Giant fire fighting planes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of using a B-52.

It was probably in the mix somewhere when the USFS were looking for replacement tankers,, nothing was out of bounds at the time.
http://fireaviation.com/
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of using a B-52.

Since the '52 "Buff" doesn't have real ailerons (roll controlled by spoilers only), which means one wing loses lift, and the other wing stays at about the same lift, its low-speed maneuverability at low altitudes is not that great. Canyon-mountain fires would be super challenging I'd think. If you could some aileron action on the high lift side, then we're talking better. The reason they didn't was because of the high flexibility of those wings which would get into aileron reversal at even moderate airspeeds.
 
Originally Posted By: KGMtech
could be captioned: I think that last Burrito was bad!

crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of using a B-52.


All kinds of reasons not to do that. Cost per hour (8 pipes in the organ), rarity, and handling characteristics- the BUFF flies differently from anything else ever made (spoilerons instead of ailerons, for one thing- meaning that a banking maneuver always produces a net loss of lift). And even the "H" model with TF-33s instead of J-57s still has a terrible throttle response and low-altitude thrust/weight ratio. Not great for low-altitude operations where a lot of maneuvering is needed.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: Astro14
DC-10.

I would expect to see 747s, particularly -400 models join the fleet as they're cheap on the used market right now.


I though they were trying certify a 747 for fire duty a few years ago. Wonder what happened? Guess the DC-10 made it a number of years ago at least. 4 engines and more carrying capacity on a 747 should be even better, and lots of old 747's available too.

OK, found it: "Evergreen’s 747 “Supertanker” made its first drop on a live fire in North America on the fire. It was done at no charge to the fire, with the company wanting to demonstrate the capability of the 20,000-gallon air tanker." From 2014, so kinda recent.
747_drop_Railbelt.jpg

The 747 sends shivers down my spine.
 
With how poorly the state and federal governments have mismanaged the wildlands, the forests are totally screwed up . 100 years ago the forests would burn on a regular basis keeping then thin and open. With the fire suppression as it has been done we have a huge problem.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
OT but practically speaking how much more retardant could a 747 hold vs a DC-10, and how much more fuel would it burn??

Great picture, OP!


The 747 in the Evergreen configuration could hold 20,000 gallons vs 12,000 gallons for the 10 Tanker DC-10s. The 10 tanker aircraft are set up to be very light when fully loaded and quite maneuverable. They could hold potentially 10,000 more gallons and be at maximum weight, but they'd lose maneuverability around fires.

The 10 frequently dispatches at a takeoff weight 40% lighter than its certified MGTOW.

· The 10 turns comfortably within the turn radii of smaller aircraft including Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT) and lead planes.

· The 10’s improved thrust to weight ratio significantly increases vertical performance (climb), and greatly enhances safety margins in a failed engine scenario.

· The 10 enjoys a wide margin above stall at typical drop speeds and weights, even with a full retardant load


Great info, thanks. So, is the 747 more maneuverable than a DC-10? Does it burn twice the fuel? Or more?

I love 747 airplanes, but it seems that the case may be difficult to make... But what do I know? Maybe not - nearly double the capacity with only one extra engine to maintain?
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
With how poorly the state and federal governments have mismanaged the wildlands, the forests are totally screwed up . 100 years ago the forests would burn on a regular basis keeping then thin and open. With the fire suppression as it has been done we have a huge problem.


In all fairness, how forests rejuvenate and are defined as healthy really wasn't understood until very recently. It wasn't like there was a body of scientific knowledge they chose to ignore.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
With how poorly the state and federal governments have mismanaged the wildlands, the forests are totally screwed up . 100 years ago the forests would burn on a regular basis keeping then thin and open. With the fire suppression as it has been done we have a huge problem.
The forest are a mess here from lack of logging/thinning and too many yrs of fire suppression. We also have a lot of damage and dead pine trees from bark beetles, again lack of forest management.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Great info, thanks. So, is the 747 more maneuverable than a DC-10? Does it burn twice the fuel? Or more?
I love 747 airplanes, but it seems that the case may be difficult to make... But what do I know? Maybe not - nearly double the capacity with only one extra engine to maintain?

747's would be more fuel efficient per ton of retardant carried. They aren't more maneuverable than a DC-10, but adequate over most shallower valleys.
I like the idea of using a big turbo-prop plane, since they get more thrust at low speeds to climb out of canyons. Perfect airplane: A bigger, wider, longer C-130-shaped turbo-prop high wing airplane. I guess the C-17, even with turbofans, would come pretty close, and the AF might retire some of theirs soon.
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of using a B-52.

Since the '52 "Buff" doesn't have real ailerons (roll controlled by spoilers only), which means one wing loses lift, and the other wing stays at about the same lift, its low-speed maneuverability at low altitudes is not that great. Canyon-mountain fires would be super challenging I'd think. If you could some aileron action on the high lift side, then we're talking better. The reason they didn't was because of the high flexibility of those wings which would get into aileron reversal at even moderate airspeeds.


Is that why there was the airshow crash ?

And the bloke that replicated a scale model B52, replicated the same manoeuver, and the same crash ?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of using a B-52.

Since the '52 "Buff" doesn't have real ailerons (roll controlled by spoilers only), which means one wing loses lift, and the other wing stays at about the same lift, its low-speed maneuverability at low altitudes is not that great. Canyon-mountain fires would be super challenging I'd think. If you could some aileron action on the high lift side, then we're talking better. The reason they didn't was because of the high flexibility of those wings which would get into aileron reversal at even moderate airspeeds.


Is that why there was the airshow crash ?

And the bloke that replicated a scale model B52, replicated the same manoeuver, and the same crash ?


There's been a whole lot of debate over that by people a lot more qualified than me... but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was a contributing factor and an airplane that didn't just drop one wing when rolled *might* have responded in a more recoverable way. A plane with higher low-altitude thrust/weight (like modern airliners tend to have) might have been more recoverable. But the bottom line is the pilot flying was an experienced B-52 pilot- you can't believe that the way it responded came as a surprise. The root cause really seems to be some terrible decision-making (and apparently a LONG history of same).
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
I wonder if anyone has ever thought of using a B-52.

Since the '52 "Buff" doesn't have real ailerons (roll controlled by spoilers only), which means one wing loses lift, and the other wing stays at about the same lift,...................

Is that why there was the airshow crash ?
And the bloke that replicated a scale model B52, replicated the same manoeuver, and the same crash ?


That did it. Rolled to steeply, then couldn't roll back to level. Boeing always told pilots not to roll over 30 degrees.
 
I have seen the DC10 working a fire here last year. I would really love to see a 747 drop its load. The fires are bad for lots of reasons the planes are "cool"
 
I can tell you first hand there is nothing sweeter than seeing a large tanker lumbering your way while getting your [censored] kicked at a large wildfire. A good drop gives you an immediate break, and at times is life saving. Those pilots are worth their weight in gold. On the other hand, helicopters with bambi buckets and their 80 gallons are pretty much useless on a large fire. Larger helicopters with 375 gallons or so are good for immediate crew safety and mopping up fires, but fixed wing tankers are king.
 
Originally Posted By: another Todd
......On the other hand, helicopters with bambi buckets and their 80 gallons are pretty much useless on a large fire. Larger helicopters with 375 gallons or so are good for immediate crew safety and mopping up fires, but fixed wing tankers are king.


Are Chinooks used for fire duty? Seems like those could carry a bit.
Looked it up, off one page anyway: Columbia Model 234 Chinook deploys a 2,650-gallon bucket, as the max available with the badest Chinook you can get. So that compares with about 12,000 gallons from a DC-10, BUT the Chinook will be more accurate!!!!
N245CH%20on%20Oklahoma%20Lift%20Job.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BusyLittleShop
Fu-Go, Japan's incendiary balloon weapon aimed at the United States during World War 2...
Replies
1
Views
701
BusyLittleShop
dogememe
Who here owns a plane?
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
4K
y_p_w
y_p_w
Lifetime air travel passes
Replies
4
Views
474
y_p_w
97K15004WD
Massive Fire in Charlotte, NC.
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Snagglefoot
Jackson_Slugger
Hyundai Kia Recalls 91,000 Vehicles for Fire Risk
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Exhaustgases
Back
Top