the ideal fire/water bomber?

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

"patrick mitchel" wrote in
:

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


Well, C130 tanks are a lot bigger than what you would have in an Agwagon or
something..
Old hercs are relatively inexpensive and it's whatever is wiling to be
spent on the job that dictates the size and suitability of the airplane to
the task.
Ideally, you could get the Russians to build an air force of AN225 modified
for the task, or you could get thousands upon thousands of smaller aircraft
as well as the support to service them in the field, but who's gonna pay
for it?



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"patrick mitchel" wrote in
:

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


Well, C130 tanks are a lot bigger than what you would have in an Agwagon
or
something..
Old hercs are relatively inexpensive and it's whatever is wiling to be
spent on the job that dictates the size and suitability of the airplane to
the task.
Ideally, you could get the Russians to build an air force of AN225
modified
for the task, or you could get thousands upon thousands of smaller
aircraft
as well as the support to service them in the field, but who's gonna pay
for it?



Bertie
That's the other question- the dedicated craft that sits off work or the
generalist that you haul the tanks in and out of depending on the season-
though fire season seems to be 365 d/yr here. Gotta say the ericsson
skycranes look amazing on the job.

"patrick mitchel" wrote in
:

Xref: news rec.aviation.piloting:569785
Path:
nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news.kjsl.com!news.lafn.org!not-for-mail From: "patrick mitchel"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: the ideal fire/water bomber?
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:09:33 -0700
Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net
Lines: 36
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host:
66-81-193-210.socal.dialup.o1.com X-Trace: zook.lafn.org 1193501376
66375 66.81.193.210 (27 Oct 2007 16:09:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:09:36
+0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"patrick mitchel" wrote in
:

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


Well, C130 tanks are a lot bigger than what you would have in an
Agwagon or
something..
Old hercs are relatively inexpensive and it's whatever is wiling to
be spent on the job that dictates the size and suitability of the
airplane to the task.
Ideally, you could get the Russians to build an air force of AN225
modified
for the task, or you could get thousands upon thousands of smaller
aircraft
as well as the support to service them in the field, but who's gonna
pay for it?



Bertie
That's the other question- the dedicated craft that sits off work or
the
generalist that you haul the tanks in and out of depending on the
season- though fire season seems to be 365 d/yr here. Gotta say the
ericsson skycranes look amazing on the job.


Don't know a lot about firefighting, but the most popular new
contraption nowadays is the Canadair. Of couse, you have to have a large
enough body of water nearby to allow them their full potential.



Bertie

A380 ;-))

In a previous article, "patrick mitchel" said:
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

Seems to me that you need a variety of aircraft for different sized fires,
different aspects of the same fire. The DC-10 tanker can deliver a lot
of retardant to a big area, but it's probably not what you need for a
small fire in a narrow canyon. The CL-410 can get in and out of small
lakes and provide a lot of round trips, but against a big Southern
California fire it's kind of spitting in the wind.

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Today Has Been Two Of Those Days.
-- Mike Andrews

"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

Airships. JMHO.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

"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

Airships. JMHO.


Yes, and a cheap suborbital launch system when you relelase the water!
Hard to think of anything better to get near a turbulent fire as well.


Bertie

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Airships. JMHO.

.... if you got the time, we got the water. :-)

--

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. 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

It ended in a crash, but no fatalities according to the NTSB report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...06X00943&key=1