747 firebomber web site

[Leadfoot]

http://tinyurl.com/2ejag

96 tons of water!!!!!

[Jim Doyle]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:Chpqc.69469$Fl5.45597@okepread04...
> http://tinyurl.com/2ejag
>
> 96 tons of water!!!!!
>
>


How would you maintain the cog within stability requirements during a full
offload? Short bursts followed by redistributing what remains, or a full
dump feed from a central wing box/fuselage tank?

Has this much been dropped by another aircraft, if so how'd they manage it?
Was it a dedicated aircraft, designed from day one to have such a
capability?

Jim

[BUFDRVR]

Leadfoot wrote:

>96 tons of water!!!!!

The hell with that, how about 400' AGL and only 140 KIAS?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ron]

>>96 tons of water!!!!!
>
>The hell with that, how about 400' AGL and only 140 KIAS?
>
>
>BUFDRVR

We were a heck of a lot lower in the C-54 on our drops..I think with the
pressuization system, they plan on dropping higher, but it will be hard to be
precise at all, or go into canyons.

The 747 will be good for a deluge from around 600-800 AGL, but its going to
be a deluge, and not something that will be precise or that you can do with the
"grubbies" nearby


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[Leadfoot]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:Chpqc.69469$Fl5.45597@okepread04...
> > http://tinyurl.com/2ejag
> >
> > 96 tons of water!!!!!
> >
> >
>
>
> How would you maintain the cog within stability requirements during a full
> offload? Short bursts followed by redistributing what remains, or a full
> dump feed from a central wing box/fuselage tank?

The 747-400 initial flight test COG test was done with a water ballast
system. When the engineers wanted to try a differnt COG in flight they just
pumped water to where they needed it. Sure beats the old method of having
flight test techs move sand bags around They never dumped any of the water
during flight test to my knowledge but I'm sure they used a lot of the
experience gained in this project


>
> Has this much been dropped by another aircraft, if so how'd they manage
it?
> Was it a dedicated aircraft, designed from day one to have such a
> capability?

Its a classic version of the 747 which Boeing stopped making in 1990.


> Jim
>
>

[Jack G]

Carpet Water Bombing?

Jack

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >>96 tons of water!!!!!
> >
> >The hell with that, how about 400' AGL and only 140 KIAS?
> >
> >
> >BUFDRVR
>
> We were a heck of a lot lower in the C-54 on our drops..I think with the
> pressuization system, they plan on dropping higher, but it will be hard to
be
> precise at all, or go into canyons.
>
> The 747 will be good for a deluge from around 600-800 AGL, but its going
to
> be a deluge, and not something that will be precise or that you can do
with the
> "grubbies" nearby
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
> Silver City Tanker Base
>

[Krztalizer]

>
>Carpet Water Bombing?
>

Like a 400,000 pound cow, ****in' on a flat rock.

"Surrender now, or the next load is going to be pig urine, headed for Falluja!"

[[email protected]]

Leadfoot > wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2ejag

> 96 tons of water!!!!!

I read their FAQ, but no mention of loading
requirements or time. I want to see a belly
sccop on that baby . . . ;-)

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

[Rick Shaww]

> wrote in message ...
> Leadfoot > wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/2ejag
>
> > 96 tons of water!!!!!
>
> I read their FAQ, but no mention of loading
> requirements or time. I want to see a belly
> sccop on that baby . . . ;-)
>
> Bill Ranck
> Blacksburg, Va.

How about a Buf with vinyal bombs?? Bring back some old timers and let them
have a ball.....

[John R Weiss]

"Jim Doyle" > wrote...
>
> How would you maintain the cog within stability requirements during a full
> offload? Short bursts followed by redistributing what remains, or a full
> dump feed from a central wing box/fuselage tank?

Or dump from multiple tanks, approximately symmetric about the CG.

[John R Weiss]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote...
>
> >96 tons of water!!!!!
>
> The hell with that, how about 400' AGL and only 140 KIAS?

OK. I don't know where you saw 140 knots (I skimmed tie site, and didn't
notice it). Numbers are for a -400, but -200 numbers should be similar:

Call it 159 tons of airplane and 96 tons of water for ZFW of 255 tons. For
a short cycle (2 hours airborne, plus reserve) try 35 tons of fuel, 1/3 of
which has already been burned. GW at beginning of drop is about 280 tons.

VREF for flaps 25 is 158 KIAS, so 170 KIAS is about the slowest I'd want to
try. That is also the number given in a story in the Portland newspaper
this morning.

[Brian Trueman]

Cycle time between load and discharge and reload. To see a real water
bomber go to the Martin Mars Web site. Things are neat to watch. Talk
about an overcast dropped just outside my town a couple years ago. Put out
a 2 1/2 acre fire in about an hour. Dropped about 15 loads of water. Far
more efficient than a 747.
"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:Chpqc.69469$Fl5.45597@okepread04...
> http://tinyurl.com/2ejag
>
> 96 tons of water!!!!!
>
>

[Ron]

>Cycle time between load and discharge and reload. To see a real water
>bomber go to the Martin Mars Web site. Things are neat to watch. Talk
>about an overcast dropped just outside my town a couple years ago. Put out
>a 2 1/2 acre fire in about an hour. Dropped about 15 loads of water. Far
>more efficient than a 747.

But keep mind, not even considering the 747, dropping retardant and dropping
water are two different operations with two different purposes.

Water is put directly on a fire, retardant is typically put in the fires path
to make a line...


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[Ron]

Oh and BUFDRVR, you might note of interest that the USFS aviation officer who
is determined to kill of the airtanker program, is an ex-Bone driver

Guess we should have heeded your words about them earlier :)


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[BUFDRVR]

John R Weiss wrote:

>> The hell with that, how about 400' AGL and only 140 KIAS?
>
>OK. I don't know where you saw 140 knots

I watched the mpeg on the site. The narrator said; "at 400' and 140 knots, the
747 can....."


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Ron wrote:

>Oh and BUFDRVR, you might note of interest that the USFS aviation officer who
>is determined to kill of the airtanker program, is an ex-Bone driver

Before JB asks, I will...what's his name?

>Guess we should have heeded your words about them earlier :)

The ex-BUFF type Bone guys are ok though....right JB? ;)


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ron]

>Ron wrote:
>
>>Oh and BUFDRVR, you might note of interest that the USFS aviation officer
>who
>>is determined to kill of the airtanker program, is an ex-Bone driver
>
>Before JB asks, I will...what's his name?
>

LtC Tony Kern, from "Darker Shade of Blue" and "Rogue pilots" fame...




Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[John R Weiss]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote...
>
> I watched the mpeg on the site. The narrator said; "at 400' and 140 knots,
the
> 747 can....."

What do they call that in Marketing 101 -- "puffery"?

[BUFDRVR]

John R Weiss wrote:

>> I watched the mpeg on the site. The narrator said; "at 400' and 140 knots,
>the
>> 747 can....."
>
>What do they call that in Marketing 101 -- "puffery"?

Seemed awful slow to me for a half million pound jet, but having never flown an
aircraft with slats, I hear they're a wonderful device.




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kristan Roberge]

Ron wrote:

> >>96 tons of water!!!!!
> >
> >The hell with that, how about 400' AGL and only 140 KIAS?
> >
> >
> >BUFDRVR
>
> We were a heck of a lot lower in the C-54 on our drops..I think with the
> pressuization system, they plan on dropping higher, but it will be hard to be
> precise at all, or go into canyons.
>
> The 747 will be good for a deluge from around 600-800 AGL, but its going to
> be a deluge, and not something that will be precise or that you can do with the
> "grubbies" nearby
>

i know its an old thread, but why not? The Martin Mars can drop 7200 gallons in one
go. You
don't need to be precise with that sorta load. And have you seen a mars? They make
the C-54 look
small.

[Ron]

>i know its an old thread, but why not? The Martin Mars can drop 7200 gallons
>in one
>go. You
>don't need to be precise with that sorta load. And have you seen a mars? They
>make
>the C-54 look
>small.

Martin Mars drops water on a fire, which is different than dropping retardant
along the flanks and head of the fire.

Precision is often needed because of working in close proximity to ground
resources. The Mars drops a lot of water on hot areas of the fire. Its just a
different kind of resource than a retardant dropping tanker.

A 747 tanker can have a role, but a big part of forest fire suppression is
about getting there soon with aircraft based nearby, rather than having to send
aircraft from across the country



Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[Prowlus]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message news:<zSerc.15455$zw.4602@attbi_s01>...
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote...
> >
> > I watched the mpeg on the site. The narrator said; "at 400' and 140 knots,
> the
> > 747 can....."
>
> What do they call that in Marketing 101 -- "puffery"?

Speaking of the marketing vid , since when has the 747 ever took on a
aerial refueling role?
Wonder if they'll consider aquiring an old buff or a worn out C-5 as a
water bomber aswell

[Ron]

>Speaking of the marketing vid , since when has the 747 ever took on a
>aerial refueling role?

I believe Iran has used it for that.

>Wonder if they'll consider aquiring an old buff or a worn out C-5 as a
>water bomber aswell

I really doubt it. Certainly would never happen for many reason


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[miso]

Most states already have worn out planes for air drop, so I don't
think they will go that route. The c130 crashes of the last few years
must be part of the drive for a newer firefighting aircraft
technology.


(Prowlus) wrote in message >...
> "John R Weiss" > wrote in message news:<zSerc.15455$zw.4602@attbi_s01>...
> > "BUFDRVR" > wrote...
> > >
> > > I watched the mpeg on the site. The narrator said; "at 400' and 140 knots,
> the
> > > 747 can....."
> >
> > What do they call that in Marketing 101 -- "puffery"?
>
> Speaking of the marketing vid , since when has the 747 ever took on a
> aerial refueling role?
> Wonder if they'll consider aquiring an old buff or a worn out C-5 as a
> water bomber aswell