in seeing the
figures.

Big John

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 03:32:47 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Big John
> wrote:
>
>
>> If they quit fighting in Congress they may buy a modified civilian 767
>> as a tanker?
>>
>> If they do it's a bad decission as the 767 doesn't have the range or
>> load to project air power around the world. For example it will take
>> two 767's to refuel the same gallons as a single KC-135.
>
>I thought the 767 has a higher useful load than the 135. Can
>you point to sources?

Big John

November 12th 03, 05:28 AM

G.R.

My pardon. Talk was about the Mars and I just followed my nose and
missed the 'Y' in the road and conintued on the Mars thread.

USAF bought 60 'Extenders" but I've never seen one refueling as they
came into service after I retired.

Also don't have any feed back from the jocks who flew them.

They are not being mentioned in the cat and dog fight over the 767.
Only the old 135 (E's).

Big John

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:24:21 -0500, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Big John wrote:
>>
>> What kind of a Military tanker???
>
>From the tone of your post, it seems you think I claimed the Mars was used as
>a tanker. I was talking about the DC-10.
>
>The DC-10 was and is used as a tanker. I do not remember the military
>designation, but our flying club was granted a tour of one at McGuire AFB two
>years ago. You can also see one in the Harrison Ford movie where the pres gets
>hijacked ("Air Force One??).
>
>George Patterson
> If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
> the problem.

Peter Duniho

November 12th 03, 07:23 AM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know of any of these that have a military counterpart.

"Counterpart" is not the same as "derived from". I'm talking lineage here,
not identical or nearly identical airframes in multiple roles.

Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX

November 12th 03, 08:47 AM

A widebody jet converted to fire bomber would involve
different tradeoffs and tactics. It would be a whole
new ball game.

Last time I flew over Victorville there were many airframes
waiting for something to do.

--
Chuck Forsberg www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665

Bob Noel

November 12th 03, 11:40 AM

In article >, Big John
> wrote:

> There's lots of politics in this procurement so you will hear many PR
> figures that may not be supportable in operation since they will be
> put out to sell project.

put out to sell the project or to kill it. yeah, it certainly
has politics all over it.

>
> If anyone can find apples and apples would be interested in seeing the
> figures.

I'm looking...

--
Bob Noel

Captain Wubba

November 12th 03, 02:08 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...]
> > So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
> > designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
> > 'originally designed' as a troop transport.
>
> I was speaking of the airplanes actually *flying* as water bombers. They
> *were* originally designed as transport aircraft, not bombers.

The Mars aircraft flying today *were* originally designed as bombers.
No way around it. Their airfoil, fuselage, and other structures were
designed under a US Navy contract *specifically* for a long-range
maritime patrol BOMBER in 1938, and that aircraft was designated the
XPB2M-1. When the navy decided they didn't need this kind of aircraft,
it was redesignated the XPB2M-1R, and somewhat modified to carry
cargo. There is *no* other way to interpret that the *original* design
was for a bomber. Just like a building that is 'originally' to be a
restaurant might be converted to a bookstore was *still* originally
designed as a restaurant.
>
> As I already pointed out, many (most) aircraft are not from-scratch designs.
> They are generally redesigns to some extent of previous aircraft. When I
> write "originally designed" I do not mean the very first aircraft in the
> lineage, but rather the originally intended purpose of the specific aircraft
> in question.
>
> You might as well say that the 747 was originally designed as a bomber.

Uh, no, one couldn't. It was designed 'from scratch' as a passenger
carrying airliner. The designers were told 'We need you to come up
with a design for a big airliner that does X, Y, and Z.' Just as the
designers of the Martin Mars were told 'We need to you come up with a
heavy-life maritime patrol bomber.' The 747 obviously borrowed ideas
from aircraft that came before it, but it was designed with a specific
purpose in mind (passenger carrying), just as the Mars was (bombing).

>
> You are also losing track of the point here: all of the discussion regarding
> the actual "design" is moot unless the person claiming only bombers make
> suitable water bombers can explain what it is about the design of a bomber
> that is unique. Obviously since bomber designs have been converted to
> passenger designs, they really aren't all that different. There is no a
> priori evidence that a passenger design cannot be used in a bomber role,
> even if it's as a water bomber.
>
> Pete

I'm not losing track of that at all. I just thought it ironic that you
chimed in attacking a poster, and even said in one post:

"I'm just trying to get the facts straight. More than can be said
about you.
You're right about one thing...you sure didn't put up much of a
fight."

and you *didn't* get the facts straight. In fact, you got them dead
wrong.
I just thought it a bit funny that you were so insistent in the manner
in which you attacked a poster (for making a factual error, which it
turns out he didn't make), and were provably wrong on the facts
yourself.

Cheers,

Cap

Paul Tomblin

November 12th 03, 02:34 PM

In a previous article, "Michael Nouak" > said:
>While I generally agree with the rest of your post, you're incorrect here.
>The B747 was originally conceived to be a cargo plane for the military, in
>competition to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, which eventually won the contract.
>Only after losing did Boeing decide to convert its design to pax use.

However, they converted the design. Unlike the Mars, where the company
took ALREADY BUILT bombers and stripped out the guns and stuff to make it
into a troop transport, they went back to the drawing board, and stripped
off structure that would have supported the military requirements for
higher G loads, rougher landing zones, and heavier concentrated loads on
the floors, making an aircraft that was no longer strong enough for a
military mission.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Or, to put it another way, if you see a long line of rats streaming off of
a ship, the correct assumption is *not* "gosh, I bet that's a real nice
boat now that those rats are gone". - Mike Sphar

G.R. Patterson III

November 12th 03, 03:26 PM

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> Unlike the Mars, where the company
> took ALREADY BUILT bombers and stripped out the guns and stuff to make it
> into a troop transport, they went back to the drawing board, and stripped
> off structure that would have supported the military requirements for
> higher G loads, rougher landing zones, and heavier concentrated loads on
> the floors, making an aircraft that was no longer strong enough for a
> military mission.

Uh, no, they didn't. They stripped all that stuff off the prototype to sell
the Navy on the idea, but the five production aircraft were all built as
transports based on the redesign.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

Ron Natalie

November 12th 03, 03:54 PM

"Big John" > wrote in message ...
> What about the:

All of them have military variants (well at least except for the 7E7 which doesn't really exist yet).

> 737

T-43

> 757

C-32

> 767

KC-767

Ron Natalie

November 12th 03, 03:55 PM

"Big John" > wrote in message ...

> If they do it's a bad decission as the 767 doesn't have the range or
> load to project air power around the world. For example it will take
> two 767's to refuel the same gallons as a single KC-135.
>
Another problem is that the 767's won't fit in the hangars being used for
the KC135's they replace. The Air Force is spending some of that supposed
savings building new hangars.

Ron Natalie

November 12th 03, 03:56 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...

>
> From the tone of your post, it seems you think I claimed the Mars was used as
> a tanker. I was talking about the DC-10.
>
> The DC-10 was and is used as a tanker. I do not remember the military
> designation

KC-10

Captain Wubba

November 12th 03, 06:37 PM

Really? Are you sure? I'm not saying it couldn't be as you say, but it
was my understanding that the B747 arose directly from a conversation
between Juan Trippe (CEO of Pan AM) and Boeing President William Allen
in the fall of 1965 about Pan Am's need for a 300+ passenger
long-range airliner. It was my understanding that after Pan Am signed
the initial letter of intent and order, that Malcolm Stamper (An
electrical engineer and production specialist, brought over from GM)
put together a team and essentially designed the 747 from scratch,
without using an existing design as the 'basis' for it (obviously it
has a similar planform to planes like the 707, but very little else in
common with it). I'm kind of an aviation history buff, and I had
always read that the 747 was essentially a 'clean-room' design
specifically to meet Trippe's (and obviously other airlines)
specifications.

I'd like to know more about it's background as a military cargo
transport. Is there a source that you know of that has more extensive
information about this history?

Thanks,

Cap

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message >...
> "Captain Wubba" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> om...
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > snip
> > > You might as well say that the 747 was originally designed as a bomber.
> >
> > Uh, no, one couldn't. It was designed 'from scratch' as a passenger
> > carrying airliner. ...
>
> While I generally agree with the rest of your post, you're incorrect here.
> The B747 was originally conceived to be a cargo plane for the military, in
> competition to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, which eventually won the contract.
> Only after losing did Boeing decide to convert its design to pax use.
>
> Mike

Captain Wubba

November 12th 03, 06:48 PM

Please ignore my pervious post. After reading your post I went out and
did some more research, and you are indeed correct. I had thought the
747 was a 'clean room' design, but apparently I was wrong. I'd love to
see the original version Boeing tossed up against the Lockheed entry.
I know Boeing had a ton of teething problems with the B747 (notably
the P&W engines) and had initially envisioned a plane with full-double
decks, but abandoned it. Related to the original post, I can't imagine
the entry for the HLS competition was anything resembing the final
production version of the 747-100, but I can't seem to find any
pictures or engineering drawings, so it might be a 'spitting image'
:). If you know of any, I'd love to see them. You learn something new
every day :)

Thanks,

Cap

"Michael Nouak" > wrote in message >...
> "Captain Wubba" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> om...
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > snip
> > > You might as well say that the 747 was originally designed as a bomber.
> >
> > Uh, no, one couldn't. It was designed 'from scratch' as a passenger
> > carrying airliner. ...
>
> While I generally agree with the rest of your post, you're incorrect here.
> The B747 was originally conceived to be a cargo plane for the military, in
> competition to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, which eventually won the contract.
> Only after losing did Boeing decide to convert its design to pax use.
>
> Mike

Gig Giacona

November 12th 03, 08:10 PM

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Pete
>
> What about the:
>
> 737
> 757
> 767
> 7E7
>
> I don't know of any of these that have a military counterpart.
>
> Big John
>
> If they quit fighting in Congress they may buy a modified civilian 767
> as a tanker?
>
> If they do it's a bad decission as the 767 doesn't have the range or
> load to project air power around the world. For example it will take
> two 767's to refuel the same gallons as a single KC-135.
>
>

And I heard on NPR this morning that they are going to lease instead of by
them so they will have to be Certified in the tanker configuration.

Richard Cochran

November 13th 03, 12:28 AM

(Captain Wubba) wrote in message >...

> "Michael Nouak" > wrote in message >...
> > "Captain Wubba" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > om...
> > > "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > snip
> > > > You might as well say that the 747 was originally designed as a bomber.
> > >
> > > Uh, no, one couldn't. It was designed 'from scratch' as a passenger
> > > carrying airliner. ...
> >
> > While I generally agree with the rest of your post, you're incorrect here.
> > The B747 was originally conceived to be a cargo plane for the military, in
> > competition to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, which eventually won the contract.
> > Only after losing did Boeing decide to convert its design to pax use.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Really? Are you sure? I'm not saying it couldn't be as you say, but it
> was my understanding that the B747 arose directly from a conversation
> between Juan Trippe (CEO of Pan AM) and Boeing President William Allen
> in the fall of 1965 about Pan Am's need for a 300+ passenger
> long-range airliner.

There seems to be some truth to both sides. According to Boeing's
website,
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/747.html
"...Boeing had already developed the design concepts and technology
of such an airplane because the company had bid on, but lost, the
contract for a gigantic military transport, the C-5A."

The Pan AM/Trippe story is related at
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9904/FR9904e.htm

Note also that the 747 was available from the start in both freighter
and passenger versions, so freighter use was planned from the beginning.
It's a bit of a stretch to say it was ever a pure passenger airliner.

I seem to recall that freigher use was a primary reason for
putting the flight deck up on the "second story", to allow for a hinged
nose to open up for unobstructed cargo access. In fact, I know I've
read somewhere that many of the forward-thinking planners of the late
'60s felt that all the early passenger 747s would soon be converted to
freighters, because passenger flights would all be switched to
supersonic transports. So it was important to build even the passenger
models with eventual freighter conversion in mind, so that the airlines
wouldn't get stuck with an obsolete slow passenger hauler in the
supersonic age. Oh well, I guess the visionaries can't always be right...

--Rich