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

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.

"B25flyer" wrote in message
...
...... Seems that a certain
company, with some older 747s, based in a smaller town in Oregon is
looking
into making it happen.

I'm quite familiar with them. Using one of their 747s as a water bomber
would just be one more entry on the long list of bizarre ideas that they've
come up with. Ironically, some of those bizarre ideas have worked, and that
guy has spent a lot of years in the forestry/aviation arena, so don't put
anything off the table quite yet. However, I would think that mod costs on
a 747 would be easily prohibitive, not to mention operational logistics.

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:e7yrb.11486
Not familiar with that plane, will have to look into it. Are there many left?
Where do they fly from?


Take a look at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/FireEmergency...n/Aviation.asp

On 9 Nov 2003 18:18:20 -0800
(Verbs Under My Gel) wrote:

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:e7yrb.11486
Not familiar with that plane, will have to look into it. Are there many left?
Where do they fly from?


Take a look at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/FireEmergency...n/Aviation.asp


Now that S2T looks like a plane well suited as a fire bomber. I wonder if
they're concerned at all about the extra beating they took from carrier
operations? It seems to me that at only 1,200 gallons the trade-off is
that they can get in and out of tight spots and they can get back from
refills much quicker with those twin turbines.


R. Hubbell