the ideal fire/water bomber?

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?e...06X00943&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

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

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.

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

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

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

Dave

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

"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

"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,

"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

"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?