Nevada aerial firefighters to test BAe 146
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nevada aerial firefighters to test BAe 146
Minden Air to try out new tanker
Minden Air Corp could purchase a new type of fire bomber. Built by British Aerospace, the BAe146-100 is expected to land at Minden-Tahoe Airport some time this weekend.
The plane will be tested and inspected by Minden Air employees and United States Forest Service officials next week for certification. It should be on line for next year's fire season, said Tim Christy, chief pilot for Minden Air.
"We're in the phase of contracting where one of the things we have to do is kick the tires," he said.
This is the first time these planes have been considered for use as fire bombers, but they meet the criteria, Christy said.
"When they were first built in the early 1980s, the designers didn't realize they were building a perfectly good airplane for our mission," he said. "This airplane is designed for short fields and slow flight.
"We should have had this plane for the Waterfall fire," Christy said. "It's twice as fast as any airplane we're flying, yet capable of slowing down."
The plane's four turbine-driven (turbo-fan) engines need less maintenance and are more reliable than piston-driven planes and they're about the same size as the P2V, so they'll fit well into the current loading facilities, he said.
Minden Air currently flies the P2V, a plane that was designed and built in the 1960s.
"We'd like to keep our current aircraft operating, but parts are getting harder to come by," Christy said.
Each new plane will cost about $2 million.
Minden Air officials have been looking at the planes for four years and are considering the plane in part, because the Forest Service will be requiring an all-turbine force by 2008. At that time, Minden Air's PV2 will be obsolete, Christy said.
Because this will be the first of its kind to work as an air tanker, the Forest Service will probably approve just one plane to see how it performs.
Each new plane will be contracted individually and if successful, more contracts for this type of plane could be approved, Christy said.
http://airtanker.com/1.html?<a href=...board.html</a>
Minden Air Corp could purchase a new type of fire bomber. Built by British Aerospace, the BAe146-100 is expected to land at Minden-Tahoe Airport some time this weekend.
The plane will be tested and inspected by Minden Air employees and United States Forest Service officials next week for certification. It should be on line for next year's fire season, said Tim Christy, chief pilot for Minden Air.
"We're in the phase of contracting where one of the things we have to do is kick the tires," he said.
This is the first time these planes have been considered for use as fire bombers, but they meet the criteria, Christy said.
"When they were first built in the early 1980s, the designers didn't realize they were building a perfectly good airplane for our mission," he said. "This airplane is designed for short fields and slow flight.
"We should have had this plane for the Waterfall fire," Christy said. "It's twice as fast as any airplane we're flying, yet capable of slowing down."
The plane's four turbine-driven (turbo-fan) engines need less maintenance and are more reliable than piston-driven planes and they're about the same size as the P2V, so they'll fit well into the current loading facilities, he said.
Minden Air currently flies the P2V, a plane that was designed and built in the 1960s.
"We'd like to keep our current aircraft operating, but parts are getting harder to come by," Christy said.
Each new plane will cost about $2 million.
Minden Air officials have been looking at the planes for four years and are considering the plane in part, because the Forest Service will be requiring an all-turbine force by 2008. At that time, Minden Air's PV2 will be obsolete, Christy said.
Because this will be the first of its kind to work as an air tanker, the Forest Service will probably approve just one plane to see how it performs.
Each new plane will be contracted individually and if successful, more contracts for this type of plane could be approved, Christy said.
http://airtanker.com/1.html?<a href=...board.html</a>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: @Work
Age: 60
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a small extension to allthatglitters comment.
This aircraft is actually fitted with 5 APU's and the 100 model is considered the "sport version". Beware even more when they try to sell you the 300!
"Since it has no propellers it is regarded as a jet"
This aircraft is actually fitted with 5 APU's and the 100 model is considered the "sport version". Beware even more when they try to sell you the 300!
"Since it has no propellers it is regarded as a jet"
A 146-100 would be a good candidate; lots of lift at low speed, very maneuverable (ailerons and roll spoilers), low control forces, good view from the flight deck, etc. Special characteristics in the low speed configuration are that it goes where it is pointing i.e. it flies more nose-down than conventional aircraft; also great steep approach capability; a 6 deg civil approach should give near 9 deg down in operational use.
Good load carrying capability; one Alaskan operator had ‘fish bins’ (dry ice) in the cabin and BAE did some studies for under floor fuel tanks. There may be some water dump capability from the gear bay area (gear down) as the rear bulkhead is the front of the rear hold and the top is the cabin floor. The STA version also proved the capability of airborne opening a sliding (up and over) rear door and a side freight door would enable easy fitting of large water drums.
The 146-200 and -300 are not so different, both have steep approach clearances and at low level the change in thrust/wt ratio is not significant. In some cases the -300 has better performance than the -200; also the larger aircraft have a greater weight carrying capability than the -100. The core of the fan engines are based on the (T55?) helicopter engine thus should be very responsive, but only expect military life times if high EGT ops are maintained, but these should not be required at low level as excellent (relative to turbo props) climb performance is available at max derate.
Good load carrying capability; one Alaskan operator had ‘fish bins’ (dry ice) in the cabin and BAE did some studies for under floor fuel tanks. There may be some water dump capability from the gear bay area (gear down) as the rear bulkhead is the front of the rear hold and the top is the cabin floor. The STA version also proved the capability of airborne opening a sliding (up and over) rear door and a side freight door would enable easy fitting of large water drums.
The 146-200 and -300 are not so different, both have steep approach clearances and at low level the change in thrust/wt ratio is not significant. In some cases the -300 has better performance than the -200; also the larger aircraft have a greater weight carrying capability than the -100. The core of the fan engines are based on the (T55?) helicopter engine thus should be very responsive, but only expect military life times if high EGT ops are maintained, but these should not be required at low level as excellent (relative to turbo props) climb performance is available at max derate.
Good idea and all correct comments above.
To lighten the airframe and reduce the complexity l would suggest the following...
1. Remove the the complete bleed-system from the frame.
2. Remove the APU (The one at the back!).
3. Remove all pressurisation related components.
4. Remove all ant-ice related components.
That should free up a couple of tonnes.
For crew cooling, just install a 115V domestic AC up the front somewhere, with an air scoop close by.
The engines are a worry, but if they reckon they are cheaper to maintain than the radials on the neptune then good luck to them, especially with twice as many.
halas
(Just a tought, that without the APU in the tail the CG would move in the correct direction. May become a little pitchy, but that would be a good thing for this role)
To lighten the airframe and reduce the complexity l would suggest the following...
1. Remove the the complete bleed-system from the frame.
2. Remove the APU (The one at the back!).
3. Remove all pressurisation related components.
4. Remove all ant-ice related components.
That should free up a couple of tonnes.
For crew cooling, just install a 115V domestic AC up the front somewhere, with an air scoop close by.
The engines are a worry, but if they reckon they are cheaper to maintain than the radials on the neptune then good luck to them, especially with twice as many.
halas
(Just a tought, that without the APU in the tail the CG would move in the correct direction. May become a little pitchy, but that would be a good thing for this role)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
146? Hmmmm
By, all I can say is that they must be desperate.
Mind you they won't be operating in 'rollback' territory, not much need for a water bomber above 260.
As for the APU (the one at the back - as quoted), they might as well remove it as the damn thing never was much good, neither was the Sundstrand that replaced it in the RJ).
Since they'd be likely to be coming back to the neares Forward Operating Base, they'll likely have a GPU so that wouldn't be a problem.
What I (although not an expert 'operator' I used to teach 146 Performance and Engines etc for BAe) would be concerned about is it's ability to get off the ground with a load as dense as the fire retardent, consistently with those 502s - what was it? 5670 lbs of thrust at ISA conditions and sea level?
We're looking at USA high summer temps and possible higher altitude FOBs as well.
Watch this space as they say . . .
Mind you they won't be operating in 'rollback' territory, not much need for a water bomber above 260.
As for the APU (the one at the back - as quoted), they might as well remove it as the damn thing never was much good, neither was the Sundstrand that replaced it in the RJ).
Since they'd be likely to be coming back to the neares Forward Operating Base, they'll likely have a GPU so that wouldn't be a problem.
What I (although not an expert 'operator' I used to teach 146 Performance and Engines etc for BAe) would be concerned about is it's ability to get off the ground with a load as dense as the fire retardent, consistently with those 502s - what was it? 5670 lbs of thrust at ISA conditions and sea level?
We're looking at USA high summer temps and possible higher altitude FOBs as well.
Watch this space as they say . . .
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's all the negatives!
Plus side - loads of them going cheap. 502s have had their problems but plenty of spares and most problems now known so very few surprises. Roll back now no longer an issue anyway due to bleed take off modification that was moved a few stages down the compressor (mandatory now I beleive). Remove the aircon system then no dodgy fumes
Power might be flat rated but even in the USA the levels that this op will be flying at will hardly notice the degridation.
Also will give ex146 drivers someting to play with if they could be bothered in their spare time...maybe....perhaps...ok maybe not!
Plus side - loads of them going cheap. 502s have had their problems but plenty of spares and most problems now known so very few surprises. Roll back now no longer an issue anyway due to bleed take off modification that was moved a few stages down the compressor (mandatory now I beleive). Remove the aircon system then no dodgy fumes
Power might be flat rated but even in the USA the levels that this op will be flying at will hardly notice the degridation.Also will give ex146 drivers someting to play with if they could be bothered in their spare time...maybe....perhaps...ok maybe not!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: U.A.E.
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear up Shut up
If you think that the average 146 driver can just jump in an carry out fire fighting flying, with any degree of safety, then you are sadly mistaken.
It is a very dangerous and skilled job, (not to mention, demanding) that can only be carried out safely after years of practice.
It is a much safer and realistic project to teach a fire fighter pilot to fly a 146, than try and teach the average 146 pilot low flying and fire fighting techniques. That type of current experience and skill, very few airline pilots would have.
If you think that the average 146 driver can just jump in an carry out fire fighting flying, with any degree of safety, then you are sadly mistaken.
It is a very dangerous and skilled job, (not to mention, demanding) that can only be carried out safely after years of practice.
It is a much safer and realistic project to teach a fire fighter pilot to fly a 146, than try and teach the average 146 pilot low flying and fire fighting techniques. That type of current experience and skill, very few airline pilots would have.
Last edited by Loc-out; 19th Sep 2004 at 21:23.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is quite an informative thread. I left Woodford just as flight testing to 'induce' rollback was getting underway on 3001. I never did find out the outcome/fix but now I do !!
Some points and answers:
Engine rollback is fixed; all engines are modified.
Unpressurized flight is allowed up to (and above) the crew cert limit of 14,000 ft with O2, but keep the icing and air systems for high-level transit.
The aircraft is a delight to fly, convert the fire-fighters, they will probably find new techniques available from the high turn rates at low speed and a good wing-over capability.
The original design for the aircraft did not have an APU. Double battery start mod is available for starting an outboard engine, then use electric cross-start for the others.
Engine rollback is fixed; all engines are modified.
Unpressurized flight is allowed up to (and above) the crew cert limit of 14,000 ft with O2, but keep the icing and air systems for high-level transit.
The aircraft is a delight to fly, convert the fire-fighters, they will probably find new techniques available from the high turn rates at low speed and a good wing-over capability.
The original design for the aircraft did not have an APU. Double battery start mod is available for starting an outboard engine, then use electric cross-start for the others.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ware, Herts. England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
146 firefighter
Although nice to see 146's in this role I find it all rather sad-such a promising design-and the last British assembled complete jet aircraft-reduced by management ineptitude to having no sales prospects and now long out of production. How much did BAE Systems waste on the aborted RJX replacement engine version I wonder-there again very promising but chopped before it could prove itself. Meanwhile Bombardier are groaning with orders for their new Regional Jet so I gather.
I fear that operating a 146 as fire bomber will be costly due to those ALF 502's, but perhaps not as if there arn't too many forest fires, which is to be hoped for, the planes will stay on the ground and the rubber bands won't wear out.
I fear that operating a 146 as fire bomber will be costly due to those ALF 502's, but perhaps not as if there arn't too many forest fires, which is to be hoped for, the planes will stay on the ground and the rubber bands won't wear out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a picture of the 146 being evaluated by Minden Air.
http://www.wildlandfire.com/pics/air...ntestplane.jpg
Their two-week test should be finished by now and if they find the aircraft has potential for them they have an option to buy it "from a private owner."
I'm afraid I don't yet know its registration or previous history.
http://www.wildlandfire.com/pics/air...ntestplane.jpg
Their two-week test should be finished by now and if they find the aircraft has potential for them they have an option to buy it "from a private owner."
I'm afraid I don't yet know its registration or previous history.
