Nice video.
Just apply a reasonable scepticism to salesmen attempting to bluff you with big numbers. To put it in context, to put the equivalent of 10mm rainfall on just 1 hectare requires 100,000 litres.
Retardant does extend this, but not by orders of magnitude. I'd be far more impressed if the Evergreen people could talk about
actual savings - as determined by independent analysis - rather than
theoretical savings. In theory, doing a rain-dance is even more effective. In theory......
The normal drop heights that we use are 50-100'AGL . We only go as high as 100' to permit the retardant to achieve terminal velocity. 400-800'AGL means that accuracy is going to be a more significant problem, and wind-drift and dispersion will be far bigger issues. Sorry to sound like a wet blanket
but water in the wrong place extinguishes no fires..
Talking marketing,,,, when I did my course, the Canadairs were in the news. It was interesting that at no stage did the manufacturer approach the fire agencies or make a submission through the agencies normal process for acquiring an aerial firefighting capacity. In each case, they attempted to make sales by going directly to politicians and the media, rather than the people who actually fight fires.
To address Launchpad McQuack's question, the sums on hire vs. ownership and multiples of aircraft have been done. As the state governments get most of their disaster funding from the Federal Govt, and because the contract aircraft tend to move between states as required during the major fire years, the effect is not dissimilar to a National fleet in practice. It pays to recall that when Vic has a bad year, similar conditions tend to prevail in both Southern NSW and SA as well. It's just not sensible to strip those states of their aerial capacity when they're facing the same threat.
Are there scenarios in which a high-capacity tanker can make a difference? You bet.
But in the real world we need to make sure that we don't let our enthusiasms carry us away.
Regards............ Peter