Nonsense: Il-76 could have "saved California from fires"...

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message ...
Just read this in a Brazilian Aviation Magazine's website. Absolute nonsense
IMHO...
Of course, the editor is known for his preference for russian aircraft. ;-)
Of course he has the right to have his opinion and prefereces, but I guess
some good sense might help a bit...



Comming from Australia I can repeat some of the objections to large
scale water bombing. Some are plausible, some not.

1 They put out fires too well. A bizzare one but based on the theory
that putting out fires breaks the natural bushfire cycle that reduces
fuel buildup in forrests.

2 Gas turbines can't handle smoke-soot injestion as well as piston
engines.
(You can put on filters)

3 Scooping up water is inconvenient and takes too long. (In Australia
where lasge bodies of water such as lakes are less common Australian
bush fire servieces have prefered helicopters which can use dmall dams
and resorvoirs. In Gerneral the smaller helicopters the size of Bell
212a help, BK117 are better but the only craft that really saves the
day over and aver is the Sikorsjy (now Ericosn) skycrane. Size does
matter.

In Australia the Skycrane water bombers "elvis" and "Gerogia peach"
are hired during the fire season when they are not needed in Nth
America.

4 Water bomnbers are an ineffectve use of money, better to fund more
conventional serivces.
(They can opperate as rescue and utillity aircraft)

Also watrer bomnbers are FAST and can save lives in inaccesibel areas.

Another aspect that probably effects the Americvans may be a touch of
NIH (Not Invented Here).

The Russians are pretty good at outsized aircraft and aerial fire
fighting.