Giant fire fighting planes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
1,545
Location
Washington State (East)
Looks like a DC-10? They are massive. Fire fighters call the V-LATS short for very large air tankers. They are using them very close to me on the Fruitland,Wa. fire
11846600_10153108574724077_7651730519620581917_n.jpg
Wa. fire and to the east on the Chelan fire.
 
DC-10.

I would expect to see 747s, particularly -400 models join the fleet as they're cheap on the used market right now.
 
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
 
Last edited:
But what is the turnaround time between dropping loads?

Fliying boats (like the Martin Mars) or Bambi Buckets can often re-fill in minutes from a Lake or the sea.
 
Originally Posted By: expat
But what is the turnaround time between dropping loads?
The rumor around here is they are using an air field in Moses Lake...about a 2 hr car drive from the fire location. Spokane a little closer.
 
The 747 was out of commission for a while because the company that owned it filed for Bankruptcy. The plane its was on needed some expensive checks and essentially was moth balled when the bankruptcy occured. New owners have taken it over, though they brought one many of the same people to run the program.
 
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!
 
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
The 747 was out of commission for a while because the company that owned it filed for Bankruptcy. The plane its was on needed some expensive checks and essentially was moth balled when the bankruptcy occured. New owners have taken it over, though they brought one many of the same people to run the program.


"The 747 SuperTanker is being given new life. A newly-formed company named Global SuperTanker Services has purchased the retardant system, related Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), and patents from the ashes of the bankrupt Evergreen company, the developer of the 19,600-gallon air tanker. They will be removing the system from the 747-100 and installing it in a newer 747-400BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) (N492EV) that has more powerful engines."

The original Evergreen 747 is no more; a new company has purchased a newer 747 and modern retardant delivery system. The company and plane will be headquartered in Colorado Springs. Super cool to see that beast flying around my area!

http://fireaviation.com/2015/08/12/like-the-phoenix-the-supertanker-to-rise-again/

Here is a list of current contracted USFS air tankers. They're awarding a lot of new contract to large jet tankers in the next few years. Ten Tanker in the picture above now has 3 DC-10s. Hopefully they can make some waves with the 747 and acquire several more; the new large jet tankers are very cost efficient to operate.

http://fireaviation.com/2015/08/16/usfs-has-34-large-air-tankers-currently-activated/
 
Last edited:
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
 
Good links Drew.

The DC10's carry about 12,000 gallons of retardant or water. The 747 can carry close to 20,000 gallons.

They have different delivery systems - the DC-10's are gravity feed drops, while the 747 uses pressurized air to push the retardant out of the tanks.
 
In addition, the US Coastguard has sold the USFS 7 C-130s that will be outfitted with MAFFS retardant systems.

"The first of the seven HC-130Hs that are being transferred from the Coast Guard to the U.S. Forest Service will arrive at Forest Service Air Station McClellan (FSAS MCC) in mid-June, not mid-May as originally planned. And yes, that is what the Forest Service is calling their facility at McClellan Airport in Sacramento, California."

http://fireaviation.com/2015/05/20/revis...to-air-tankers/
 
Makes me want to re-watch "Always" with Richard Dreyfuss and John Goodman again... although its been quite a while since they used A-26 Invaders and Catalinas as water bombers. Great flying sequences in that movie.

They do still use a few Lockheed Neptunes and at least one Martin Mars, so there are still big radial-engined aircraft doing that job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top