DC-10s as Water Bombers?

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.

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"

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"

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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