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.