(OT) Heavy Airplanes in firefighting roles...was: Re: RE: West Coast Monsoons....was: Re: [Shotimes] Wiper Problems

[SVTSHO (Bill Byrer)]

George,

Did a little research on 69-6567. Sorry, but she isn't retired to Arizona.

The Air Force Museum web site shows that your ship was converted to an 
AC-130E 'Pave Spectre" gunship, with yours being one of the prototypes. The 
website shows that it was later upgraded to a "H" model. Unfortunately, she 
was shot down 29-31 January 1991 (looks like the Air Force isn't sure of the 
date). Sounds like it was found of the coast of Kuwait during the opening 
days of Desert Storm with the whole crew lost.

Thanks for your service.

Bill


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Fourchy" <krazgeo@comcast.net>
To: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: (OT) Heavy Airplanes in firefighting roles...was: Re: RE: West 
Coast Monsoons....was: Re: [Shotimes] Wiper Problems


> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:44:23 -0500, av8r567@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Correct.  We couldn't even file international/oceanic flight plans into 
> areas of
> forecast moderate turbulence.  Back when I was flying them, they were all 
> unmodified
> A models, just beginning to be scheduled to get their new wings, which 
> will give
> them the extended life they were supposed to have from the beginning.  The 
> B models
> are overall stronger than the A models, and some of the high time As are 
> retired.
>
> Two hundred tons (close to empty weight) of aluminum alloy, which can not 
> be flexed
> much, before it breaks, unlike steel, is a LOT of mass to be tossed around 
> by
> updrafts from fires, and even with the good safety record of the 747, I'd 
> bet they
> will not be allowed to go into hot areas like the fire tankers do now.  On 
> the other
> hand, dumping the water a few thousand feet higher (maybe....I don't know 
> how high
> the rough updrafts go from fires) would still be a help.
>
> The other problems....turnaround time and runway lengths, are still 
> significant.
>
> I saw that C-130 lose its wings.  Boy-o-boy....I have 1800 hours in them. 
> I'm glad
> ours weren't that old (I wasn't, either!!...1969-73, flying '62-'65 
> models.)  I
> learned to fly them at a different base (Sewart, in Nashville) from my 
> home station
> (Pope, in NC), and that squadron was getting 24 _brand new_ '69 models. 
> Sweet!!.
> The one I took my final check-ride on, 69-6567, had 8 hours on it, and had 
> just been
> delivered the week before.  It smelled like a new car....small carpets on 
> the
> cockpit floor; the console was clean, not covered with dirt; and it flew 
> faster than
> advertised with the power set far lower than was normally required.  It 
> would have
> won the grand prize at any SHO event!!  (SHO content!)
>
> It's probably in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan now.
>
> George
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes