[Shotimes] Re: West Coast Monsoons....

[MonsieurBoo@aol.com]

It wrenches my heart to see them bust up those Starships.  Canards  are the 
coolest, from Rutan's Voyager right on down to the old Pterodactyl and  
Goldwing ultralites.  
 
You pretty near homed in on a good solution for the next generation of  
tankers, I'm referring to the C-17.  True it has only half the payload of  the 747. 
 That's still a heck of a lot more than those wore-out old  Orions can hoist. 
 And it has gread short/unimproved field capability  as well as short wings.  
Plus it was designed as a bulk cargo carrier from  the git go.  
 
On top of everything else Boeing needs some orders to keep the 17's  assembly 
line open.  The only thing it lacks is a SHO engine on each wing  driving a 
pusher prop to give 'er more oomph, but I'm sure we can help with that  
critical enhancement.
 
Cheers
Mark LaBarre
94 atx 135k
 
================
 
"Actually, a company in Arizona, that's been dismantling my beloved  
Beechcraft Starships, has built a 747-based tanker...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.



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..."