Canadian Forces cast about for used Hercules airframes

[Andrew Chaplin]

National Pest article at http://tinyurl.com/onwo.

How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
pose the question in the first place.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> National Pest article at http://tinyurl.com/onwo.
>
> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
> pose the question in the first place.

The C-130 fire bomber crash in California put many of the airframes on a
course for being beer cans.

[Darrell A. Larose]

"Andrew Chaplin" ) writes:
> National Pest article at http://tinyurl.com/onwo.
>
> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
> pose the question in the first place.
>
Seeing how the canForces has 3 of the last C-130(L100) made I think it's
unlikely they'll find any C-130 with enough life on the airframes to
provide spares for the 32 CC-130 we operate. Personally we should look at
the C-130J

[Ron]

>The C-130 fire bomber crash in California put many of the airframes on a
>course for being beer cans.
>

Not entirely true. Forest Service will not accept them for any retardant
tanker work. I believe some of the C-130As were used this summer, but outside
the country.


Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance

[Kevin Brooks]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message >...
> National Pest article at http://tinyurl.com/onwo.
>
> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
> pose the question in the first place.

Depends upon what they want to pay. The UK has already disposed of
some of its K models to Poland and Austria, and is going to be looking
to get rid of more, and IIRC LMCO took some K's back as part of the
sale of J models, and would be looking to sell the older aircraft as
well. Unlikely to find any USAF, to include ANG and AFRC, C-130's with
enough hours left on them to meet Canada's needs, though they do still
manage to scrape a few out of AMARC periodically to provide to other
nations (Bulgaria and South Africa being recent recipients of B
models, IIRC). If they are willing to use them, there are also a fair
number of civilian L-100's out there.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >The C-130 fire bomber crash in California put many of the airframes on a
> >course for being beer cans.
> >
>
> Not entirely true. Forest Service will not accept them for any retardant
> tanker work. I believe some of the C-130As were used this summer, but
outside
> the country.

I know people who retrofit C-130s and they are saying many will soon be beer
cans. The water bomber crash was bad for the C-130, but good for
Bombardier.

[Jordan]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:02:32 -0700, Hobo > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>
>> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
>> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
>> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
>> pose the question in the first place.
>
>Why don't they buy the new Airbus military cargo plane?

Money. Rather, a lack of money.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Jordan wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:02:32 -0700, Hobo > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
> >
> >> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
> >> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
> >> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
> >> pose the question in the first place.
> >
> >Why don't they buy the new Airbus military cargo plane?
>
> Money. Rather, a lack of money.

And a decided unwillingness to spend what they have on the armed
forces.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Brian Colwell]

"Jordan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:02:32 -0700, Hobo > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
> >
> >> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
> >> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is
this
> >> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
> >> pose the question in the first place.
> >
> >Why don't they buy the new Airbus military cargo plane?
>
> Money. Rather, a lack of money.

I would say it's a case of priorities.......They can waste millions on
*political correct* projects but can put our troops into harms way, with
inadequate equipment !

BMC

[Ron]

>> Not entirely true. Forest Service will not accept them for any retardant
>> tanker work. I believe some of the C-130As were used this summer, but
>outside
>> the country.
>
>I know people who retrofit C-130s and they are saying many will soon be beer
>cans. The water bomber crash was bad for the C-130, but good for
>Bombardier.

And again, not entirely true :)

They are two different aircraft that would be best in two different
environments. In big wide open areas with lots of lakes, like much of southern
Canada, and Minnesota, those scoopers are great.

But in the western states, the scoopers would not be near as useful. Alpine
lakes surrounded by mountain peaks at around 10,000 MSL are not very good
places to be trying to scoop water, especially during a summer day.

There will always be a need for the heavy tankers with retardant..Might be less
of them in the future, but there will always be some around.

The ones to benefit the most from the probably elimination of C-130A and
PB4Y-2, will be companys and make and or operate SEATs, Single Engine Air
Tankers, like Air Tractors, Thrushs, Dromadiers.

I dont even think the USFS/OAS is going to card any additional P-2s, SP-2Hs for
retardant tankers..


Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >> Not entirely true. Forest Service will not accept them for any
retardant
> >> tanker work. I believe some of the C-130As were used this summer, but
outside
> >> the country.
> >
> >I know people who retrofit C-130s and they are saying many will soon be
beer
> >cans. The water bomber crash was bad for the C-130, but good for
> >Bombardier.
>
> And again, not entirely true :)

No Rob, it is entirely true that what happened is good for Bombardier. If
you were to choose to acquire even the most basic understanding of the
opertion of these quasi-public aircraft you would know that the "oldest
airframe" is the first launched. Bombardier's fire bombers are new and
subject to waiting a long long time before they are used today. A chnge in
the law is likely, due to the fact that old aircraft are more prone to
falling out of the sky.

> They are two different aircraft that would be best in two different
> environments. In big wide open areas with lots of lakes, like much of
southern
> Canada, and Minnesota, those scoopers are great.

Poor Ron, makes a false premise and then expands into more ignorance.

> But in the weste n states, the scoopers would not be near as useful.
Alpine
> lakes surrounded by mountain peaks at around 10,000 MSL are not very good
> places to be trying to scoop water, especially during a summer day.

Get back with us afeter you purchase a vowel, Ron.

[Ron]

>> >cans. The water bomber crash was bad for the C-130, but good for
>> >Bombardier.
>>
>> And again, not entirely true :)
>
>No Rob, it is entirely true that what happened is good for Bombardier. If
>you were to choose to acquire even the most basic understanding of the
>opertion of these quasi-public aircraft you would know that the "oldest
>airframe" is the first launched. Bombardier's fire bombers are new and
>subject to waiting a long long time before they are used today. A chnge in
>the law is likely, due to the fact that old aircraft are more prone to
>falling out of the sky.

I didnt say it was not true at all...I am sure they might get some additional
orders, but those new Bombardier CL-415s are really expensive. They are good
at what they do though, not denying that at all.

>> They are two different aircraft that would be best in two different
>> environments. In big wide open areas with lots of lakes, like much of
>southern
>> Canada, and Minnesota, those scoopers are great.
>
>Poor Ron, makes a false premise and then expands into more ignorance.
>

mmmmm okay

>> But in the weste n states, the scoopers would not be near as useful.
>Alpine
>> lakes surrounded by mountain peaks at around 10,000 MSL are not very good
>> places to be trying to scoop water, especially during a summer day.
>
>Get back with us afeter you purchase a vowel, Ron.
>
>
Now that wasnt really neccessary John. I have never said a bad or personal
thing about you on here, even if I disagreed with you.

My point was that the retardant tankers are not neccesarily just interchangable
with the scooper type tankers. I have fought fire, both on the ground as a
wildland firefighter, and also as an air attack/recon pilot, on fires that a
scooper type would be as worthless as tits on a frog.

But areas with a lot of accessable water, that is not highly mountainous, can
be an ideal place for a Bombardier Cl215 or 415 tanker. Brainerd Minnesota I
believe has on based there during the summer. In some areas, they get lots of
use, and are far better than a heavy type, like a C-130A...



Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >> >cans. The water bomber crash was bad for the C-130, but good for
> >> >Bombardier.
> >>
> >> And again, not entirely true :)
> >
> >No Rob, it is entirely true that what happened is good for Bombardier.
If
> >you were to choose to acquire even the most basic understanding of the
> >opertion of these quasi-public aircraft you would know that the "oldest
> >airframe" is the first launched. Bombardier's fire bombers are new and
> >subject to waiting a long long time before they are used today. A chnge
in
> >the law is likely, due to the fact that old aircraft are more prone to
> >falling out of the sky.
>
> I didnt say it was not true at all...

You wrote something silly, Ron.

> I am sure they might get some additional
> orders, but those new Bombardier CL-415s are really expensive. They are
good
> at what they do though, not denying that at all.

It is operational rules that styfle Bombardier's sales, not cost. Do you
have any idea what it costs to launch those radial engine relics out of Fox
Field? The USAF is crying now at the cost of keeping 707s flying.

> >> They are two different aircraft that would be best in two different
> >> environments. In big wide open areas with lots of lakes, like much of
southern
> >> Canada, and Minnesota, those scoopers are great.
> >
> >Poor Ron, makes a false premise and then expands into more ignorance.

> mmmmm okay

There are plenty of man made lakes to scoop from in the Southwest.

> >> But in the weste n states, the scoopers would not be near as useful.
Alpine
> >> lakes surrounded by mountain peaks at around 10,000 MSL are not very
good
> >> places to be trying to scoop water, especially during a summer day.
> >
> >Get back with us afeter you purchase a vowel, Ron.

> Now that wasnt really neccessary John. I have never said a bad or
personal
> thing about you on here, even if I disagreed with you.

"And again, not entirely true :)"

I take that as a personal insult.

I have respect for you Ron, as most of your posts are well thought out, but
since Dudley has taken his insults into the real world people in the real
world have been harmed. Even some Canadians are finding themselves DK'd,
over the trolls tantrum.

> My point was that the retardant tankers are not neccesarily just
interchangable
> with the scooper type tankers. I have fought fire, both on the ground as
a
> wildland firefighter, and also as an air attack/recon pilot, on fires that
a
> scooper type would be as worthless as tits on a frog.

Age of airframe is the fire bomber issue, from an operational standpoint.

From the Canadian standpoint, interchangability of parts is the issue and
that is true through the H model. in fact, Oz may have some Hs they mioght
be ready to sell.

> But areas with a lot of accessable water, that is not highly mountainous,
can
> be an ideal place for a Bombardier Cl215 or 415 tanker. Brainerd
Minnesota I
> believe has on based there during the summer. In some areas, they get
lots of
> use, and are far better than a heavy type, like a C-130A...

That C-130 folding up on live video was not good for the immage of the type.

All aviation is politics.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> Not entirely true. Forest Service will not accept them for any
> retardant
> > >> tanker work. I believe some of the C-130As were used this summer, but
> outside
> > >> the country.
> > >
> > >I know people who retrofit C-130s and they are saying many will soon be
> beer
> > >cans. The water bomber crash was bad for the C-130, but good for
> > >Bombardier.
> >
> > And again, not entirely true :)
>
> No Rob, it is entirely true that what happened is good for Bombardier. If
> you were to choose to acquire even the most basic understanding of the
> opertion of these quasi-public aircraft you would know that the "oldest
> airframe" is the first launched. Bombardier's fire bombers are new and
> subject to waiting a long long time before they are used today. A chnge in
> the law is likely, due to the fact that old aircraft are more prone to
> falling out of the sky.
>
> > They are two different aircraft that would be best in two different
> > environments. In big wide open areas with lots of lakes, like much of
> southern
> > Canada, and Minnesota, those scoopers are great.
>
> Poor Ron, makes a false premise and then expands into more ignorance.

Well, he sounds a lot less ignorant than the Tarvernaut. How many
CL-415's have been sold in the western US?

>
> > But in the weste n states, the scoopers would not be near as useful.
> Alpine
> > lakes surrounded by mountain peaks at around 10,000 MSL are not very good
> > places to be trying to scoop water, especially during a summer day.
>
> Get back with us afeter you purchase a vowel, Ron.

Guess the concept of a goodly chunk of the area in our western states
not being all that compatable with fixed wing scoop operations is
beyond the Tarvernaut as well; but then again, if he can invent a
"recoiless" M102 for the AC-130, I guess it is pretty easy for him to
declare that scoop operations in those mountain lakes is a piece of
cake...

Brooks

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
>> National Pest article at http://tinyurl.com/onwo.
>>
>> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
>> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
>> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
>> pose the question in the first place.
>
>The C-130 fire bomber crash in California put many of the airframes on a
>course for being beer cans.
>
Yes, that's a real scary clip isn't it?...both wings came off
like they were made of cheese...I have it here somewhere...
--

-Gord.

[B2431]

>Yes, that's a real scary clip isn't it?...both wings came off
>like they were made of cheese...I have it here somewhere...
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
If you find it please send it to me.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> National Pest article at http://tinyurl.com/onwo.
> >>
> >> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
> >> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is
this
> >> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
> >> pose the question in the first place.
> >
> >The C-130 fire bomber crash in California put many of the airframes on a
> >course for being beer cans.

> Yes, that's a real scary clip isn't it?...both wings came off
> like they were made of cheese...I have it here somewhere...

It didn't look real.

[B2431]

>> Yes, that's a real scary clip isn't it?...both wings came off
>> like they were made of cheese...I have it here somewhere...
>
>It didn't look real.

But it was real.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> Yes, that's a real scary clip isn't it?...both wings came off
> >> like they were made of cheese...I have it here somewhere...
> >
> >It didn't look real.
>
> But it was real.

Yes, the wings just folded up.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> Yes, that's a real scary clip isn't it?...both wings came off
> > >> like they were made of cheese...I have it here somewhere...
> > >
> > >It didn't look real.
> >
> > But it was real.
>
> Yes, the wings just folded up.

For those of us who have spent any amount of time as Herky Bird cargo,
that clip brought on a real "Holy F*ck!" moment. I imagine it was not
any better for those who drive them.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Ron]

>>
>> > They are two different aircraft that would be best in two different
>> > environments. In big wide open areas with lots of lakes, like much of
>> southern
>> > Canada, and Minnesota, those scoopers are great.
>>
>> Poor Ron, makes a false premise and then expands into more ignorance.
>
>Well, he sounds a lot less ignorant than the Tarvernaut. How many
>CL-415's have been sold in the western US?

I know of no US orders resulting from the grounding of those two large types of
tankers (C-130A, or PBY4-2). Hawkins and Powers lost both of those aircraft
last year, and I certainly have not heard of them preparing to order a CL-415,
nor have I heard about Neptune, Aero Union, ARDCO or International Air Response
preparing to order any. I am not sure they could even afford them to buy them
if they wanted to.

The excess need is being taken up with SEATS...not Bombardiers..

>> > But in the weste n states, the scoopers would not be near as useful.
>> Alpine
>> > lakes surrounded by mountain peaks at around 10,000 MSL are not very good
>> > places to be trying to scoop water, especially during a summer day.
>>
>> Get back with us afeter you purchase a vowel, Ron.
>
>Guess the concept of a goodly chunk of the area in our western states
>not being all that compatable with fixed wing scoop operations is
>beyond the Tarvernaut as well; but then again, if he can invent a
>"recoiless" M102 for the AC-130, I guess it is pretty easy for him to
>declare that scoop operations in those mountain lakes is a piece of
>cake...
>
>Brooks

Sigh....well at least Brooks sees my point. There is an OCCASIONAL fire in the
southwest that might have a large enough body of water nearby for a CL-415, but
its certainly not enough to begin basing CL-415s in the desert, even if John
Tarver thinks it is a good idea. Dont expect to see new Bombardier scooper
tankers at Winslow, Sierra Vista, Prescott, Pueblo, Albuquerque, or Alamogordo
tanker bases any time soon.

The bodies of water in the SW that might be near a fire, are far better served
by Helos such as Sikorski/Erickson Skycranes and S-60 firehawks..than CL-415s.
I saw some of those S-60 Firehawks in Missoula last month, and they are quite
impressive in their capabilities. Erickson is building new Skycranes, since
they have all the type certificates from Sikorsky now too.

The fire the C-130A was lost on, was the Cannon Fire in California, which might
help those doing a websearch for the file. There are also photos of the PB4Y-2
that were taken at the moment it had structural failure also..It was shortly
afterwards in Colorado that it happened.
Apparently the USAF had some similar failures on their C-130As too




Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...

> Sigh....well at least Brooks sees my point.

No Ron, Brooks is a clueless idiot and you just look like a fool replying to
him.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Sigh....well at least Brooks sees my point.
>
> No Ron, Brooks is a clueless idiot and you just look like a fool replying to
> him.

Does anyone really value the Tarvernaut's opinion when it comes to
clues, idiocy, or foolery? Or for that matter the subjects of aircraft
systems or Civil War history (the only man known who preaches that the
Confederacy was blockading the North, and not the other way
around...)? I thought not...

Brooks

[Bob McKellar]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > "Ron" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Sigh....well at least Brooks sees my point.
> >
> > No Ron, Brooks is a clueless idiot and you just look like a fool replying to
> > him.
>
> Does anyone really value the Tarvernaut's opinion when it comes to
> clues, idiocy, or foolery? Or for that matter the subjects of aircraft
> systems or Civil War history (the only man known who preaches that the
> Confederacy was blockading the North, and not the other way
> around...)? I thought not...
>
> Brooks

My wife the fifth grade teacher is covering the War of Northern Aggression in her class
now. She comes home and tells me some of the silly things her students say when they are
grasping to answer questions without having read the material.

Today, I was going to tell her about a supposed adult who claimed the CSN blockaded the
yankees, but I decided she wouldn't believe such a thing.

Bob McKellar

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:02:32 -0700, Hobo > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>
>> How realistic is this plan, anyway? Are there any C-130 airframes out
>> there to be had? Or, like John Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch, is this
>> an act of the purest optimism on the part of the procurement folks to
>> pose the question in the first place.
>
>Why don't they buy the new Airbus military cargo plane?

Because it's not going to fly for years and it will take a year or two
after that until it's operational. The M400 is not a production
aircraft at this time.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC