747 Fire fighting water tanker

[roamingwolf]

Interesting video of an Evergreen 747 converted to a water tanker...

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/747_water_tanker.htm

[bushy]

We need ten of them, now. The country is being burnt. It happens somewhere in Australia, almost every year.

[Captain Sand Dune]

The country is being burnt. It happens somewhere in Australia, almost every year.

How true. Yet why do we spend vast sums of money transporting a couple of Sikorsky Skycranes over here every year!

Considering the vast amount of damage done to Australia every year by bushfires, surely the time is well overdue when we should purchase (or at the very least, lease) several dedicated fire-fighting aircraft for our own use.

There are many to chose from, however year after year we rely on a hodge podge of cropdusters and small helicopters with bambi buckets (or similar). IMHO this is like p!ssing in the wind.

While acknowledging the skill and tenacity of the pilots involved, we really need to get serious.

I remember some years ago an ex-RAAF Neptune was re-fitted for fire-fighting operations and based in Perth. I far as I can recall it was never used once.

This may not be a very good example, it illustrates the complete lack of leadership by state and federal governments to tackle the problem at the appropriate level.

I may be missing some key points here, as I am not versed in the ways of aircraft aquisition. Is it that there would simply not be the use for a small fleet of, let's say 6 Canadairs (the twin-turboprop ones - I forget their designation)? Somehow I seriously doubt the cost of purchase and operation of such aircraft would outweigh their potential benefit.

[Capn Bloggs]

Is it that there would simply not be the use for a small fleet of, let's say 6 Canadairs (the twin-turboprop ones - I forget their designation)?
NJS (the old NJS), if my memory serves me correctly, proposed exactly this some years back. Even had a demo aeroplane out here. Fell on deaf ears.

[tobzalp]

We are a wealthy nation. If we can't run a show with half a dozen aircraft to protect the population, there is something wrong. User pays, world's best practice, cost benefit analysis, etc etc are some things I can think of to start with.

[turbantime]

Those Bombardier CL-215's (I think they're called) are not only pure waterbombers but can be used as search and rescue aircraft during the "off season". What a fantastic idea......have an aeroplane not only carry out a search over water but then be able to land and recover as well! Then turn around and use em in the firefighting role in summer. Will it happen? Of course not :ugh:

[ScottyDoo]

What the hell is "worlds best practice" anyway????

Why do peole always pull that phrase out their ****s??? :ugh:

[blueloo]

I also reckon we should have some of the canadairs, and when i was chatting to some CFA bloke, he suggested they are a waste of money and not practical for our conditions....

yet what do we have instead.......? Nothing substantial enough to do the job.

[18-Wheeler]

We need ten of them, now. The country is being burnt. It happens somewhere in Australia, almost every year.


You'd need ten - just one would be nearly useless.
They take the best part of an hour to turn around, and there's about four or five runways on the east cost you can operate one out of.

[J430]

And you need WATER....not much of that around here

[Torres]

Australia sold the lowest cost solution ... to the Canadians who turned our Trackers into Turbo Firecats!

I can just imagine the ball CASA would have with an Australian water bombing operation!

[WilliamOK]

The bush fires were happening long before white people were here and they'll continue for even longer..... Why waste peopel's money on stopping something that is a natural cycle in Australia.....Humanity has too much of a propensity to interfering with natural enviromental processes......

Plus the cost and effectiveness of a 747 bomber probably wouldn't be that much more effective of the fires.....

[404 Titan]

WilliamOK
Why waste peopel's money on stopping something that is a natural cycle in Australia.....That's not a very well thought out comment to make. When your house and loved ones are in the line of some inferno I wonder if you will be singing the same tune then? I doubt it.

Before white man arrived in this country there was only a hand full of original inhabitants who probably deliberately started the fire to clear the undergrowth and wild native animals. Today we have thousands of people potentially in harms way and hundreds of thousands of hectares of grazing and agricultural land that could be destroyed because of these and other fires which would have a huge impact on our economy. I think this is more than reason enough to do what we can to fight them.

[tlf]

And you need WATER....not much of that around here


Well, with regard to the fires are frequent in the Sydney area you just let me know when Sydney Harbour dries up.

[Captain Sand Dune]

[when i was chatting to some CFA bloke, he suggested they are a waste of money and not practical for our conditions....
/QUOTE]
Really? I would like to know how he arrived at that conclusion. So what would type of aircraft would be suitable for our conditions? A handful of B206s and crop dusters?!

[QUOTE]Can't find it, but does anyone have the photo of the RAAF C-130 modified to do water bombing?
I wonder how much it would take to mod the C130Js for firefighting ops? Heard they have issues with wingspars though.

[lowerlobe]

To WilliamOK,
Yes it is true that bush fire is a natural occurence in Australia but as 404 Titan has pointed out if lives are at risk and property especially yours then I'm sure you would do anything possible to save them.

I'm sure as well that the 747 tanker would be a heck of a lot more effective than what they use now.

We also do our best to develop vacines and medical procedures to prevent or cure normally occuring disease .

Do you think we should give them a miss as well because they are not natural but man made

[Oceanz]

probs with fixed wings though -
they often can't get into replenishment sources close to the fire (e.g. water pools at the bottom of the Grose Valley the other week),
have to land/fill/take off again,
and the accuracy of their drop would be far less

[kiwiblue]

I remember some years ago an ex-RAAF Neptune was re-fitted for fire-fighting operations and based in Perth. I far as I can recall it was never used once.

If memory serves me, she's still sitting on the tarmac at YPPH!!! Slowly decaying, deteriorating. Such a waste. I seem to recall her having a MAD boom on her now too... she must have been re-tasked at some point!

[Agony]

I wonder what the CG shift is on the 74 water bomber. Must be a huge change. Could be a bag of fun low level, minimum manoevring, lots of traffic etc etc.

My experience with this is that for this beast to be near the action he would have to clear some area. Additionally I gather he would be relatively high, so granted lots of water, but v. inaccurate. A bit of area weapon I would suspect.

Maybe I'm wrong.......:confused:

[Turboman]

One Canadair CL-415 - two engines, two crew, 6000lt capacity, about $20m.
Requires good airstrip and suitable water source for scooping close to fires. Single role aircraft. I don't think you'd get a SAR contract that also allowed you to go off and fight fires.

Two AT-802's - two engines, two crew, 6000lt capacity, about $3.5m.
Requires ag strip and suitable water source close to fires. Can be tasked to two fires or staggered on the same fire.
Multi-role aircraft so it can feed itself outside fire seasons. Probably why they are selling and 415's aren't

The major issue is not what aircraft are used, but how they are used. NSW unlike SA, VIC & WA do not use aircraft for initial attack. They have not invested in airstrip infrastructure in strategic locations, like SA & VIC have, to allow for an initial attack policy. In the Adelaide hills an aircraft is above a fire within 10mins after a smoke sighting on a high danger day.

In NSW the policy seems to be to let it get good and established so the federal money starts kicking in and there is lots of publicity. The difference could be that SA & VIC have lost many lives in the past (Ash Wednesday & Black Friday).

[SM4 Pirate]

http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/ml/1845/2_Australia_2_500.jpg

I'm just a dumb bloke obviously; but half a dozen of these is better than none, right?

[Chadzat]

6 of them ^ vs 60 AT-802's :hmm:

I am not involved in aerial firefighting at all but the guys who operate the SA AT's are in the hangar next door, and from what I have heard (and seen) of how they use them- they are EXTREMELY effective against small to upper medium sized fires. Of course if you got a huge inferno, then not even a skycrane will be able to do much.

One thing it seems people are missing here is the true measure of aerial firefighting- litres on the fire per hour and cost per litre of water. Without having to put up heaps of figures, I'd say the AT's do the job pretty damn well for the price. I'd certainly want 20 or so AT's scattered around the state than 2 CL's based in the capital city!

Why don't the authorities establish an operation similar to the US (can't think of the name) that had federal funding to combat their forrest fires? Surely this would benefit all involved if the states banded together and established a common organisation with common infrastructure?

[SM4 Pirate]

Yes the AT-802 should have a role; but I understand the turn around time is substantial; I guess it depends on where the fire is in relation to a strip and / or body of water to reload the CL-415 or the tractor; maybe we could have 3 CLs and 30 AT-802s?

Re "The cost of water" when taken from the ocean, harbour etc is not an issue; hence the CL-415 should get a guernsey IMHO.

I hear talk on the radio today of 8 "Elvis/Delilah" sky cranes being on the shopping list; but no one is saying who will pay etc.

An absolute motsa for me is something better than we have now is needed; a dedicated quick response (national unit) would be best; so that would make it from the federal funds for mind.

The other issue, particularly in Vic, is why the CFA has to buy it's own trucks, generally, with money they (CFA units) raise from the community; the gov's all around, including councils, need to have a bigger role in asset protection.

[Kiwiconehead]

The Canadair looks like a cool machne, but, for example, the current fires in the alpine areas - where would the nearest suitable spot for a CL415 to fill up be and how long would be the transit time be?

I can see where one would have been of use in the Sydney fires of a year or 2 ago where they were close to the ocean/harbour.

But what about the Canberra fires a few years ago?

[Wunwing]

The Canadians and Yanks use two different approaches. They use large aircraft to fight fires as they occur from lightning strikes etc and smaller aircraft and helicopters when they get close to civilisation.They also use smoke jumpers in the wilderness, backing them up with the large bombers.
Unlike our approach they don't wait until a fire gets close to civilisation.

Up until recently they used a mix of large aircraft until one company lost a Liberator and an A model Herc, pulling the wings of both. Then followed a grounding of most large aircraft and an enquiry and the closing down of a few of the fire bombing concerns.

The Herc operations were a mix of contractors and Air National Guard. The ANG have developed a roll on/off Kit for a standard Herc. The privateers, or some at least, appear to have been involved in some interesting activities in their downtime. Others now operate Orions and L188s.Conair of Canada operate Firecats (Trackers) and CV580s and one Canadian company, Airspray operates L188 Longliners including former QF VH ECC. There are also DC6s and DC4s.The Canadians and a number of European operators use Canadair derivatives and a few Catalinas are still around but most now grounded.

The aircraft in Australia a few years ago was from memory a DC6 from Conair.Depending on how you look at it fortunately or unfortunately there was very little activity for it the year that it was here. I am not sure what a single aircraft would do anyway as the operation depends on a rapid strike by multiple aircraft to knock down the fire.

I have been told that the heavy approach is no good with our trees but California and most Med Countries are full of Gums and it seems to work there.
If you can think back to the video of the recent Helios B737 crash in Greece there were Canadairs busy in the background putting out the fire that the crash had started

I can't see under the current emergency requirents why say Airspray could not be contracted to bring out their L188s for the season. They should have no trouble with delivery range. Talking to some of the fire heavies a few years ago I came to the conclusion that the real problem was one of control and budgets. The only way to fund such an operation is via the Feds who could allocate across Australia. This puts the operations outside of the State Fire services. It also limits expenditure on other things like trucks etc.

[Turboman]

I have operated an AT-802 on a fire in SA with a turn around time of 5 mins loading from a dam in a paddock. We had 4 aircraft delivering a total of 2000lts a minute to the fire front for half the price of the skycrane.

Conair in Canada now have eight 802's and as far as I am aware no CL-415's although they have lakes everywhere in Canada. I think the Convair's or anything this big would require a more suitable airstrip than a paddock therefore affecting litres delivered per hour.

Every fire I have been on in NSW in the last ten years has been well established and involved a ferry of at least 15 minutes to reach the fire front. This is a complete waste of time and money, and achieves almost nothing. This very rarely happens in SA.

[Wunwing]

Conair's website shows them as operators of CL215 amongst many other types.

[Trev007]

The answer is simple if you want to scoop and have the flexibility of the 802 .......FIREBOSS 802 on floats with scooping ability and land capable
1xCL415 = 12xFireBoss = 20x802
6400lt vs 38400lt vs 64000lt

You do the maths

www.firebossllc.com (http://www.firebossllc.com)

[Aerodynamisist]

747 tankers , c 415's c130's or even a fire fighting mod for these new c17's we've bought at great expense. They are all a great way to get the job done but the sad fact is that the emergency service's involved are all obsessed with helicopters, Ive even heard chopper pilots chattering on the numbers about how sweet it is the be flying the big wigs around spotting in an air conditioned jet ranger.

[maxgrad]

Helicopters certainly have their place in fire fighting but as stated there is a BIG role for the flying planks.
Certain factions get it into their heads that one type of machine is IT. wrong.
Look at NT, some twit wants to replace a/c with choppers and a couple of jets for aeromed work
That will work well over the distances concerned, locations and time lines....not!

My point is (firefighting wise) that a combo of types may prove a better choice. Given that parts/maintenance/downtime use/training on cross types etc etc may stop my idea in it's tracks

[jandakotpilot]

I think there must be a better way in Oz than what we have at the moment. The helitacs over here in the west tend to be pretty precise but lack the volume.

With the 747 tanker, wouldn't that quantity of water falling from the sky flatten everything below it... Including the houses it is meant to be saving? :confused:

It's great for an instant rainstorm. I assume the 747 in the USA is used to fight the fire in the forrested areas before the fire reaches any house.

The video was good, I thought there would be a greater pitch change with that much water going out the belly. :8

Volga Dnper have a few AN-124's floating around somewhere that are used for fire fighting from memory. Surely that would hold more than a 747-100?

WilliamOK - Thats one of the poorest comments I have heard on here. :yuk:

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

No pictures, but here's the report on the trial:
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/6448904440D57E88CA25703C002F3465/$File/Research+Report+15.pdf
The Phoschek used is nasty stuff, both to handle and encounter on the fire ground.

[Trev007]

www.firebossllc.com (http://www.firebossllc.com) check this out for a neat fire fighting machine

[Oceanz]

It's great for an instant rainstorm.

And a great waste of water. Any water not falling directly on the fire evaporates very quickly in a firestorm - 60+knt winds, 40+ air temp, 15% or lower humidity - the water doesn't hang around long. As an ex-RFS volunteer I have direct experience of this.

We do need a mix - FW for before the fires get really going. But when the fire reaches my house, I think I'd prefer a daisy bucket overhead in the critical minutes than a FW "maybe" dumping the water on me or "maybe" the water landing a hundred feet away.

FW - thinking of some of the areas of NSW I have seen in the last few months - it would have to be able to retank from a dam - there just isn't any decent lengths of waterways left in many areas to scoop on the fly.

[scrambler]

It is also important to note that although aerial bombing of a fire is a useful tool in slowing a fire or knocking the heat out of it, there will always be a requirement to follow the drop up with on ground crews.

[Cloud Basher]

Having been involved in Aerial Fire Fighting since it was first bought to Eastern Australia by the (now defunct) NSCA(Vic) what we have now is actually a very good mix of litres-on-fire vs re-attack times. All the current aircraft used (bar the Skycranes) provide a very good mix of being able to fight most types of fires. However as has been stated the huge firestorms that can develop are not really affected by aerial firefighting.

People need to remember that firebombers are not the be all and end all of fire fighting. It is still the guys and girls on the ground that do the majority of fire fighting and are very effective. Helicopters are very good at vital asset protection and for transporting fire attack crews to strategic and tactical locations to conduct bck burns etc and to get into otherwise inaccessible areas in the shortest period of time. Fixed wing (read AT-802's and Dromaders etc) are very good at fire fronts or laying a line of suppressant just in front of the fire to help with stopping it.

However once a fire starts and developes into a firestorm aircraft are essentially useless for fighting the actual fire. Aircraft can't even get near the fire in these circumstances.

Aircraft are best at attacking fires before they develop into full blown bushfires. Spot fires and small outbreaks, where they use their speed and reattack capabilities to the fullest mean they ar emost affective in this area.

As for the skycrane... my own opinion, when you look at the costs and litres per minute on the fire, they are less effective and more expensive than 2 or three medium helo's or three or four light helo's.... I believe these are more a case of the public now expects these helo's here rather than the bodies having theability to get the best bang for the buck. Perception is truth....

The CL-215 was actually bought to Australia by the NSCA(VIC) for a trial one season but it was not suited to out terrain, resources or infrastructure. Better solutions were developed and have proven more effective.

One last thing, you could have 50 helo's and 200 AT802's, but as soon as the fire develops into a bushfire it is the blokes on the ground that are still the most effective means of putting it out. (This is without the problem of being ble to control that many aircraft!!!) Aircraft are a tool to be used and particularly in VIC and SA are used very well. NSW has some way to go and appears to have more political hurdles to jump through as other posters have stated above. (I have no experience in WA)

Cheers
CB

[turnarounds]

:=
Quote
"Having been involved in Aerial Fire Fighting since it was first bought to Eastern Australia by the (now defunct) NSCA(Vic)" ...........

From my memory the NSCA got there first helicopter around 1980, I know there were many aircraft involved in Aerial Firefighting before then.

Freddo did have a pretty neat Infra Red camera and pretty yellow helicopters (as well as subs, gliders, yachts, dogs ....) but the boys from Skyfarmers, Alpine, Superspread to name just a few had been firebombing for many years before Thunderbirds showed up on the scene!

[Torres]

I think Wazza brought two CL-215s to Australia around the time Surveillance first won the Coastwatch Contract? I can't remember whether they had big round engines or turn and burn?

I seem to recall cost was a big factor - over US$20 million each with round engines and very significant maintenance costs?

[Capt Wally]

...............it's the same old story here with anything in life where damned if you do or damned if you don't..............how much "insurance" do we take to cover those events that are going to happen anyway regardless of our effects on an add hoc basis ?...........we could have zillions worth of equip sitting around 80% of the year awaiting their expertese "just in case" & then there's little guarentee that it will be effective enough at the end of the day, all we can really do is be prepared, as individuals & take/accept that risk to want to live in high fire risk places. The current resources we have at our disposal are most likely adequate for smallish bush fires but the level of fire activity that we are seeing now in the high plains of Vic would be ny impossible to act upon effectively without mother natures help via a down pour, 747 fire bombers and all, still I take my hat off to those that try with obviously not enough resources to reduce the loss of human life, stock & property.

...............life is all about risk, we as pilots know this & it's calculated to some degree but to the boys & girls out there risking it all................... be extra careful & God's speed to you all.

Capt Wally:-)

[Oceanz]

Thanks Cloud Basher,

You put that better than I could.

I was involved (on the ground) in the Canberra fires, and on that day the most reassuring sound was the Seahawk entering the battle. Which leads me to ask:

Why aren't the military RW used more often in major fire situations?

[Cloud Basher]

Good point turnarounds. I should have said brought it kicking and screaming into the 20th century :ugh: . If you were involved with fire fighting pre NSCA(Vic) then you would know that it was ineffective, strengths and weaknesses not well understood, tactics and startegies on how to best use it ad hoc and as such it was not used to its fullest capability.

I guess you could also say that a farmer in is DH82a with a bucket of water in 1937 was also doing aerial firefighting...:D

Cheers
CB

[ABX]

For those who need the clarification:

CL215 = piston engine.
CL415 = turbine.

CL215 was evaluated here as posted above and was found to be inappropriate for our conditions. However it did put on a great display at Airshows Downunder at Avalon. :}

Most of those I have met in the CFA/RFS are not keen on the high gross weight bombers (747, CL415, even Skycrane) but prefer medium to light weights due to their better agility, accuracy & faster turn around times. And yes, many agree that the Skycrane may not be here now except that the :mad: meeja expect them to show up so that they can get some new footage.

As told to me regarding the Skycrane, "Cheaper for us to bomb the fires with champagne than use that thing."

Costs millions of dollars per year to get use the Skycrane(s) yet they cannot deliver millions of liters, therefore the total cost of the exercise is in the magnitude of dollars per liter of water actually dropped.

Lets not be too critical of the 'little' bombers just because they have smaller MTOW than the 747 et al, they can turn around and deliver a load in as little as 5-10 minutes in many cases and then get close enough to the fire to drop it accurately and actually do some good.

I agree (in some realities) perception is everything.

Cheers,

ABX

[tlf]

Anyone have any thoughts on how the Beriev Be-200 would work for the Australian firefighting scene. Might be cheaper to aquire than other options.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1112325/L/

[ABX]

Speaking to a couple of mates in the RFS over the Christmas break - one a Brigade Captain & the other an Air Attack Supervisor - both think that the 747 and other large a/c cannot get close enough to our fires, due to terrain issues, to get the kind of accuracy needed for effective fire fighting. Smaller a/c get much closer in the tight/difficult terrain.

Hope all had good Christmas and have a safe & prosperous year.

ABX

[the wizard of auz]

If memory serves me, she's still sitting on the tarmac at YPPH!!! Slowly decaying, deteriorating. Such a waste. I seem to recall her having a MAD boom on her now too... she must have been re-tasked at some point!

Actually, Last time I saw her, she was parked at Cunderdin, still in the fire bomber clothes. No MAD boom visable. That was a couple of months ago, but she hadn't moved for nearly twelve months. Sad to see an old girl like that slowly rotting away. :sad:

[SNS3Guppy]

I lived in oz for a couple of years, but never fought fire there. I do fight fire in the States, and have for a number of years in light single engine tankers and large heavy tankers, as well as having flown air attack (supervision, communications, etc), fire patrol, and worked on the ground as a firefighter.

Cloud Basher's previous comments were a very accurate assessment of what's needed from an aerial firefighting perspective. Firefighting is a ground battle; it's fought and controlled by firefighters on the ground. Air assets are tools to be used by those on the ground to accomplish their goals...it's always ground program.

Close to a dozen Dromaders can be had for the cost of a single CL215, or half that many AT-802's. Spreading aircraft throughout a region, in order that any one has a very rapid response time to a fire when it fist starts, coupled with a good communication network between fire observers, means that fires get caught in the early stages where air assets can do some good. An aircraft may or may not put out the flame...but it may buy time, and generally is used to modify the fire behavior...it might be directing it into a natural barrier like sand, a cliff, or water...or to the top of a ridge where it may stop.

The B747 is a tool, but it's just that...a tool. It doesn't have a lot of application to initial attack; it's there to put a lot of water over a long distance. When fires get to the size of what's appropriate for a load that big, often the water will be ineffective, anyway. Drift, evaporation, and the fact that a drop out of that airplane takes place as very high altitudes compared to other types of tankers means that the water isn't very effective...and water is the least effective thing you can drop. Foam and retardant is better...but we're not there to put the fire out...just slow it down or modify it. Accordngly, most drops aren't on the fire itself, and water is only good for direct application on the fire.

If it's a going fire, a hot one, temps at the tree tops can be over two thousand degrees, and water is useless at that point, as is any other retardant or suppressant. At that point you're looking at building line ahead of the fire to slow it down, and cutting fire line, starting back burns, etc. Again, activities done by those on the ground.

In the US, we use heavy tankers, light tankers, and helicopters for wildland and urban interface...we don't differentiate between one fire and another. If air assets are called, we drop whatever the people on the ground want us to drop, where they want it dropped.

Someone mentioned Phoscheck as a difficultl medium; it's not We deliver millions of gallons of it, and other retardants every year, without difficulty. We mix it, we load it, we drop it we clean it up. I've been on the ground to receive it, hike in it, work in it, and wear it. I've been covered in it, poured it, slipped in it...it's not a big deal. It's environment friendly, and newer products such as gels are coming out which offer some very exciting possibilities.

You need a heavy tanker program in place. You need a lot more single engine air tankers out there. SEATS, as we call them here, shine in the initial attack role, where they arrive as quickly as possible to drop on the fire as soon as it's reported. The advantage of SEATs is that they can operate out of much smaller airports than large air tankers (certainly much smaller than fields required for the B747), and you can field a whole lot more of them.

Fighting fire costs money. The public cries when it's just trees being defended. Who cares if some gum trees and rock wallabies get burned up...but who'll bring the roof down when someone burns a home? The fact is that every fire needs to be taken seriously, no matter where it is, and whatever you spend on fighting it is far cheaper than not doing so. You need more aircraft, rather than a few bigger aircraft.

Yes, modular units are available to put in the C-130's...these go in as a palletized arrangement, and can be installed and removed without a lot of fuss . The difficulty is training crews...it takes about ten years to make a good fire pilot, and you have to start somewhere. As a nation, you can't afford to keep taking these losses. You can run nearly a fleet of SEATS for what it costs to run a single Skycrane each day, though the Skycrane is a very effective platform, as well.

I miss Oz...I'd come back down there and fight fire, or fly, or live, in a heartbeat. I really miss Australia. :{

[Torres]

"...both think that the 747 and other large a/c cannot get close enough to our fires, due to terrain issues..."

I know nothing about fire fighting but I suspect that statement may be an indication of lack of full understanding of the aircraft's role and capability as the terrain in Canada and parts of the USA is far more hostile than Australia.

I also suspect that in fighting a major fire there is a strategic role for all aircraft types, from the helicopter and 802, right through to the heavies. My guess we need the Canadians to teach us how?

[tinpis]

There would only be enough water left in NSW or VIC for a couple of loads.:hmm:

[Forestdump]

Torres; Very well said. In Western Canada there is a wide variety of aircraft fighting fire. The 802 and also the float equipped 802 to the Tracker, CL-215,the CV-580 and the L-188. There is absolutely no difference between any of these types about how close to the fire the load can be delivered. Also if the operations of these aircraft were as inaccurate as some people imply, then what is the point? A piston 215 can be had for far less than 20M. You could probably buy 4 or 5 for that. Also I may be mistaken but the 747 program may be on hold. Check out the tanked DC-10. It uses the same tanks that your beloved skycrane carries.

[Big Nasty]

How much does the crane REALLY carry when on fire ops ?
38 c and a couple of hours gas for all the hype and the cost it would want to be lots???

[SNS3Guppy]

The Crane carries two thousand gallons, depending on density altitude, but it's advantags include it's ability to reload close to the fire, rapidly and carry a lot, meaning it can potentially put more on the fire in a shorter time than just about any other resource out there.

I've flown alongside CL215's along the Canadian/US border when they're scooping every few minutes, and dropping on the fire on the downwind, and they're fairly impressive to watch work.

I won't badmouth the skycrane, because they really can put out the work. Thy're very effective tools if used properly. They're expensive, but dollar for dollar for the gallons delivered (remembering tha the total gallons delivered isn't nearly as important as when and where they're delivered), the crane is still a good investment.

Again, the cost of not fighting the fire is much higher than whatever you throw at it to put the fire out.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This was in the JAN08 AVWEB

Bombardier Water Bomber Wins Kudos

Bombardier was recently awarded by Spain for the "greatest technological advancement in firefighting," citing the accomplishments of the 1960's era Canadair CL-215, -215T and, since 1994 its current incarnation, the Bombardier 415. Continuous improvements were credited for making the series "the most efficient tool for the aerial combat of forest fires," a status held "over more than 30 years." Two juries composed of "the most reputed and recognized technicians in firefighting in Spain" offered the award. In accepting, Bombardier noted that 64 of its latest model (the 415) have been delivered to and put to work in Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Ontario, Quebec and Spain. Meanwhile, Bombardier France's Securite Civile late last month placed a firm order for another Bombardier 415 amphibious aircraft, which will bring the French fleet to 12 of the Canadian-built water bombers.

Makes you wonder why our Aussie "Experts" seem to know better than anyone else on the planet.

[ABX]

Because we have very few bodies of water compatible with that a/c.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ABX Because we have very few bodies of water compatible with that a/c. Really?

OK ,Lets look at Victoria. Any fire in the Great Divide, Alpine National Park was within no more than 40nm from large bodies of water. Lakes Eildon , Glenmaggie, Dartmouth and Thompson. There are numerous smaller bodies of water that are suitable. Buffalo, William Hovell, Nillacootie, Rocky Valley and on and on.

When the fires started in the Heyfield complex, they were no further than 10nm from Lake Eildon. The fires threatening Bruthen are only 10nm from Lake King. The "Experts" have been saying that for decades. The "Experts" also say our terrain is too steep and inaccessable. Codswallop! A team of two CLs working on the fire at Bruthen would have a bomber on the fire front every five minutes. That is about 100TONNES of water an hour!

EDIT-just to add, you still have to pick where you fight a fire. Proper use of assets is where the team is being let down. There is a lot to be answered for by the DSE.

[pistol_pete]

How about a DC-10 as well? Apparently holds 12,000 gallons of water in 3 tanks. Pretty neat!
http://www.cadottephotography.net/images/Dropweb.jpg
http://www.cadottephotography.net/images/DropAweb.jpg
http://www.cadottephotography.net/images/Tankerfrontrightweb.jpg

[ABX]

Gudday OZ,

Yes, I agree that there are bodies of water close enough, however in my post I used the word compatible.

On a map those lakes and dams show up as nice large patches of blue, however in reality they are almost never full and also they are studded with standing dead timber. Even more so as the water level drops, I have been to Eildon, Nillacootie, Mokoan and Hume inside the last month, some of them are closed even to boating, due to snags, you'd have extreme difficulty conducting CL415 ops on any of them.

This is an old photo of lake Hume, it is much, much drier now:
http://www.murrayquest.com/photos/WEBMurrayQuest0002_4_1.JPG

Now, I am not saying it is never possible to effectively use something like a CL415 on our inland dams, but it is not as easy as one might imagine.

I think the above reasons, among others, are why we use small fixed wing and large rotary wing a/c, certainly choppers can access all the water storages you mentioned, even this year.

Cheers,

ABX

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ABX, only way for me is to go for a fly and have a look. Will let you know:ok:

[ABX]

If you have a camera, take some pix to post here, I'd love to see some of that country and the lake levels and bushfire damage.

Cheers,:ok:

ABX

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just to add to the debate-
SA Parliament commitee on evaluation of CL-415 water bombers (www.parliament.sa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/4111385B-B763-4B81-9F6D-B19168C9E80E/2058/canadairreport.pdf)

Willco on the pictures. Might have to wait a while for the fires to burn out.

[scrambler]

CL 215 / 215T - 2673 Litres or CL415 - 6130 Litres.
would need to be purchased by state or federal funds

Sky-crane - >7000 Litres. On contract. (The government doesn't outlay for the asset)

The fact is that in the current move for most Government spending is to purchase the service from outside rather than to outlay for a large operation.

[ABX]

Willco on the pictures.

You might need to upgrade to an infra red camera with all the smoke haze we have here at the moment.

If you think you might call here at ABX for fuel etc., PM me beforehand and I'll shout you a cuppa in the airport lounge.:ok:

Cheers,

ABX

[ABX]

Quite a long document they produced, interesting reading though.:ok:
_______

Drove out to the Hume Dam today for a look see, only 3% left in it, can see most of the original river bed and a bunch of old car bodies dumped and left to rust ... a very sorry sight.:{

They think it will be completely empty soon, although they will maintain some river flows in the Murray by sending water down from Dartmouth (27%).

No water skiing for us this year!:(

Cheers,

ABX