On 10 May 2004 14:21:35 GMT,
(B25flyer) wrote in
Message-Id: :
Several months ago there was a discussion here about fire suppression tankers.
I mentioned that a certain airline was looking into the modification of 747s.
Some people expressed the feeling that it would never happen.
Take a look at www.evergreenaviation.com Look at the Supertanker icon and
click. It happened!
Walt
Here's AvWeb's blurb:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 20a -- May 10, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------
747 TO MAKE JUMBO WATER BOMBER...
By July 4 of this year, Evergreen International Aviation hopes to gain
independence from firefighting the old-fashioned way. The McMinnville,
Oregon-based company is working with the FAA to obtain certification
for Evergreen "Supertankers") -- retrofit Boeing 747s capable of
carrying 24,000 gallons of fire retardant each. Supertanker spokesman
Justin Marchand tells AVweb the flight-test aircraft has made more
than 50 flights and 82 drops and carried 536,000 gallons -- 1.5
million pounds -- of retardant. Why a 747? "I like the analogy 'why
send in a single soldier when you can send in the army,'" says
Marchand.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187257
....YOU CALL, WE HAUL
Consider that an Evergreen Supertanker will carry in one load what it
would take seven other firefighting planes to haul, and it will be
able to get to the fire clipping along at Mach .86 (near 600 mph).
Each Supertanker will carry 24,000 gallons of flame retardant, which
weighs 9 pounds per gallon. That's 216,000 pounds of material that
will be leaving the plane in eight seconds. That would be an
interesting ride. Or maybe not. According to Marchand, data collected
so far and borne out by the flight tests shows only a "negligible"
g-loading (or un-loading?) when a drop is made. "Since it is a fully
pressurized system, you can't even tell [when a drop is made] from a
cockpit aspect," says Marchand. Neither does hauling such a big load
put the jumbo on the cusp of weight problems.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187258