DC10 Fire Bomber

[tfal]

Seens some footage of this impressive machine in action in the States at the moment.

What happened to it operating here in Oz? A quick google search pulled up a trial in Victoria back in 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kdcIbWYEWI

How cool would this be in our skies! Better then Elvis.

[ButFli]

By the time a DC-10 lands, gets filled through that tiny hose and takes off again I reckon Elvis would have dropped 10 loads of water.

I'd back Elvis over a DC-10 any day.

[hiwaytohell]

There are just some jobs that require the sledgehammer!

[VH-Cheer Up]

The key thing with Elvis and the other helicopter fire bombers, is they can suck up water from anywhere nearby, they don't have to go back to Avalon (like the DC10) or find a runway-sized and similarly accessible strip of unoccupied, relatively deep water (Like the Bombardier 415 scooper-bomber, or similar).

During a recent fire in Warrandyte I watched four helicopters conducting a delicate aerial ballet around power lines, ferrying big buckets of water between swimming pools and nearby blazing bushland, supporting around 90 CFA units. Took them over an hour but they blacked the fire out. Well done guys.

[Sunfish]

gallons per hour is your answer.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Elvis = 7,500 litres/9,500 litres depending who you believe. Fills from a source one metre deep in 45 seconds.
DC10 Tanker = 45,000 litres. Drop time = 8 seconds. Not sure how long it takes to fill, but I'm pretty sure it won't be doing it on the hover. Guess if the fire was in Warrandyte and the tanker based in Avalon, you would be lucky to achieve three drops in an hour. Probably only make two.

Elvis sucking up people's swimming pools and from the nearby Yarra could achieve one drop on the fireground every three minutes, i.e. twenty an hour, say 150,000 litres an hour. DC10 135,000 litres an hour, tops, more likely only 90,000 litres per hour.

Looks like Elvis would still be King based on the above assumptions!

It's all down to proximity to base, turnround time, and location of available water sources. Helicopters probably offer more flexibility.

Have to say a DC10 dropping 45,000 litres over the neighbours place would be an impressive sight, though!

[Wally Mk2]

I recall chatting to these DC drivers at AV on day whilst I was awaiting patients & they had a B58 chase plane or whatever ya wanna call it to guide them to the drop zone, trouble is the old Beech had to fly flat out!:-) something rather fun with the '10' right up ya clacker!":-)
Everything was based on turn-a-round times, delivery rates not practicable for most ops here.


Wmk2

[Vincent Chase]

You cannot compare the two, totally different missions. For starters the helicopters utilise water or a foam mix directly attacking the fire, the DC10 and majority of other fixed wing are filled with retardant for creating lines to halt or direct the fire. In the case of the DC10 this retardant line is up to 2000 metres long and 10 metres wide, and the two working in tandem in california have been used to box in entire towns.

The air crane is the only heli with the 7500 or 9500lt capacity (depending on config) with the majority or other rotarys averaging 1500-2000lt. There are a limited number of aircranes and normally strategically located in metro areas where they are very effective.

When the Mallee lights up and you have the option of a DC10 with 45,000lt in 45 mins or an aircrane doing 80kt on a 40 minute fuel cycle that is located in Central vic what would you choose? (Personally I would choose an army of 802's and the flexibility they bring).

Before people start suggesting the large self filling fixed wing options, the questions have been asked and answered many times. The fireboss is the only viable option for our waterways and has proven itself in Australia, the problem is cost at the moment.

Wally, the chase plane for the DC10 is a kingair these days.

[nomorecatering]

Powerhouse Brush Fire DC-10 Airtanker Drops (compilation) - YouTube




CA Rim Fire 2013 - YouTube

[Engineer_aus]

Good to see the arm chair experts out of their seats again.
S-64E 7500lts
S-64F 9000lts

Any fire bomber (fixed and rotary) can have water, water/foam, or slurry/retardant. It all depends on the Incident controller and the strategies and objectives for that incident.

The Australian bush is completely different to the American brush. Here in Australia we have spot fires which start well in front of the fire front unlike the US (yes I know it happens there) Thus the main strategy employed is to dampen down the head fire to minimize the spotting and then nailing it where possible with the ground crews.

[Trojan1981]

Regardless of people's prejudices regarding aircraft types and all the rate of application figures quoted to justify them, the fact is nobody knows how the DC-10 would have fared in Australia, because it was never fully utilised. It was a very quiet season as everything had already been burnt the year before.

It's like having the fire trucks on standby the day after a fiery crash, then cutting them the following day because they were underutilised!

[tdracer]

Vincent Chase pretty much nailed it. Different missions, different capabilities, different advantages/disadvantages.


I was in Colorado last year when they had major wildfires by the Royal Gorge (outside Canon City) and (at the exact same time) the Black Forest fire, just north of Colorado Springs. The Royal Gorge fire was ~ 50 miles west, while the Black Forest fire was ~50 miles north. Air quality was not good....


The Royal Gorge fire did not lend itself to rapid reloading of water or other retardants by helo based assets - no open water nearby (trying to pick up water from the Arkansas river in the middle of the canon would have been quite hazardous), so the DC-10 was the weapon of choice. It was operating out of the Pueblo airport, and I was working in a house in the landing path. I don't know what the turn around time was, but I'm pretty confident they didn't bother with normal altitude, noise, and approach procedures.
After one particularly noisy approach, the guy that was doing the tile work for me came inside and asked me if I knew the number of rivets on the underside of a DC-10 wing, as he'd just counted them :eek:

[scotton]

Martin Mars would be heroes in Australia.

[Fflatlander]

Search the 'bushfirecrc' website for 'dc-10_evaluation_final.pdf'. Draw your own conclusions.

[emergency000]

Speaking from a personal perspective, having chased fast moving grass fires on the back of the CFA tanker, I can tell you I'd rather a large fleet of smaller aircraft, than one very big one that carries as much as the rest combined but takes far longer to respond and refill. Given how quickly fire fronts can travel and fan out, not to mention moving through valleys and over hills, helos and fixed-wing water bombers offer a degree of flexibility to the firefight that the DC-10 can't even dream of.

It's an impressive machine, to be sure. And maybe up in the Mallee or similar flat, sparsely wooded areas it may be effective. But, you just can't beat the flexibility of the S-64E/F and the AT-802.

[cattletruck]

I witnessed this thing in action, Beriev Be-200

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF50ZSnUpbYp6KMwBgmhhGgYhb7RYi4fzMn94G869 JhBB2iRn_

Could deliver a quite a punch some distance away, except it couldn't get low enough in mountainous terrain much like the DC10 as it flies too fast to maneuver safely in confined spaces. It's speed also means it requires a larger block of airspace clearance to operate in.

Now this thing is a beast. So versatile and agile, Bombardier/Canadair 415

http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/157/157745_800.jpg


Even put many helo pilots to shame :E