the ideal fire/water bomber?

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:03:23 -0000, EridanMan
wrote:

That video almost gave me a heart attack. WOW those pilots earn their
pay.

Is this typical?

It depends on the approach and surrounding terrain. When the houses
are on a ridge line or flat land, and the fire is close, it seems to
happens more often than not. Of course we never see all the drops on
TV, but the ones we do see are pretty awesome. I've seen helicopters
do a drop flying into a bluff and pull nearly straight up, do a stall
turn and pull out going the other way. Anyone who flies water
dropping aircraft truly earn their money.

Ron

"EridanMan" wrote in message
oups.com...
That video almost gave me a heart attack. WOW those pilots earn their
pay.

Is this typical?

Some may leave a little more clearance, but not much. To get a large amount
of the water on a small fire, you need to get pretty low. They really do
fly like fighter jocks, especially in mountainous areas, in and out of the
canyons. The plane was designed to be highly maneuverable.
--
Jim in NC

Ok, I am in awe.

Is this typical?

"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,

"Private" wrote

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

They are also capable of adding a chemical to the water they scoop, to make
it fire retardant, and usually do.

Interesting thing is that the whole plane (I'm only intimately familiar with
the 215, but I am pretty sure that the 415 is the same in this regard) uses
all manual power for all of the control surfaces except the flaps. They use
muscle power at low speeds, then as speed builds, a spring arrangement lets
aerodynamically boosted tabs move the control surfaces. I was surprised to
learn that.

The whole theory of the plane's design was that it should be simple, and
reliable, and easily maintained in the field without a big support structure
and staff. It was also designed to be very maneuverable, and for it's size,
it is, and needs to be to get into small lakes and narrow canyons.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Private" wrote

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

They are also capable of adding a chemical to the water they scoop, to
make it fire retardant, and usually do.

Interesting thing is that the whole plane (I'm only intimately
familiar with the 215, but I am pretty sure that the 415 is the same
in this regard) uses all manual power for all of the control surfaces
except the flaps. They use muscle power at low speeds, then as speed
builds, a spring arrangement lets aerodynamically boosted tabs move
the control surfaces. I was surprised to learn that.



Yes, lots of airplanes that size have servo tabs to boost the controls. The
spring tab actually reduces the effectiveness of the servo tab at higher
speeds, to couteract the servo tab's natural tendency to provide more power
as speed is increased. I'm not familiar with the installation on the
Canadair, but I'd say if you investigated you'd find that's how they work


Bertie

Having lived and worked at an airport in the Sierra that CDF staffs with
fire bombers, I used to think that the S2F ("stoof") was the best aircraft.
The stoof re-engined with turbines ("stoot") is an order of magnitude
better.

Jim

--

"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Private" wrote in message
news:F88Vi.158276$th2.154888@pd7urf3no...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"patrick mitchel" wrote in message
...

"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?