West Coast Monsoons....was: Re: [Shotimes] Wiper Problems

[av8r567@optonline.net]

Actually, a company in Arizona, that's been dismantling my beloved Beechcraft Starships, has built a 747-based tanker.  Last I heard/read this past summer, they were still waiting for FAA approval.

Their 747-tanker can carry 24,000 gallons water/retardant, while quad-turboprop P-3 Orion, the largest tanker in service, can only carry 3,000 gallons.  (a C-5 based tanker could carry 30,000 gallons of water)

Current tankers drop their load in one pass, but this 747 is able to do segmented drops.  Current tankers fly about 200ft above the fire, this 747 will fly at around 600ft.

Large aircraft (like the 747 and C-5) have big wings, and big wings will get hit with alot of rising hot air from the fire below.  That will make for one seriously bumpy/turbulent ride.  The 747 and C-5 were designed for high-altitude cruising with occasional light/moderate turbulence, not low-altitude flying with massive turbulence on every flight.

That's what the FAA is concerned about.  We lost 2 or 3 tankers in spectacular crashes in recent years due to wing failure.  What if the 747's wings decide to give out while it's flying low over a residential neighborhood?  If the FAA gives their approval the 747 will most likely be restricted to aerial firefighting over desolate "wooded" areas.  But at a cost of $20,000+/hour it better be saving lives and personal property rather than just trees.

The FAA's other concern is for the firefighters (and civilians) on the ground who might get bombarded with 24,000 gallons of water.  Oh well, I say "duck and cover" - it saved us from the atom bomb, it should save them from a little bit of water.

The other issue is turnaround time.  The 747 needs an airport with a long runway.  After it dumps its load it must fly to a big airport - that takes time.  It must then re-fill 24,000 gallons - more time.  Then it must fly from the big airport back to the fire scene - more time.  In that same amount of time, a smaller tanker could dump its load, fly to a closer, smaller airport, re-fill its smaller tank, and return to the fire scene - multiple times.

I agree with you, Jim - something has to be done NOW.  Those brown crunchy states are EXTRA crunchy now due to the lack of rain.




----- Original Message -----
From: James White <greensho@crown.net>
Date: Monday, January 2, 2006 10:58 pm
Subject: RE: West Coast Monsoons....was: Re: [Shotimes] Wiper Problems

> Come on, now George, you know you don't really own that C-5, even 
> though you saved it from a dive into the great ocean.
> 
> You were just doing your job...
> 
> Most of us would have done the same thing, because it was the 
> right 
> thing to do...
> 
> The right thing to do, now, would be to install bladders on a 
> bunch 
> of C-5's and get that fire out. NOW!  But big government doesn't 
> seem to want to work that way now...
> 
> regards, Jim White
> 
> 
> At Sunday, 01 January 2006, "George Fourchy" <krazgeo@comcast.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 11:27:31 -0600, Kerby Haltom wrote:
> >
> >>I'll trade you some dry, if you'll trade me some wet!  :-)
> >
> >I've already tried to find the pipeline to Texas......they took 
> it out 
> >when NM and
> >AZ became states.  There have been indian wars over the Colorado 
> River.>....nothing
> >goes east of that!!
> >
> >Sorry.
> >
> >I'll load up a couple of bladder tanks when I come to Memphis...
> .how's 
> >that!!??
> >
> >If I could just get USAF to let me use my C-5 for a couple of 
> weeks, I 
> >could bring
> >you a LOT of water......well, probably not enough to put out 10,
> 000 acres 
> >of fire,
> >but we could protect a few houses, anyway.
> >
> >George
> >_______________________________________________
> >Shotimes mailing list
> >Shotimes@autox.team.net
> >http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes