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

[Bob]

I saw a crashed C-130 when I was there, near Kafji in Dec/Jan IIRC. It
doesn't sound like the same one, though, because it wasn't in the water.

	-- Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SVTSHO (Bill Byrer)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:40 PM
> To: George Fourchy; shotimes@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: (OT) Heavy Airplanes in firefighting roles...was: Re: RE:
> West Coast Monsoons....was: Re: [Shotimes] Wiper Problems
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes