Neptune Firebomber

[Stationair8]

Whatever to the Neptune Firebomber that the guy in WA was developing.

I have been reading the book Beneath Southern Skies and the story about a company called Aerocorp and the conversion of the Neptune. Anyone got anymore info, or been shelved?

[sprocket check]

Gone to Canada I think due to CASA idiotic mis-handling and making life seemingly really difficult from what I hear.

[dash 27]

You might mean WATER BOMBER. You get in trouble these days droping fire.

Looks like a lovely example, shame its not used for what its configured as. Could have used it with the jet rangers with bambi buckets against the firestorms :ugh:.

Where was Tanker 10. The DC 10. Rumored to show an appearance. Shame noone took the initiave to put on a show on how to put out spot fires with fleets of effective aircraft before the fire storm started. Thats bacause they are under snow in the northern hemisphere. Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, and Canada all have fleets of CL415's or land based bombing capabilities.

Don't get me started. PLEASE SOMEBODY, get some aircraft. MILITARY, or PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Search Airspray in canada and see what we are missing out on. Surely come at a 10% of the cost of the insurance bill that seems predictable every year.

Well done to all the guys who gave their all for the cause. It just would be nice if the authorities got serious with the equipment, so it actually made a difference. :ok:

[sms777]

Wait till you see the B26 Marauder on the horizon!.......
OOOO Sh!!!t .... sorry chief... am i in trouble now?

Ducking for cover!

[Yobbo]

I never understood why the Aussis don`t have a fleet of bombers. The northern hemisphere fleet is not being used during their winter, why not contract them to base some a/c in australia?

[VH-XXX]

Like this SMS?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/B-26_water_bomber.JPG/796px-B-26_water_bomber.JPG

[HarleyD]

XXX....shame on you

That is A26 Invader,

NOT B26 Marauder.

Invader = Sexy
Marauder = Pig

HD

[Led Zep]

I last saw it parked at Cunderdin but that was years ago. Shame because it was a great looker and when it did actually fly the sound and exhaust flames were magic in the evening twilight. :ok:

Forget a DC-10/747, what we need is a Martin Mars (http://www.martinmars.com/). :)

[Forestdump]

HD Thanks for the correction. You beat me to it. It is a fairly common mix up. The Douglas Invader was designated the A-26 as well as the B-26. The type rating on a Canadian license is B-26. I flew a B-26 for several years and I was constantly reminding my father that it was a Douglas Invader, not the Martin Marauder. The B-26's have been retired in Canada since 2004. And yes, firebomber is a perfectly acceptable term for these airplanes.

[Double Wasp]

I know its not as sexy as the B-26 but has anyone looked at the DHC-8 Q400 MR that is operated by Securite Civile in France. Would probably be helpful if this situation ever comes up again.
Now I know everyone gets in a huff whenever someone brings up a large aircraft tanker, ( it is a tanker by the way if it were a water bomber it would scoop and drop). Think of it as an added asset not as something that is replacing something. In other parts of the world the Tankers drop retardent to slow and direct a fire so the scoopers and helicopters can knock it down enough for the ground crews to come in and put it out. I feel we are missing a big part of the team here in OZ.
Airspray is selling its B-26's by the way.
DW;)

[SNS3Guppy]

We call them air tankers. Water is used by amphib tankers like the CL215, but water is not a very effective way to fight fire. Fire is fought from the ground, anyway...not from the air. From the air, we simply control it by directing where it burns...using retardant for the most part.

Yes, firebombing takes place, using fire from aircraft, but that usually involves drip torching or ignition spheres to set fires as a firefighting technique (backburns, etc).

In the US Neptune, Inc, operates a fleet of P2V's as air tankers. Years ago I flew for another operator that used several, and was carded in the P2V-7. Then we hauled 2,400 gallons of retardant.

The most common airtanker in Oz is the PZL Dromader...what we call a SEAT in the US (Single Engine Air Tanker). I operated those for seven years, too. A SEAT is an effective initial attack tool on fires, being used against fires when they first start, but it's ability to be effective diminishes as the fire grows in intensity.

The DC10 and B747 platforms have some limited value...but retardant application is most effective when done in a precision format, flown by experienced crews (which neither the DC10 nor B747 have...and the B747 isn't fielded yet). Dropping large quantities of water or retardant is impressive to the public, but not necessarily what's best for tactical application in firefighting, in most cases (unless one has very long, straight firelines...which is seldom the case).

We don't put fires out from the air. Dropping water or retardant doesn't do much on a large, active fire. One generally isn't going to put it out with water. Much of the retardant application is done in advance of the flame or offset from it, and is used to drive the fire in a direction toward natural barriers, divert it around structures, etc.

[Double Wasp]

SN3
I completly agree with everything you said except for the statement that water not effective. From what I understand Tankers put a line around (to contain) or accross (to direct) a fire. Then the Helos and the Scoopers come in and basically increase the relative humidity in the fire environment by dropping on or near the fire. Once the fire has backed off enough the ground crews go in and put it out.
The larger air tankers are the weapon that we are missing here in Australia.
Please correct me if I am wrong
DW

[Hempy]

type Cunderdin WA into Google Earth and you can see it parked on the ramp.

[VH-XXX]

You can blame Wikipedia for my :mad:-up.

[Deaf]

It is a fairly common mix up. The Douglas Invader was designated the A-26 as well as the B-26.

For the anoraks
Element of deliberate confusion
Martin was the B26
Douglas started life as the A26
Martin went out of service
Douglas became the B26 (must have caused problems with stuff still sitting in stores)
In the late 50's/early 60's Thailand didn't want US bombers based there but were happy with attack aircraft
Douglas went back to being the A26.

[Engineer_aus]

Its parked at cunderdin, as for why, FESA didnt want such a huge water drop and they were concerned about the safety of the public and hosues etc etc blah blah political blah blah. Theo is still around.

[SNS3Guppy]

I completly agree with everything you said except for the statement that water not effective. From what I understand Tankers put a line around (to contain) or accross (to direct) a fire. Then the Helos and the Scoopers come in and basically increase the relative humidity in the fire environment by dropping on or near the fire. Once the fire has backed off enough the ground crews go in and put it out.
The larger air tankers are the weapon that we are missing here in Australia.
Please correct me if I am wrong


Fire isn't fought that way, and tankers don't work that way. Air assets don't fight fire. Ground troops do.

Tankers are used to flank or work parts of a fire to contain it's direction or slow it's rate of spread while ground troops work the fire. Retardant lines may be used to reduce rate of spread or encourage the fire to move in another direction based on wind, natural barriers, vegetation or types of fuels, topography, slope, aspect (north/south, etc), and of course, threats to persons, structures, etc. Considerations include resources available to back up retardant lines, ground resources, turnaround times, etc.

One of the single most common, and most basic mistakes in retardant application, is to attack the head of the fire, or to go direct on the fire. Without an ability to build line rapidly with short turn-around times or ample air assets, the result is invariably splitting the head of the fire into two or more parts, increasing the rate of spread, and complicating the fire. Most of the time, this only increases fire activity, wastes retardant, and makes the fire worse.

Water cools fire directly, but cooling the fire is the least effective way, and most wasteful way, of controlling it's activity. Unless it's a small spot fire, then water doesn't put the fire out. Water and foam are short term measures, often most effectively used on small spot fires. Where water can be used in extended attack operations, it has to be available in very large quantities, and enough resources need to be present and capable of acting, which can keep a constant application of water on the fire. Scoopers, for example, must have the ability based on proximity of an uplift source, a short distance, and enough scoopers, to keep putting water on the fire every few minutes. Otherwise, the water is usually nearly worthless.

One must remember that in an active wildfire, temperatures above the fuels can exceed two thousand degrees Farenheight, and fuel temperatures and fire activity can mean that water dropped on an active flame front may do little more good than spitting in a camp fire. Water evaporates quickly, any cooling or loss of energy in the fire is quickly replaced and reheated, and the change in relative humidity is so minute that it's negligible in character.

Relative humidity of it's own accord does reduce fire behavior somewhat in intensity and rate of spread, but is a minor consideration compared to winds, slope, fuel moisture, etc.

Fuels on the ground are classed by the amount of hours required to effect a change in fuel moisture. Some fuels such as grass are one-hour fuels, but many fuels over 3" in diameter, like small tree branches, are into the thousand hour range. The introduction of local temporary changes in RH produce insignificant changes in the fire behavior for the most part, and no changes in the fuel moisture. Even a rainstorm only produces brief changes, and doesn't effect fuel moistures save for grasses and other one-hour fuels; the result in controlling fire spread isn't great.

I've chased a fire with retardant up to a lake, in Florida. I ran retardant down both flanks of the fire until the head ran into the lake and the fire ended. A week later we were back on the fire again. Same fire, other side of the lake. It continued to burn under the lake, came up on the other side, and kept running as a wind-driven fire. It was more intense on the other side and took more resources to control.

Fire won't "back off" by dropping scooping aircraft and helo buckets nearby. Nor do ground troops wait for a fire to "back off." Air assets are tools that ground troops request or use to apply to specific parts of a fire, in order to assist them in working the fire. Ground troops often work the fireline directly with shovels, pulaski's, handlines (hoses and water or foam), lighting backfires or backburns, running dozer or cat lines to cut away fuels and create fire breaks, and other tactical methods of fighting fires. In accomplishing this mission, they may request a helicopter to put water on a hotspot or to work a segment of a flank. They may look for a retardant drop to back up a bulldozer line or a road, to prevent spread across the road. In each case, the retardant use or water use is only one tool of many that the ground troops have at their disposal when working the fire.

I've spent many years as an IA, or Initial Attack pilot. I'm often the first one on scene, and in some cases, I do end up working the entire fire from the air. My efforts are always considered a temporary measure, however, until someone can get on the ground and work the fire. Even if it's a single tree. I may put a box around it or cross it with two retardant lines, but all I'm doing is buying time for a helattack team or hotshots to come in and hit the tree with a chain saw, dig a line around it, or do whatever is necessary to actually control and put out the fire.

Often as not, the most effective means of putting out a fire is to supervise it burning itself out. Air assets are put in use to attempt to reduce damage to danger to structures of personnel until that happens. A lot of fires are far beyond the capability of man to control, or extinguish, and firefighting efforts, both in the air and on the ground, are futile motions that take place in earnest, until nature decides enough is enough.

Large air tankers are one tool in the toolbox...but only one. You need not only the aircraft, but enough bases capable of supporting them, close enough to fires, spread throughout the country, to do some good. Some years ago in the US, in Florida, significant fires raged throughout the state. Early in the game, I was in the only large air tanker in the state. Other resources were enroute, but we found that with a temporary base set up in the City of Ocala, we had an hour to the fire. A flame front with 250'+ flame lengths was wind-driven, threatening structures, and moving fast...and two miles wide. Our retardant line with a heavy coverage level extended just a little over a hundred yards, using a large air tanker with a 2,000 gallon capacity.

The result was that the fire burned over our line before we could load and return with more retardant, and we were effectively wasting our time. The State of Florida wanted us to keep dropping however, because often as not it's as much a matter of public relations as it is doing anything effective. It was a given that we couldn't control the fire, but it was important that the public felt like every effort was being made to do so.

While Australia may be missing large air tankers, they aren't the be-all and end-all of firefighting...and such a lack doesn't mean that firefighting can't be effective. Getting a large air tanker program doesn't necessarily mean that you'd see a change in your fires there, either. Oz is a large place, with few airfields and long turnaround times. Even large air tankers put down very small lines of retardant when considering the amount of fireline that may be burning and the activity it may produce. Large air tankers can be effective tools, but are an insignifcant spec in the face of mother nature.

[chimbu warrior]

SNS3Guppy

This is the most comprehensive and informative stuff I have ever read on this subject. Thanks for taking the time to explain this. :ok:

[Fris B. Fairing]

SNS3Guppy

I found your account of aerial firefighting most informative but I'll have to show my ignorance of these matters by asking you to explain this one.

It continued to burn under the lake, came up on the other side, and kept running as a wind-driven fire.

Fires can do this? :eek:

Rgds

[SNS3Guppy]

Fires can do this?


That's exactly what I thought, too. To honest, when I first arrived in Florida, the types of fuels (plants) were different enough to the type of firefighting I was accustomed to doing, I thought the same thing about a lot of the green forested areas, too...until I saw them burn.

The one under the lake went into a pete bed and kept burning beneath the lake (just outside Gainseville), then came up on the other side and took off.

The trees there looked green, but were dry and brittle. We had to raise our drop height in large tankers from 200' to 300' and in some cases 400', because the weight of the retardant was topping the trees; it was breaking off the trees, sending them to the forest floor, and increasing the fire, in some cases.

Another problem we enountered there was palmetto, which is rich enough in pitch that it burns very hot, is hard to extinguish, and is very nearly explosive in an active fire.

Another problem which those on the ground had to face, but I didn't...was aligators. When I lived in Oz I became facinated with crocs and thus became a little familiar, but it's not something I've ever had to deal with during an active wildfire. I spent six years on the ground as a firefighter on top of a number of years in aerial fire now...but never saw an aligator. We had reports in areas were dropping about crews that were stuck because of aligators in the way. I thought that was interesting.

What was most striking about working down there, however, was just how different the nature of the job could be. One becomes accustomed to doing the job a certain way, and then moving to a very different climate with different weather patterns, winds, and fuels, and one has to adjust to an entirely different way of approching the fire. Including ones that burn under a lake.

[Jetpipe2]

The simple fact of major bush fires is that its either a fleet of D9's, more fire or a long time put them out.

In suburban areas you cant cut through peoples back yards with a D9 and you cant let it burn to close to the houses, so they use aircraft. This has two effects being a positive statement to the public that things are happening and the second being that the fires are mostly small and the aerial support helps the guys on the ground with trucks.

If you look at a normal suburban house fire they conect two or three fire truck to a hydrant and soak it for an hour or two. Now if it takes that long to put out 750sqm how much water is it going to take to put out 75 Hectrares?

So aircraft look great from a PR position and do help to save people but they are very limited in what can be achieved.

[gassed budgie]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8517/firebomberneptune1mediu.jpg

Knew I'd have a reason to use this pic one day if I kept it on file.
Classic shot of the Neptune puting down a line of retardent along a slope somewhere in sunny California (I think).

[multime]

Dear Guys
Away from the yanks. Apologies.
Why out of Jandakot are localised (media friendly) very expensive helicopters being used when AT-802,s are sitting on the ground ready to go.?
The big Heli is milking the public purse to the sum of $9000-00 an hour.!
Aka seen to be doing the right thing. But had to come out of perth, not Jandakot. Fire was 20 k,s south of JPT.???
When there are (THE CORRECT) aircraft available and on standby, why deploy a white elephant.? Calm has an agenda.
Seems wrong.
Sorry for the thread shift, but it is Downunder.?
Any comments welcome.
Multi:ok:

[Joker 10]

Back to the Neptune, the sound of those 2 radials at full noise is just music.

[that chinese fella]

Hey Multi,

I think you will find that 20km south of JT will still be in FESA's jurisdiction.

That aside, there are totally different approaches to 'Fire' between FESA and DEC (CALM).

FESA are certainly better at the Media game........

TCF

[j3pipercub]

Hey SN3, is the rumour true that a lot of the older machines are being phased out? Govt contracts require turbines? Grew up watching Always and would give my left one to fly an A-26, hell I'd give both.

j3

[SNS3Guppy]

Pistons are falling into disfavor, to be sure. Ten years ago I was on a C-130, and also on a PB4Y. They were pushing hard to get rid of piston airplanes, then, and would prefer to do so now. However, the P2V still has a lot of life and still does an effective job.

In my SEAT work, it's all turbine now. I ran them converted with both Pratt motors, and Garrett motors. The Air Tractors are all Pratt...all turbines now.

Turbines are certainly more reliable, but I loved my R2600's and R3350's...and we operated the only C97 on fires, with R4360's, too.

The Skycrane is a wonder to behold on a fire. Nine thousand an hour, yes...but the work it can do exceeds nearly everything else that can be put on a fire, including most heavy fixed wing tankers.

[Trojan1981]

SNS3Guppy

Even if just for helping to direct a fire or assisting in slowing it down, surely fixed wing tankers would be a valuable asset. As far as I am aware we have no multi engine tankers operational in any state. We continue to have large fires every few years, very close to large population centres with large airports.

Or Bush fire brigades are almost entirely volunteers and response times can make a big difference. Surely a federaly funded fleet of multi tankers would substantially improve capabilities.

[SNS3Guppy]

Sure, large air tankers are a useful asset. No question about it.

However, especially in Oz, you're going to run up against similiar problems to what occur in the US and Canada...the two largest and most developed wildland firefighting locations in the world. Having enough tankers and enough bases, and enough personnel to adequately prosecute a fire using a tanker means that it's a resource that's going to be stretched thin no matter how you slice it.

As exciting and promising as the air tanker looks, one must always remember that the fire is often far beyond the capabilities of anything we can throw at it. It's a tool, but just a tool.

To run a sufficiently comprehensive tanker program requires a lot of money. Oz has a lot of land, a small population, and a relatively limited budget. Even in the US where the budget runs hundreds of millions of dollars, and where a significant program is already in place, it often falls far short of the mark. It's not uncommon for a large fire to run twenty five million dollars or more in resources and costs...and that adds up quickly.

Two years ago I was grounded three times in two weeks when money wasn't available to send me on a fire, and repeatedly I was set down on the ground with no pay because of the lack of funding. Entire fire crews and engines sat idle as funds were stretched tight. In one state, the entire state got for one year what one district needed for a month. It's an extensive program needed to support an air tanker system.

To adequately run an aerial fire suppression system, a comprehensive air attack or bird dog system needs to be in place. A comprehensive communications system needs to be seemlessly in place allowing all agencies and operators to communicate...this shouldn't stop at state lines. A comprehensive system of bases needs to be established to cover all types of operations. Companies need to exist which can support, train for, maintain, and operate each type of tanker, helitanker, air attack, SEAT, helicopter, smoke jumper, paracargo, and other platforms...companies which can supply parts and keep them running in the field on a very mobile basis, over a very large area. A full infrastructure must exist. Adequate training and interface with ground troops and user agencies must be developed. The mindset and handling by fire and mutual aid agencies must adapt to the use of these new tools.

Even with that done and the budgeting to make it happen, we find it takes about ten years to train a fire pilot; you've got to have people who are adequately trained and ready to fight fire. Even with that done, with everything in place and equipment and crews up to the task, tankers, large or small, are only tools in the toolbox. Nothing more. Firefighting is always done by ground troops, who use aircraft tactically to help work their fire. Having air tankers over the fire is a useful thing...but it's not the be-all and end-all of fighting fire, and one shouldn't expect a magic change in the outcome of wildfires as a result.

[Double Wasp]

SN3 wrote.
Quote:
I completly agree with everything you said except for the statement that water not effective. From what I understand Tankers put a line around (to contain) or accross (to direct) a fire. Then the Helos and the Scoopers come in and basically increase the relative humidity in the fire environment by dropping on or near the fire. Once the fire has backed off enough the ground crews go in and put it out.
The larger air tankers are the weapon that we are missing here in Australia.
Please correct me if I am wrong

Fire isn't fought that way, and tankers don't work that way. Air assets don't fight fire. Ground troops do.


Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. Have you done much work with water bombers (scoopers). I asked a friend of mine, he is the chief pilot for one of the 215 outfits in Canada. I was told that what I said was pretty much exactly how they fight fires. They use tankers to direct where they want a fire to go then they get a 3 or 4 groups of scoopers, with 2 to 4 aircraft to a group, to attack the fire and to try and decrease its intensity. If there is 6 to 16 water bombers working on a fire for two, four hour shifts a day it does help considering in this time they can drop up to 90 times per day each, when the water source is close.
The water bombers also do other jobs like help control back burns as well as saturate fire breaks. If this is an ineffective way of fighting fires someone better tell the Canadians, and the French, and the Italians, and the Greeks and the Turks, etc. I do know that they never really got going in America because they weren't made in the USA, and therefore found ineffective, but that does not mean that they do not work.
You are right about the ground troops though. They are the ones that actually put out the fire. It is boots on the ground that does the hard work. I did, however, actually say that when I first posted.:ugh:
Thanks for smack in the face. Waiting for another one.
DW :ok:

[j3pipercub]

SN3

Thanks for the reply, was fantastic to hear about a side to aviation that isn't that well publicised. Cheers for the insight

j3

[Forestdump]

DW, No smack on the face for you from me. I couldn't agree with you more.

[SNS3Guppy]

Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. Have you done much work with water bombers (scoopers). I asked a friend of mine, he is the chief pilot for one of the 215 outfits in Canada. I was told that what I said was pretty much exactly how they fight fires. They use tankers to direct where they want a fire to go then they get a 3 or 4 groups of scoopers, with 2 to 4 aircraft to a group, to attack the fire and to try and decrease its intensity. If there is 6 to 16 water bombers working on a fire for two, four hour shifts a day it does help considering in this time they can drop up to 90 times per day each, when the water source is close.
The water bombers also do other jobs like help control back burns as well as saturate fire breaks. If this is an ineffective way of fighting fires someone better tell the Canadians, and the French, and the Italians, and the Greeks and the Turks, etc. I do know that they never really got going in America because they weren't made in the USA, and therefore found ineffective, but that does not mean that they do not work.
You are right about the ground troops though. They are the ones that actually put out the fire. It is boots on the ground that does the hard work. I did, however, actually say that when I first posted.
Thanks for smack in the face. Waiting for another one.


No, you were wrong before, and are still wrong.

Yes, I've worked with the CL215's and 415's, and you're incorrect that they don't see use in the US. Further, I've worked fire internationally...and am one of the few in the US who has experience in most aerial fire disciplines and duties, including ground fire.

Perhaps you simply misunderstood your friend.

[StallsandSpins]

777 the photo is of a Douglas A26 Invader not a Marauder or a Havac which were built by Martin I have flown the beast A26 she will outperform a P51 on full power those 2/r2800,s with 17% of flap she climbs like a rocket ship left hand seat single pilot operation the last of the fast bombers before the advent of jets the approach for landing is flat and 120kts over the fence the right hand seat has no controls, is for the bomberdier,navergater, armer for the large bomb bay, the beast had a remote turret fireing on top of the fuselarge She saw service in Korea and Vietnam she was to late for the 2nd world war the Havac and Marauder were in the ww2 everbody gets confused but she is a breed apart from the earlier 2The Douglas A26 certainly is an awesome machine. It was originally designed by Ted Smith who later went on to design the Aero Commander and the Aerostar. If you look you can see many similarities between the types. In fact the Aerostar looks to me like a scaled down A26. Is there an A26 somewhere in Aus? i seem to remember reading something about someone importing one a few years ago.

[sms777]

There are two A-26's (or Canadian B-26's) getting shipped to Oz as we speak. They are in the final stages of preparation. One is in perfect airworthy cond. the other is complete but only good for spares. Both ex firefighters.
Sorry.... i am not allowed to say anymore :oh:

:ok:

[Double Wasp]

SN3 wrote:
No, you were wrong before, and are still wrong.

Yes, I've worked with the CL215's and 415's, and you're incorrect that they don't see use in the US. Further, I've worked fire internationally...and am one of the few in the US who has experience in most aerial fire disciplines and duties, including ground fire.
Perhaps you simply misunderstood your friend.


I am not trying to pick a fight here but can you please elaborate on what I am wrong about.
As far as usage in the US there are what one group of 2 per year of 415's go to Cali and there are 4 or so 215's in Minnesota. Every now and then a group of 2 from the NWT is sent to Alaska for a week or two. Whilst this does constitute use it is very limited and not to the extent that other countries use them. Most other places in the world the fleet is 50% Water Bombers min (usually a lot higher) compared to tankers. In the USA what would the percentage be? If I had to guess it would be less than 10%. The main reason why they started using the 215's and 415's was after that C130 wrecked most airplanes not specifically designed as water bombers were banned from flying for most of the agencies. This ban was slowly lifted after it was realized that fires were still burning and there was no airplanes there to work them, and that the C130 in question had suffered a structural failure in part due to the speed at which the drop occurred.
Could you please enlighten us all on how the 215's and 415's work fires and what their use is.
As I read it seems we are nearly talking about the same thing.
I eagerly await correction.

DW:E

[Double Wasp]

As for my original intention I still feel tankers would be a great tool for us here in Australia. While our country may be large the area where the fires are a threat is actually a relatively narrow band around the coastline near the major centres. The fires that happen in the sparsely settled north and west are for the most part allowed to burn as the naturally would. We are really only talking about mid way up the east coast and around the bottom to a bit on the west coast, The wet usually takes care of any fire threat in the north while the south is burning. If it is deemed it is required during the dry well the south usually has cooled down by then with a decreased fire threat so assets would be available. Even with a relatively small population the infrastructure and training is not insurmountable as the bases are not needed right across the country. The staff at a fire base does not need be huge. For a small base of 2 tankers plus a bird dog you really only need three or four people to keep it running. There are already fire coordination centers in place they would just need have air attack people integrated so they could be kept in the loop as to where the aircraft are most needed.

It is a shame that these aircraft are not even tried when they are available (ref: the Neptune). Sometimes being resistant to new ideas can be deadly.
I hope our mentality changes.
DW

[SNS3Guppy]

I am not trying to pick a fight here but can you please elaborate on what I am wrong about.
As far as usage in the US there are what one group of 2 per year of 415's go to Cali and there are 4 or so 215's in Minnesota. Every now and then a group of 2 from the NWT is sent to Alaska for a week or two. Whilst this does constitute use it is very limited and not to the extent that other countries use them. Most other places in the world the fleet is 50% Water Bombers min (usually a lot higher) compared to tankers. In the USA what would the percentage be? If I had to guess it would be less than 10%. The main reason why they started using the 215's and 415's was after that C130 wrecked most airplanes not specifically designed as water bombers were banned from flying for most of the agencies. This ban was slowly lifted after it was realized that fires were still burning and there was no airplanes there to work them, and that the C130 in question had suffered a structural failure in part due to the speed at which the drop occurred.
Could you please enlighten us all on how the 215's and 415's work fires and what their use is.
As I read it seems we are nearly talking about the same thing.
I eagerly await correction.


CL215's are in use throughout the US. My contract in a heavy tanker in Minnesota was taken over by the Minnesota DNR contracting 215's. Los Angeles County has had them for years. Aeroflite out of Kingman is a company that used to fly DC-4's, but now operates a fleet of CL215's. CL215's are in use in other states, including the Carolinas and other locations, and I've worked with them both in the States and in Canada while working fires in both locations.

The use of The CL215's had nothing to do with the loss of Tanker 130, and were in use prior to that time. I was flying with them prior to that time.

I was a cremwmeber on T130, by the way, and in fact did my Flight Engineer turbopropeller rating in that specific airplane. It's loss had nothing to do with "the speed at which it dropped."

Tanker 130 was lost at Walker, California, and three weeks later Tanker 123 was lost in Estes Park, Colorado. (I did my PB4Y type rating in Tanker 123, incidentally). You assert that there were no tankers available to fly fires following these losses, and that is untrue. I was flying when it happened, I was flying the next day, and the day after that...I didn't stop flying. C-130's were grounded, as were the PB4Y's. CL215's were not brought in to cover for missing tankers, and would have been utterly useless for much of the operational area covered by the large air tanker program due to lack of dip sites and extensive travel distances.

CL215's work well when operating very closs to a water source, but lose their effectiveness very quickly unless staged in large numbers with short tunaround times, when operating with water (or foam) only. Any turaround time requires longer term fire suppressants, which are gel or retardant.

Tankers not specifically designed as "water bombers" were not "banned" following the loss of T130 and T123. Piston airplanes were grounded briefly, and the P2V fleet was returned to service shortly thereafter. P3's continued to operate. DC-4's and DC-6's continued to operate, with the DC4's having now been retired. This isn't due to a problem with the DC4, but a preference which is largely political in nature, for turbine equipment. The 4Y's and C130's were not returned to service for reasons too extensive to discuss presently.

None of the tankers in use were "specifically designed as water bombers," and "water bombing" isn't the purpose for which they were being used. Some of the aircraft, including the P2's, the P3's, and the 4Y's were indeed designed for low altitude bombing and payload delivery, as was the C130.

The "ban" (which didn't exist) was "lifted" not because of a pressing need for tankers, but due to a comprehensive demonstration of safe maintenance and structural integrity on the part of the operators...including an extensive testing and proving process involving inflight operations over fires using strain gauges, etc. Nothing got put in service because of a need to fight fires; it got put in service because it was the right equipment for the job and it proved it's self safe to operate.

As for how CL215's and 415's work fires...they drop water on fires. Dropping near fires and increasing the relative humidity in the air to reduce fire behavior so ground troops can come in is a ridiculous idea, and is not how the aircraft are used. Simply put, they put the wet stuff on the red stuff, taking the heat out of the fire and reducing fire behavior. Again, in a large, active fire, putting water on the fire itself (going direct) is often about as effective as spitting in a camp fire. The notion that drops near the fire are used to increase relative humidity, however, is not true. Water is dropped on the fire, in the same manner as a hose lay is used to provide direct attack from the ground on a wild fire or structure.

As for staffing tanker bases with three people...it's possible...but typically not. Particularly if you want to have a real tanker program with real operations, and not simply a dog and pony show.

[Double Wasp]

SN3
I will accept the correction regarding the loss of the Tankers, and the fact that there may be more 215's and 415's working in the US than I was aware of. It also sounds like I was wrong regarding the ban, I can accept that.
I also agree that the farther away from water the less effective scoopers become due to turn around time. That is why I was suggesting tankers for Australia. As far as the humidity thing is concerned well I wont go there for the sake of being civil.
Dogs and ponies aside;
I have never been to a tanker base in the US so I can not comment on them however if you go to a lot of bases in Canada where there are tankers the actual crew is very rarely more than 4 including the dispatcher. These bases typically only have two Electras or a couple of CV 580's, if there are more airplanes based there then obviously crew numbers go up. If more aircraft arrive due to an ongoing situation they bring in people from a base that isn't as busy.
In Australia we aren't ever going to have a fleet of Tankers like the US in fact I would doubt it would ever get over 10 airframes (spread accross the country) total with probably only starting out with 2 or so to see how they work out. If they would ever be given the chance that is.
Lets see what I got wrong this time.;)
DW

[Forestdump]

Umm, nothing. Tanker base manager, an assistant and a loaderman(person). Maintenance and flight crew depending at what is based at that particular tanker base. Also, you can rest assured 1200 Imp. Gals every 30 seconds (sometimes faster, sometimes much slower) is pretty bloody humid. I'm thinking Sydney, the Central Coast, up to Newcastle would be a good spot for a couple of 215/415's.

[SNS3Guppy]

A couple of airplanes aren't going to be delivering a load every 30 seconds.

[multime]

Thanks thc.
Political, but god these yanks wouldn,t know an airtractor if it bit them.
Give me an AT-802 anyday.
Multi
P/s did you know all chinese know the same person.?
ED XACORY.!
M:ok:

[SNS3Guppy]

The last SEAT (single engine air tanker) I flew was an AT-802. I'm carded in the 802 and 502, and have been flying ag since I was eighteen.

I did seven years in Dromaders, too.

In the US, there are considerably more AT-802's flying fires than any other tanker aircraft type, and more single engine air tankers operating than large air tankers.

Which part of an air tractor is it that us "yanks" wouldn't know, exactly?