the ideal fire/water bomber?

[patrick mitchel]

After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern cal
fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the wrong sized
tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling over what should
be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of others regarding what
current - or hypothetical craft would be considered for the role. Thanks Pat

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in
:

> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern
> cal fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the
> wrong sized tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling
> over what should be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of
> others regarding what current - or hypothetical craft would be
> considered for the role. Thanks Pat


Well, C130 tanks are a lot bigger than what you would have in an Agwagon or
something..
Old hercs are relatively inexpensive and it's whatever is wiling to be
spent on the job that dictates the size and suitability of the airplane to
the task.
Ideally, you could get the Russians to build an air force of AN225 modified
for the task, or you could get thousands upon thousands of smaller aircraft
as well as the support to service them in the field, but who's gonna pay
for it?



Bertie

[patrick mitchel]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "patrick mitchel" > wrote in
> :
>
>> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern
>> cal fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the
>> wrong sized tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling
>> over what should be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of
>> others regarding what current - or hypothetical craft would be
>> considered for the role. Thanks Pat
>
>
> Well, C130 tanks are a lot bigger than what you would have in an Agwagon
> or
> something..
> Old hercs are relatively inexpensive and it's whatever is wiling to be
> spent on the job that dictates the size and suitability of the airplane to
> the task.
> Ideally, you could get the Russians to build an air force of AN225
> modified
> for the task, or you could get thousands upon thousands of smaller
> aircraft
> as well as the support to service them in the field, but who's gonna pay
> for it?
>
>
>
> Bertie
That's the other question- the dedicated craft that sits off work or the
generalist that you haul the tanks in and out of depending on the season-
though fire season seems to be 365 d/yr here. Gotta say the ericsson
skycranes look amazing on the job.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in
:

> Xref: news rec.aviation.piloting:569785
> Path:
> nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!
> news.kjsl.com!news.lafn.org!not-for-mail From: "patrick mitchel"
> > Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: the ideal fire/water bomber?
> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:09:33 -0700
> Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net
> Lines: 36
> Message-ID: >
> References: >
> > NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 66-81-193-210.socal.dialup.o1.com X-Trace: zook.lafn.org 1193501376
> 66375 66.81.193.210 (27 Oct 2007 16:09:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To:
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:09:36
> +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "patrick mitchel" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the
>>> southern cal fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130
>>> had the wrong sized tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint
>>> were haggling over what should be done, I thought I'd ask what is
>>> the opinions of others regarding what current - or hypothetical
>>> craft would be considered for the role. Thanks Pat
>>
>>
>> Well, C130 tanks are a lot bigger than what you would have in an
>> Agwagon or
>> something..
>> Old hercs are relatively inexpensive and it's whatever is wiling to
>> be spent on the job that dictates the size and suitability of the
>> airplane to the task.
>> Ideally, you could get the Russians to build an air force of AN225
>> modified
>> for the task, or you could get thousands upon thousands of smaller
>> aircraft
>> as well as the support to service them in the field, but who's gonna
>> pay for it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> That's the other question- the dedicated craft that sits off work or
> the
> generalist that you haul the tanks in and out of depending on the
> season- though fire season seems to be 365 d/yr here. Gotta say the
> ericsson skycranes look amazing on the job.
>

Don't know a lot about firefighting, but the most popular new
contraption nowadays is the Canadair. Of couse, you have to have a large
enough body of water nearby to allow them their full potential.



Bertie>

[oilsardine[_2_]]

A380 ;-))

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "patrick mitchel" > said:
>After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern cal
>fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the wrong sized
>tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling over what should
>be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of others regarding what
>current - or hypothetical craft would be considered for the role. Thanks Pat

Seems to me that you need a variety of aircraft for different sized fires,
different aspects of the same fire. The DC-10 tanker can deliver a lot
of retardant to a big area, but it's probably not what you need for a
small fire in a narrow canyon. The CL-410 can get in and out of small
lakes and provide a lot of round trips, but against a big Southern
California fire it's kind of spitting in the wind.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Today Has Been Two Of Those Days.
-- Mike Andrews

[Jim Logajan]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote:
> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern
> cal fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the
> wrong sized tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling
> over what should be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of
> others regarding what current - or hypothetical craft would be
> considered for the role. Thanks Pat

Airships. JMHO.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "patrick mitchel" > wrote:
>> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern
>> cal fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the
>> wrong sized tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling
>> over what should be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of
>> others regarding what current - or hypothetical craft would be
>> considered for the role. Thanks Pat
>
> Airships. JMHO.
>

Yes, and a cheap suborbital launch system when you relelase the water!
Hard to think of anything better to get near a turbulent fire as well.


Bertie

[John Godwin]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Airships. JMHO.

.... if you got the time, we got the water. :-)

--

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>> Airships. JMHO.
>
> Yes, and a cheap suborbital launch system when you relelase the water!

WWI Zeppelins dropped tons of bombs on England and I'm pretty sure none
went suborbital. I'm sure the crews would have loved to gain the altitude
to get clear of anti-aircraft fire! ;-)

> Hard to think of anything better to get near a turbulent fire as well.

I presume they would drop from a higher altitude when turbulence got too
strong. I suspect lower airspeed would translate to better drop control -
it's not like they have to worry about AA fire ;-). If needed I suppose
they could even use tethers to help maintain station in high winds (maybe
even use a long hose to a source of water on the ground?). Though I admit
tethers can cause more control problems than expected for LTA craft.

On the other hand, here's a video someone took of a Goodyear blimp caught
in a thunderstorm trying to make headway in turbulent conditions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERI8_cprgMo

It ended in a crash, but no fatalities according to the NTSB report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050706X00943&key=1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote in
>> :
>>> Airships. JMHO.
>>
>> Yes, and a cheap suborbital launch system when you relelase the
>> water!
>
> WWI Zeppelins dropped tons of bombs on England and I'm pretty sure
> none went suborbital. I'm sure the crews would have loved to gain the
> altitude to get clear of anti-aircraft fire! ;-)
>
>> Hard to think of anything better to get near a turbulent fire as
>> well.
>
> I presume they would drop from a higher altitude when turbulence got
> too strong.


It's pretty strong around even relativle small fires, and the thermal
draft is unbeleivable. I can't see it being very controllable at all, bu
tthen I don't even fly balloons let alone airships.


..I suspect lower airspeed would translate to better drop
> control - it's not like they have to worry about AA fire ;-). If
> needed I suppose they could even use tethers to help maintain station
> in high winds (maybe even use a long hose to a source of water on the
> ground?). Though I admit tethers can cause more control problems than
> expected for LTA craft.
>
> On the other hand, here's a video someone took of a Goodyear blimp
> caught in a thunderstorm trying to make headway in turbulent
> conditions:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERI8_cprgMo


Wow! that was cool!

>
> It ended in a crash, but no fatalities according to the NTSB report:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050706X00943&key=1
>


They were vry lucky, really. If you've never read the account of the
Navy's airships you should. The stories of their encounters with CB is
unforgettable reading.

Bertie

[george]

On Oct 28, 6:21 am, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:19:36 +0200, "oilsardine" >
> wrote:
>
> >A380 ;-))
>
> The hangar for my day job is close by the DC-10 bomber. It hauls a
> huge load of retardant, and can make about 1 drop an hour.
>
> OTOH, it limped back to the airport a few months ago after it hit some
> trees with a wingtip. Impressive that it was able to survive the hit,
> not so impressive that it hit to begin with.

That's the one I saw on TV.
A really impressive water dump..
But at the time I thought my eyes were deceiving me

[[email protected]]

Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:36:12 -0700, george > wrote:

> >On Oct 28, 6:21 am, Richard Riley > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:19:36 +0200, "oilsardine" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A380 ;-))
> >>
> >> The hangar for my day job is close by the DC-10 bomber. It hauls a
> >> huge load of retardant, and can make about 1 drop an hour.
> >>
> >> OTOH, it limped back to the airport a few months ago after it hit some
> >> trees with a wingtip. Impressive that it was able to survive the hit,
> >> not so impressive that it hit to begin with.
> >
> >That's the one I saw on TV.
> >A really impressive water dump..
> >But at the time I thought my eyes were deceiving me

> There's a 747-200 bomber, too, but I don't know if anyone is using it.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfCwChAg6lE

Last I heard the guy that was doing it was giving up on it as not
economically viable.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave[_1_]]

Easy, - The Canadair, piston or turboprop.

It is DESIGNED to do this work..

Presently holds the records for dumping on fires...

Some place in Brazil in think one crew made a drop every 55
seconds, for almost 2 hours! (fire was right beside the lake)

Watched one load from my boat a few yrs ago... They hit full power
as soon as they touch the water, loads in a few seconds.

I is tough work. I spoke to one of the pilots, he showed me his
helmet, gouged and beat up from hitting the side of the cockpit in the
turbulance over the fire. He described it as "up 50 ft, down 50 ft,
right 50 ft and left 50 ft...all at the same time"...

Dave





On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:41:25 -0700, "patrick mitchel"
> wrote:

>After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern cal
>fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the wrong sized
>tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling over what should
>be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of others regarding what
>current - or hypothetical craft would be considered for the role. Thanks Pat
>

[bobmrg]

On Oct 27, 8:41 am, "patrick mitchel" > wrote:
> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern cal
> fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the wrong sized
> tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling over what should
> be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of others regarding what
> current - or hypothetical craft would be considered for the role. Thanks Pat

I'm glad to see the Canadian Mars being used. I visited their base on
Vancouver Island and they are a great bunch of guys with great
airplanes. US authorities do not call on them nearly enough.

Bob Gardner

[Dave[_3_]]

Probably some of the best vid of the 415 in action!

Dave

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcqguPTBteQ

[Morgans[_2_]]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
...
> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern cal
> fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the wrong sized
> tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling over what
> should be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of others regarding
> what current - or hypothetical craft would be considered for the role.
> Thanks Pat

The ideal fire bomber is the CL-415.

There is nothing out there that can put more water on a fire per hour than
this plane. A small but to make this statement true is a lake or river
nearby that can be used for airborne scooping.

A CL-415 with a nearby water source can put as much as 63,000 gallons on a
fire in an hour. Other planes have to return to an airstrip and refill,
taking 30 minutes or more for one trip. A CL-415 can put a full load on a
fire and scoop up 1400 gallons and be back to the fire ready to drop in 1
1/2 minutes, or less. 45 trips per hour X 1400 gallons = 63,000 gallons per
hour. Impressive.
--
Jim in NC

[Private]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the southern
>> cal fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130 had the wrong
>> sized tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were haggling over
>> what should be done, I thought I'd ask what is the opinions of others
>> regarding what current - or hypothetical craft would be considered for
>> the role. Thanks Pat
>
> The ideal fire bomber is the CL-415.
>
> There is nothing out there that can put more water on a fire per hour than
> this plane. A small but to make this statement true is a lake or river
> nearby that can be used for airborne scooping.
>
> A CL-415 with a nearby water source can put as much as 63,000 gallons on a
> fire in an hour. Other planes have to return to an airstrip and refill,
> taking 30 minutes or more for one trip. A CL-415 can put a full load on a
> fire and scoop up 1400 gallons and be back to the fire ready to drop in 1
> 1/2 minutes, or less. 45 trips per hour X 1400 gallons = 63,000 gallons
> per hour. Impressive.
> --
> Jim in NC

Watching a team of CL-215/415s doing circuits is really impressive, they are
much more graceful in the air than they look on the ground or in the video
Dave linked. Real retardant is more effective than plain water but the
CL-215/415 can deliver a lot of plain water. They seem to be able to work
out of quite small lakes.
http://ww.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=119

Happy landings,

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> After watching the multiplicity of ac doing their jobs on the
>> southern cal fires this last week and hearing that the guvmint C130
>> had the wrong sized tanks and the forestry dept and said guvmint were
>> haggling over what should be done, I thought I'd ask what is the
>> opinions of others regarding what current - or hypothetical craft
>> would be considered for the role. Thanks Pat
>
> The ideal fire bomber is the CL-415.
>
> There is nothing out there that can put more water on a fire per hour
> than this plane. A small but to make this statement true is a lake or
> river nearby that can be used for airborne scooping.
>
> A CL-415 with a nearby water source can put as much as 63,000 gallons
> on a fire in an hour. Other planes have to return to an airstrip and
> refill, taking 30 minutes or more for one trip. A CL-415 can put a
> full load on a fire and scoop up 1400 gallons and be back to the fire
> ready to drop in 1 1/2 minutes, or less. 45 trips per hour X 1400
> gallons = 63,000 gallons per hour. Impressive.


I've watched one put out a real fire in france. Amazing. But the key here
is nearby water source. without one how good is it compared to anything of
similar size and weight?


Bertie

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > I've watched one put out a real fire in france.
Amazing. But the key here
> is nearby water source. without one how good is it compared to anything of
> similar size and weight?
>
>
> Bertie

Burnbutt........................how do you propose ANY can put out a fire
without a warter source?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Private" > wrote

> Watching a team of CL-215/415s doing circuits is really impressive, they
> are much more graceful in the air than they look on the ground or in the
> video Dave linked. Real retardant is more effective than plain water but
> the CL-215/415 can deliver a lot of plain water. They seem to be able to
> work out of quite small lakes.
> http://ww.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=119

They are also capable of adding a chemical to the water they scoop, to make
it fire retardant, and usually do.

Interesting thing is that the whole plane (I'm only intimately familiar with
the 215, but I am pretty sure that the 415 is the same in this regard) uses
all manual power for all of the control surfaces except the flaps. They use
muscle power at low speeds, then as speed builds, a spring arrangement lets
aerodynamically boosted tabs move the control surfaces. I was surprised to
learn that.

The whole theory of the plane's design was that it should be simple, and
reliable, and easily maintained in the field without a big support structure
and staff. It was also designed to be very maneuverable, and for it's size,
it is, and needs to be to get into small lakes and narrow canyons.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> I've watched one put out a real fire in france. Amazing. But the key here
> is nearby water source. without one how good is it compared to anything of
> similar size and weight?

It can also refill on the ground with a hose and tanker. It can lift a full
load off of a runway, 1200 gallons for a 215, 1400 gallons for a 415. I
would have to do some searching to find out how much runway it would take,
but it isn't much.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > I've watched one put out a real fire in france.
> Amazing. But the key here
>> is nearby water source. without one how good is it compared to
>> anything of similar size and weight?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Burnbutt........................how do you propose ANY can put out a
> fire without a warter source?
>

Oh I don't know, you could go past it and blow on it, or pee on it.


you;'re not too god at this trolling thing, are you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> I've watched one put out a real fire in france. Amazing. But the key
>> here is nearby water source. without one how good is it compared to
>> anything of similar size and weight?
>
> It can also refill on the ground with a hose and tanker. It can lift
> a full load off of a runway, 1200 gallons for a 215, 1400 gallons for
> a 415. I would have to do some searching to find out how much runway
> it would take, but it isn't much.


Oh I know, but that just puts it on even footing with a similar sized
aircraft with a tank installed, in which case, if you were buying an
airplane to protect an area with no bodies of water nearby, you'd be as
well off or better off buying something even larger that's filled the same
way.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Private" > wrote
>
>> Watching a team of CL-215/415s doing circuits is really impressive,
>> they are much more graceful in the air than they look on the ground
>> or in the video Dave linked. Real retardant is more effective than
>> plain water but the CL-215/415 can deliver a lot of plain water.
>> They seem to be able to work out of quite small lakes.
>> http://ww.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=119
>
> They are also capable of adding a chemical to the water they scoop, to
> make it fire retardant, and usually do.
>
> Interesting thing is that the whole plane (I'm only intimately
> familiar with the 215, but I am pretty sure that the 415 is the same
> in this regard) uses all manual power for all of the control surfaces
> except the flaps. They use muscle power at low speeds, then as speed
> builds, a spring arrangement lets aerodynamically boosted tabs move
> the control surfaces. I was surprised to learn that.
>


Yes, lots of airplanes that size have servo tabs to boost the controls. The
spring tab actually reduces the effectiveness of the servo tab at higher
speeds, to couteract the servo tab's natural tendency to provide more power
as speed is increased. I'm not familiar with the installation on the
Canadair, but I'd say if you investigated you'd find that's how they work


Bertie

[Ron]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:40:16 -0300, Dave
> wrote:

>Probably some of the best vid of the 415 in action!
>
>Dave
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcqguPTBteQ


For some raw news footage of some awesome flying check out:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/21/vo.malibu.and.castaic.kcal?iref=mpvideosemail


I don't know if this was posted here earlier, but it was sent to me by
my son during the fires here.

Ron

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>> It can also refill on the ground with a hose and tanker. It can
>>> lift a full load off of a runway, 1200 gallons for a 215, 1400
>>> gallons for a 415. I would have to do some searching to find out
>>> how much runway it would take, but it isn't much.
> Do they still make the -215 as the av book shows it having the PW
> R2800
> recip engines- do they still make those or are they using a reman?
> Gotta be a lot more econmical at least from the fuel burn at low
> altitudes. Pat
>
>
>

No, they haven't made them since the sixties, at the latest. They'd be low
hours rebuilds.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in
:

> Interesting that according to the wiki art on the CL215 that the los
> angeles fire dept helped to sink a US manufacturing of the plane. The
> same plane that's working down heah now... Pat
>
>

Sounds pretty unlikely. I can't see any reason why production would be
moved to the us unless Canadair couldn't keep up with orders.


Bertie

[karl gruber[_1_]]

You don't have to call me God .

I'm not trolling with big glass of cheap whisky though, like
you....Buttburn.


"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "karl gruber" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > I've watched one put out a real fire in france.
>> Amazing. But the key here
>>> is nearby water source. without one how good is it compared to
>>> anything of similar size and weight?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Burnbutt........................how do you propose ANY can put out a
>> fire without a warter source?
>>
>
> Oh I don't know, you could go past it and blow on it, or pee on it.
>
>
> you;'re not too god at this trolling thing, are you?
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote in news:fg3nhf$lii$1
@aioe.org:

> You don't have to call me God .

OK, I won't.

>
> I'm not trolling with big glass of cheap whisky though, like
> you....Buttburn.


Maybe you should try it. It certainly couldn't do your style much harm.



Bertie

[patrick mitchel]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> It can also refill on the ground with a hose and tanker. It can lift
>> a full load off of a runway, 1200 gallons for a 215, 1400 gallons for
>> a 415. I would have to do some searching to find out how much runway
>> it would take, but it isn't much.
Do they still make the -215 as the av book shows it having the PW R2800
recip engines- do they still make those or are they using a reman? Gotta be
a lot more econmical at least from the fuel burn at low altitudes. Pat

[patrick mitchel]

Interesting that according to the wiki art on the CL215 that the los
angeles fire dept helped to sink a US manufacturing of the plane. The same
plane that's working down heah now... Pat

[RST Engineering]

Having lived and worked at an airport in the Sierra that CDF staffs with
fire bombers, I used to think that the S2F ("stoof") was the best aircraft.
The stoof re-engined with turbines ("stoot") is an order of magnitude
better.

Jim

--

"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Private" > wrote in message
news:F88Vi.158276$th2.154888@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
>> ...

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> On the other hand, here's a video someone took of a Goodyear blimp
>> caught in a thunderstorm trying to make headway in turbulent
>> conditions:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERI8_cprgMo
>
> Wow! that was cool!
>
>> It ended in a crash, but no fatalities according to the NTSB report:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050706X00943&key=1
>
> They were vry lucky, really.

I have a bit more on that airship incident, if you are interested in that
sort of stuff. The following is quoted with permission from Rick Zitarosa
who posted this to the University of Colorado e-mail Airship-List about a
month ago:

"This was the summer 2005 wreck of the STARS AND STRIPES near its home
base at Pompano. The pilot took off with marginal weather
approaching....the only passenger aboard was his BROTHER. Apparently it
was figured he could take his brother up for a spin and get back before
any bad weather affected the flight or field conditions.

He got caught in the storm that radar had pretty-well WARNED him about,
from all appearances he either badly trimmed or outright STALLED the
airship and then it fell down stern first and hit a warehouse.

This particular pilot had already been previously implicated in a mooring
mast deflation accident, from what I'm told (but Goodyear is an outfit
that has always been known to "give the dog TWO BITES" unless the mistake
might be from incredible stupidity or carelessness.)

The ship was lost, though the nearly-new envelope was later repaired at
no small expense. This was the FOURTH Goodyear airship to be wrecked in
FIVE YEARS and there was considerable speculation about the fact that
this spate of accidents had started to occur when many of the Senior LTA
pilots had started to retire and,

a) whether the ship would be replaced AT ALL

b) whether Goodyear might throw in the towel on its "in house" LTA
operation and simply outsource the whole thing to some outfit like
Lightship Group and start flying A-150's on a "wet lease" with the
Goodyear name simply decaled onto the side.

The pilot ended up "grounded" and in a desk job for the duration of the
investigation at the Goodyear Wingfoot Lake facility where other LTA
employees could pass his desk and glare at him daily. The Investigation
Board was not particularly charitable to the pilot's judgement (a couple
of old-time pilots' judgement renderings following review of amateur
video of the situation were downright PROFANE) and the pilot was
eventually "sacked." (Remember, Goodyear originally provided a lot of
pilots into the Navy program of World War II who became senior Reserve
Officers/Instructors and there was always a heavy "Goodyear" stamp on
Navy LTA.. Indeed, many of the postwar Goodyear blimp pilots were former
Navy or trained by former Navy and even a couple of pilots still flying
today remember "learning LTA" in the 70's and 80's from old-time pilots
who were TYRANTS! One of the old Senior pilots had the nickname " Old
Turkey Neck" because he could be simultaneuosly be reprimanding a new
student pilot and still lean his head WAY OUT the car window to bellow at
a ground crewman r" Hey, what the hell you doing with THAT LINE?????")

Am told that he is actually a decent pilot and a HELL OF A NICE GUY, but
as far as Goodyear was concerned he was directly responsible for losing a
$10 million airship and he had to go. He apparently still works in the
LTA industry today....there is something of a limited number of pilots,
particularly in peak months, and Goodyear is not the only game in town.

Have some good video footage of the old N10A AMERICA making a
(successful) emergency landing in a sandstorm in Texas...will try to post
it one of these days."

> If you've never read the account of the
> Navy's airships you should. The stories of their encounters with CB is
> unforgettable reading.

I have several books on my bookshelf that have harrowing (and tragic)
tales of such encounters, including non-U.S. navy ops:

"Sky Ships - A History of the Airship in the United States Navy"
by William F. Althoff,

"The Zeppelin in Combat - A History of the German Naval Airship Division,
1912 - 1918" by Douglas H. Robinson,

"Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine - The Great Zeppelin and the Dawn of Air
Travel" by Douglas Botting.

[Dave[_1_]]

WhooHoo!

No time to have left the wheels down!

Whatta bullseye drop!

Dave



On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:05:25 -0700, Ron > wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:40:16 -0300, Dave
> wrote:
>
>>Probably some of the best vid of the 415 in action!
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcqguPTBteQ
>
>
>For some raw news footage of some awesome flying check out:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/21/vo.malibu.and.castaic.kcal?iref=mpvideosemail
>
>
>I don't know if this was posted here earlier, but it was sent to me by
>my son during the fires here.
>
>Ron

[EridanMan]

That video almost gave me a heart attack. WOW those pilots earn their
pay.

Is this typical?

[EridanMan]

Ok, I am in awe.

Is this typical?

[Ron]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:03:23 -0000, EridanMan >
wrote:

>That video almost gave me a heart attack. WOW those pilots earn their
>pay.
>
>Is this typical?

It depends on the approach and surrounding terrain. When the houses
are on a ridge line or flat land, and the fire is close, it seems to
happens more often than not. Of course we never see all the drops on
TV, but the ones we do see are pretty awesome. I've seen helicopters
do a drop flying into a bluff and pull nearly straight up, do a stall
turn and pull out going the other way. Anyone who flies water
dropping aircraft truly earn their money.

Ron

[Morgans[_2_]]

"EridanMan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That video almost gave me a heart attack. WOW those pilots earn their
> pay.
>
> Is this typical?

Some may leave a little more clearance, but not much. To get a large amount
of the water on a small fire, you need to get pretty low. They really do
fly like fighter jocks, especially in mountainous areas, in and out of the
canyons. The plane was designed to be highly maneuverable.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> On the other hand, here's a video someone took of a Goodyear blimp
>>> caught in a thunderstorm trying to make headway in turbulent
>>> conditions:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERI8_cprgMo
>>
>> Wow! that was cool!
>>
>>> It ended in a crash, but no fatalities according to the NTSB report:
>>>
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050706X00943&key=1
>>
>> They were vry lucky, really.
>
> I have a bit more on that airship incident, if you are interested in
> that sort of stuff. The following is quoted with permission from Rick
> Zitarosa who posted this to the University of Colorado e-mail
> Airship-List about a month ago:
>
>
> Have some good video footage of the old N10A AMERICA making a
> (successful) emergency landing in a sandstorm in Texas...will try to
> post it one of these days."
>

Like to see it, but haven't got the time to do a lot of airship reading at
the moment.. I read a few years ago, mostly about the USN's operations with
rigids in the thirties.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>"Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine - The Great Zeppelin and the Dawn of Air
>Travel" by Douglas Botting.

I read this one over the summer. Excellent and very well written. I
highly recommend it.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1