Use of RAAF C130 for Aerial Firefighting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of RAAF C130 for Aerial Firefighting
I noticed several earlier threads on the use of large fixed wing aircraft such as used in the USA and Canada for aerial firefighting. Apparently they use a modular system to allow a quick change from their normal configuration to an aerial firefighting role.
I still believe that contract helicopters and other smaller fixed wing assets should be used for aerial firefighting and that use of any such Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) would be as a reinforcement measure only when suitable contract aerial firefighting assets are not readily available within Australia and/or the fire is developing too quickly. If operated by the RAAF it could also be made available to assist foreign governments when requested.
The system is a Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS). It is an ideal aerial fire fighting system as it permits the aircraft to be normally utilized, but readily convert to an effective fire fighting weapon when called. For maximum versatility, the MAFFS conversion system allows the C-130 and other rear-loading heavy transport craft to be readily converted to an effective fire-fighting weapon on call. MAFFS-equipped tankers can be loaded and ready for flight in less than 30 minutes.
MAFFS is a self-contained, reusable 3000 gallon (more volume than the Skycrane) aerial fluid dispersal system which enables the aircraft to destroy grass, brush, and forest fires, and has been used extensively in the United States, Europe, and Africa. Pneumatically powered, the system consists of tank modules, a control module, and a dissemination module. Electrical power is provided by the aircraft or by a 24 volt battery located on the control module.
MAFFS is derived from a joint U.S. Air Force/Forest Service project to develop a system which can be installed in a Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft (the RAAF C130's are based at Richmond Airforce base just outside Sydney, NSW). MAFFS permits variable quantity drops, with volume and flow rate preselected at the control module, depending on the method of attack selected. At maximum flow rate, MAFFS has the ability to discharge its entire load in less than 5 seconds. Because of its unique modular design, MAFFS readily adapts to a wide variety of rear-loading heavy transport aircraft.
Unlike a gravity system in which the aircraft center of gravity moves aft as the retardant flows to the rear of the aircraft to exit, MAFFS discharges the retardant alternately from a series of tanks to ensure that the center of gravity remains within limits. U.S. Air Force pilots, experienced with MAFFS in the C-130, state that there is no hint of control loss during a retardant drop, and the natural tendency to climb as a result of the rapid reduction of aircraft weight is offset by the combined effects of forward center of gravity movement and pitch down thrust from the MAFFS discharge. These elements combine to provide a steady flight and constant control movement throughout the MAFFS retardant discharge.
There are other fire fighting systems available in the world today which might be modified for installation in the C-130 aircraft, but no other modular system is specifically designed for the aircraft and its particular flight characteristics. Other designs have been tested in the C-130, but all have been proven to be less effective than MAFFS, and some have even demonstrated potentially dangerous flight handling characteristics. No other modular system for fighting wildfires from the C-130 aircraft can even approach the years of proven safety, reliability and effectiveness of the MAFFS.
To set this up would require the establishment of a ground support equipment for the MAFFS unit i.e. dedicated water/retardent access at RAAF Richmond and and any other states that desire to utilise this capability that is suitable for filling the MAFF system as is done in the USA. Whilst turn around times are vital in aerial firefighting having 6 or 7 C130's fitted with such a system would be a great backup and asset for aerial firefighting.
Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
I still believe that contract helicopters and other smaller fixed wing assets should be used for aerial firefighting and that use of any such Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) would be as a reinforcement measure only when suitable contract aerial firefighting assets are not readily available within Australia and/or the fire is developing too quickly. If operated by the RAAF it could also be made available to assist foreign governments when requested.
The system is a Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS). It is an ideal aerial fire fighting system as it permits the aircraft to be normally utilized, but readily convert to an effective fire fighting weapon when called. For maximum versatility, the MAFFS conversion system allows the C-130 and other rear-loading heavy transport craft to be readily converted to an effective fire-fighting weapon on call. MAFFS-equipped tankers can be loaded and ready for flight in less than 30 minutes.
MAFFS is a self-contained, reusable 3000 gallon (more volume than the Skycrane) aerial fluid dispersal system which enables the aircraft to destroy grass, brush, and forest fires, and has been used extensively in the United States, Europe, and Africa. Pneumatically powered, the system consists of tank modules, a control module, and a dissemination module. Electrical power is provided by the aircraft or by a 24 volt battery located on the control module.
MAFFS is derived from a joint U.S. Air Force/Forest Service project to develop a system which can be installed in a Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft (the RAAF C130's are based at Richmond Airforce base just outside Sydney, NSW). MAFFS permits variable quantity drops, with volume and flow rate preselected at the control module, depending on the method of attack selected. At maximum flow rate, MAFFS has the ability to discharge its entire load in less than 5 seconds. Because of its unique modular design, MAFFS readily adapts to a wide variety of rear-loading heavy transport aircraft.
Unlike a gravity system in which the aircraft center of gravity moves aft as the retardant flows to the rear of the aircraft to exit, MAFFS discharges the retardant alternately from a series of tanks to ensure that the center of gravity remains within limits. U.S. Air Force pilots, experienced with MAFFS in the C-130, state that there is no hint of control loss during a retardant drop, and the natural tendency to climb as a result of the rapid reduction of aircraft weight is offset by the combined effects of forward center of gravity movement and pitch down thrust from the MAFFS discharge. These elements combine to provide a steady flight and constant control movement throughout the MAFFS retardant discharge.
There are other fire fighting systems available in the world today which might be modified for installation in the C-130 aircraft, but no other modular system is specifically designed for the aircraft and its particular flight characteristics. Other designs have been tested in the C-130, but all have been proven to be less effective than MAFFS, and some have even demonstrated potentially dangerous flight handling characteristics. No other modular system for fighting wildfires from the C-130 aircraft can even approach the years of proven safety, reliability and effectiveness of the MAFFS.
To set this up would require the establishment of a ground support equipment for the MAFFS unit i.e. dedicated water/retardent access at RAAF Richmond and and any other states that desire to utilise this capability that is suitable for filling the MAFF system as is done in the USA. Whilst turn around times are vital in aerial firefighting having 6 or 7 C130's fitted with such a system would be a great backup and asset for aerial firefighting.
Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C130 system is a very good one. It can take 20 tonnes of water. Set up time several hours. Needs about 500lb of permanent fittings in the aircraft - unnoticeable except for weight in normal military operations.
It was proposed widely in Australia several years back. I contributed to that proposal. Phil Koperberg did not like it. At the time he was only reluctantly using aerial methods.
The C130 is not, on its own, a complete answer to the types of fire we have on the east coast of Australia. It still needs helicopters for close support. But the C130 outperforms the Canadair 215 and 415 in this geographical area.
I have not modelled the Skycrane against the C130, but I suspect that the Skycrane will outperform the C130 in the area around Sydney. Given strategically placed dams or ponds where it can pick up water, the Skycrane will outclass the C130 in one key area - turnaround. This more than compensates for its reduced capacity.
ET
It was proposed widely in Australia several years back. I contributed to that proposal. Phil Koperberg did not like it. At the time he was only reluctantly using aerial methods.
The C130 is not, on its own, a complete answer to the types of fire we have on the east coast of Australia. It still needs helicopters for close support. But the C130 outperforms the Canadair 215 and 415 in this geographical area.
I have not modelled the Skycrane against the C130, but I suspect that the Skycrane will outperform the C130 in the area around Sydney. Given strategically placed dams or ponds where it can pick up water, the Skycrane will outclass the C130 in one key area - turnaround. This more than compensates for its reduced capacity.
ET
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must have been around sixteen years ago now that they actually did trials with the Hercules. I saw a demonstration at Mangalore but for some reason (cost?) the idea never went ahead. There was also a proposal to convert the ex-RAN Trackers to water bombers as well. As far as I know, they are languishing down at West Sale areodrome. Over in the USA eighteen ex-Navy Trackers were converted to aerial tankers. I also see John Anderson has canned the idea of the purchase of Skycrane helitankers. Silly decision but that's the mentality you would expect.
The point has already been well made that a coarse 'dump-the-harbour-on-it' approach will not suffice for aerial bush fire fighting by itself but can have a valuable part to play in permitting smaller a/c to be more effective.
ADF forces already assist the community in other times of civil emergency - why not the RAAF flying against bush fires?
As a taxpayer I agree with the authorities' concern as to the cost of a 'permanent' aerial bush fire solution. But would it not be an effective and efficient use of public funds to spend whatever is available on a 'system' (eg such as MAFFS) rather than on specialised a/c, and utilise the service aircrew who are experienced in flying within hazardous environments and--as many have said before--are 'already there' anyway?
Of course, C-130's might well be otherwise tasked on the day a bushfire starts, but surely not all of 'em! An acceptable risk, perhaps?
ADF forces already assist the community in other times of civil emergency - why not the RAAF flying against bush fires?
As a taxpayer I agree with the authorities' concern as to the cost of a 'permanent' aerial bush fire solution. But would it not be an effective and efficient use of public funds to spend whatever is available on a 'system' (eg such as MAFFS) rather than on specialised a/c, and utilise the service aircrew who are experienced in flying within hazardous environments and--as many have said before--are 'already there' anyway?
Of course, C-130's might well be otherwise tasked on the day a bushfire starts, but surely not all of 'em! An acceptable risk, perhaps?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECHOTANGO - The system you are thinking of that requires about 500kg of permenant fittings left in the C130 is a RADS system. MAFFS has no weight penalty associated with its fitting as it is a fully modular unit.
An interesting option by any means!
Cheers
An interesting option by any means!
Cheers
RAAF did have some sort of fit for C130s to operate as fire bombers and I can recall them actually used some years ago during fires in NSW. I have been told (but unverified) that the equipment was sold off a few years ago, and haven't been able to work out why.
There is also a quick fit kit for Blackhawks that is available to convert them to fire bombers.
The skycrane has a high profile at the moment, but you can buy a lot of kits for C130 and Blackhawks and have change for the same price as a Skycrane.
It remains to be seen whether wisdom prevails or political glory rules.
There is also a quick fit kit for Blackhawks that is available to convert them to fire bombers.
The skycrane has a high profile at the moment, but you can buy a lot of kits for C130 and Blackhawks and have change for the same price as a Skycrane.
It remains to be seen whether wisdom prevails or political glory rules.
I have reposted some of the info below from my posts on the other threads dealing with a similar topic – so forgive the repetition for those whom have already read some of it.
Firstly, you may be interested in the Canadair trial in NSW which may put the C-130 into perspective: but I think the turn around on the Canadair would be far faster due to the scoop system, but it carries less (please correct this assumption if it is crap!)
In the NSW trial, the aircraft was pitted against a single 1500 litre bucket equipped Bell 212 (from Hevi Lift I think). I cannot confirm the exact details, so take this in the "allegedly" vein. If someone knows the exact details, please post them/contradict my info. There were two scenarios chosen, firstly a Blue Mountains fire "set" at Meadlow Bath airfield to simulate distant water sources (Warragamba) and to allow the drops to be viewed from the airfield. The Bell 212 allegedly ate the Canadair alive in terms of litres dropped and accuracy. Second scenario was at the Hawkesbury with the "fire" on a ridge line next to the water source (Hawkesbury River) to allow the Canadair the best position. Allegedly the Bell 212 again dropped about the same amount of water, but more accurately. Result: NSW (for the second time) rejected the marketing advances of Canadair and the politicians swayed by it. I believe South Aus and Victoria similarly rejected the aircraft for the second time.
So to address the speculation above about the C-130, I would reiterate that the litres/hour capability of the aircraft is unlikely to be higher than a medium helicopter could deliver unless the water source is next to the fire.
Reportfurther posted on a thread that two of the smaller Canadair jobbies (I don’t know their model numbers) could have dropped 188,000 litres on the Woodford fire in that day. Looking at my fastest turn in a Bell 212 of one minute 40 secs (belly hooked bucket) from water source to drop over the fire to water source, the B212 would eat both of them. Extending the turn to two minutes, ONE B212 is capable of 1500 litres/turn, i.e. 45,000 litres/hour or only 4.2 hours (lets add 8 mins every 1.3 hours for a hot refuel, to make it say 4.7 hours) until it had dropped more than the two Canadairs could have in the day! By the way, the Aircrane over the same distance as the 212 could bring it's turn time down to say 4 minutes, thus delivering 135,000 litres per hour or only 1.4 hours until it had whooped the daily effort of the two (smaller) Canadairs!! Does this put it in perspective?
EchoTango, those figures may help you to model the helicopters against the C-130, as I have no idea of the turnaround fill times of the Herc. As an aside, “Elvis” is actually an Aircrane, not a Skycrane. Sikorsky would not sell the name Skycrane to Erickson when they bought manufacturing rights to the aircraft. Skycranes are the unmodded old US Army Sikorsky aircraft and the Aircranes are the refurbished ones you see on the fires.
Does anyone know the cost for the MAFFS?
Cockpitjunkie: There is no “quick fit” for the Black Hawk to turn it into a fire bomber, unless you are talking about throwing a bucket on it, and doing the electrical modifications to enable bucket release. Such a project would require entering the Defence Force modification program and might see the light of day in a few years – but conceivably, it could be done overnight if absolutely required (ie life and limb NOT property). If you are referring to the Fire Hawk (a modified fire bombing kit for the Black Hawk used in the USA) it is an extensive modification to the airframe, not at all supportable by the military. Given there are 36 Black Hawks (I think) which ones do you mod? Are you then worried about which ones you deploy with in case they are needed for fires? Big problems for little gain. Besides, they would be lucky to lift more than 3000lt.
One suggestion I think is relatively workable, however, is the Chinook. The cost of a CH-47 bambi bucket of 9870 litres capacity (a bit more than the Aircrane) with variable outlet valve is approx US$33,000 including transportation. The Oz Army has 6 CH-47s, lets say 4 on line max. 4 buckets = about A$250,000. No more to pay next year. Or the year after that. Or...... How does this compare to the cost of the Herc mod?
BUT, and I believe it is the crucial issue to what is being discussed, the Erickson Aircrane can lay claim to being the most effective & EFFICIENT fire fighting aircraft in the world. This is for two distinct reasons, the incredible belly tank it carries and the pilots whom fly it. For many technical reasons(and beyond the scope of this discussion) , the belly tank is a fantastic water delivery system. The pilots are amongst the most experienced fire pilots in the world. Most do nothing else year-round. This, IMHO, has a dramatic increase in the effectiveness of the water delivery and subsequent fire suppression. Most pilots whom have flown on the fires would readily agree on this point. But what fire experience do we have amongst CH-47 and C-130 pilots? When we trained them up, how long would the posting cycle keep them in the squadron, given that they may only be required every third to fifth year or so?
So, on one hand we have the worlds most effective and efficient fire fighting aircraft, and on the other, a limited experience CH-47 or C-130 fleet. How much do we think the Aircrane’s incredible capabilities are worth? About $250,000 once off for the CH-47s, and $(I don’t know) for the MAFFS Vs the cost of the Aircrane each year. Are they worth it?
There is, however, one factor not yet discussed, and it is the reason that Victoria hire the Aircrane annually – availability. They can guarantee that the aircraft is available at 15mins notice from call to airborne, all summer. If they are dumping 135,000 litres per hour, how many litres do you reckon it could put on a fire before a CH-47 could get down from Townsville Or before a C-130 could be airborne from Sydney after recalling it’s crew off holidays? But, if you are talking the time it took to import two more Aircranes (reportfurther posted that it cost about $1Million just to get them here) maybe the CH-47 would be the go?
Thoughts?
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Firstly, you may be interested in the Canadair trial in NSW which may put the C-130 into perspective: but I think the turn around on the Canadair would be far faster due to the scoop system, but it carries less (please correct this assumption if it is crap!)
In the NSW trial, the aircraft was pitted against a single 1500 litre bucket equipped Bell 212 (from Hevi Lift I think). I cannot confirm the exact details, so take this in the "allegedly" vein. If someone knows the exact details, please post them/contradict my info. There were two scenarios chosen, firstly a Blue Mountains fire "set" at Meadlow Bath airfield to simulate distant water sources (Warragamba) and to allow the drops to be viewed from the airfield. The Bell 212 allegedly ate the Canadair alive in terms of litres dropped and accuracy. Second scenario was at the Hawkesbury with the "fire" on a ridge line next to the water source (Hawkesbury River) to allow the Canadair the best position. Allegedly the Bell 212 again dropped about the same amount of water, but more accurately. Result: NSW (for the second time) rejected the marketing advances of Canadair and the politicians swayed by it. I believe South Aus and Victoria similarly rejected the aircraft for the second time.
So to address the speculation above about the C-130, I would reiterate that the litres/hour capability of the aircraft is unlikely to be higher than a medium helicopter could deliver unless the water source is next to the fire.
Reportfurther posted on a thread that two of the smaller Canadair jobbies (I don’t know their model numbers) could have dropped 188,000 litres on the Woodford fire in that day. Looking at my fastest turn in a Bell 212 of one minute 40 secs (belly hooked bucket) from water source to drop over the fire to water source, the B212 would eat both of them. Extending the turn to two minutes, ONE B212 is capable of 1500 litres/turn, i.e. 45,000 litres/hour or only 4.2 hours (lets add 8 mins every 1.3 hours for a hot refuel, to make it say 4.7 hours) until it had dropped more than the two Canadairs could have in the day! By the way, the Aircrane over the same distance as the 212 could bring it's turn time down to say 4 minutes, thus delivering 135,000 litres per hour or only 1.4 hours until it had whooped the daily effort of the two (smaller) Canadairs!! Does this put it in perspective?
EchoTango, those figures may help you to model the helicopters against the C-130, as I have no idea of the turnaround fill times of the Herc. As an aside, “Elvis” is actually an Aircrane, not a Skycrane. Sikorsky would not sell the name Skycrane to Erickson when they bought manufacturing rights to the aircraft. Skycranes are the unmodded old US Army Sikorsky aircraft and the Aircranes are the refurbished ones you see on the fires.
Does anyone know the cost for the MAFFS?
Cockpitjunkie: There is no “quick fit” for the Black Hawk to turn it into a fire bomber, unless you are talking about throwing a bucket on it, and doing the electrical modifications to enable bucket release. Such a project would require entering the Defence Force modification program and might see the light of day in a few years – but conceivably, it could be done overnight if absolutely required (ie life and limb NOT property). If you are referring to the Fire Hawk (a modified fire bombing kit for the Black Hawk used in the USA) it is an extensive modification to the airframe, not at all supportable by the military. Given there are 36 Black Hawks (I think) which ones do you mod? Are you then worried about which ones you deploy with in case they are needed for fires? Big problems for little gain. Besides, they would be lucky to lift more than 3000lt.
One suggestion I think is relatively workable, however, is the Chinook. The cost of a CH-47 bambi bucket of 9870 litres capacity (a bit more than the Aircrane) with variable outlet valve is approx US$33,000 including transportation. The Oz Army has 6 CH-47s, lets say 4 on line max. 4 buckets = about A$250,000. No more to pay next year. Or the year after that. Or...... How does this compare to the cost of the Herc mod?
BUT, and I believe it is the crucial issue to what is being discussed, the Erickson Aircrane can lay claim to being the most effective & EFFICIENT fire fighting aircraft in the world. This is for two distinct reasons, the incredible belly tank it carries and the pilots whom fly it. For many technical reasons(and beyond the scope of this discussion) , the belly tank is a fantastic water delivery system. The pilots are amongst the most experienced fire pilots in the world. Most do nothing else year-round. This, IMHO, has a dramatic increase in the effectiveness of the water delivery and subsequent fire suppression. Most pilots whom have flown on the fires would readily agree on this point. But what fire experience do we have amongst CH-47 and C-130 pilots? When we trained them up, how long would the posting cycle keep them in the squadron, given that they may only be required every third to fifth year or so?
So, on one hand we have the worlds most effective and efficient fire fighting aircraft, and on the other, a limited experience CH-47 or C-130 fleet. How much do we think the Aircrane’s incredible capabilities are worth? About $250,000 once off for the CH-47s, and $(I don’t know) for the MAFFS Vs the cost of the Aircrane each year. Are they worth it?
There is, however, one factor not yet discussed, and it is the reason that Victoria hire the Aircrane annually – availability. They can guarantee that the aircraft is available at 15mins notice from call to airborne, all summer. If they are dumping 135,000 litres per hour, how many litres do you reckon it could put on a fire before a CH-47 could get down from Townsville Or before a C-130 could be airborne from Sydney after recalling it’s crew off holidays? But, if you are talking the time it took to import two more Aircranes (reportfurther posted that it cost about $1Million just to get them here) maybe the CH-47 would be the go?
Thoughts?
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmetfire, agree with much you say....everyone knows the pollies will only go for a cost effective solution. I doubt even though it would be nice to have if the dollars could be found specialised firefighting aircraft.
Thus I reckon that at the end of the day we will remain with contracted local rotary/fixed wing.
The C130 may prove to be a cheap emergency backup capability given that the airframes have paid for themselves countless of times over. Indeed the same can be said for the Chinook idea you mentioned - good thinking!
Lets see what comes out in the reviews that will doubtless occur soon!
Thus I reckon that at the end of the day we will remain with contracted local rotary/fixed wing.
The C130 may prove to be a cheap emergency backup capability given that the airframes have paid for themselves countless of times over. Indeed the same can be said for the Chinook idea you mentioned - good thinking!
Lets see what comes out in the reviews that will doubtless occur soon!
So, did anyone come up with the cost of the MAFFS?
Or Capacity of the C130 & turnaround time for comparison sake?
Or should we stop complaining until the next fire goes off? <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Or Capacity of the C130 & turnaround time for comparison sake?
Or should we stop complaining until the next fire goes off? <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain R,. .I was responsible for the trial of the MAFFS on C130s in 1982. We were trained by the Californian Air National Guard at Boise in Idaho. The system was then trialled in Victoria and I demonstrated it at Mangalore. Unfortunately there were few fires and it was brought out the next year in anticipation of a big fire season. We then proceeded to use the system during Ash Wednesday and other fires in the Dandenongs and Cann River.
Spectacular flying but sadley it had several draw backs. Unlike the US where they stacked 6 to 12 aircraft and continually bomb the fire, the C130 was restricted in Victoria due to aerodrome pavement and runway length, particularly on hot northerly days. Hamilton, Mangalore and East Sale where set up with portable swimming pools to mix the retardent. Hamilton was particularly interesting on a hot day. Refil of retardent and compressed air took about 25 minutes due to small pumps(9 in the US). Travel and turn around time meant it was about an hour between sorties.
The system held about 3000 US gallons and the system weighed about 9000 lbs empty (from memory). To protect the aircrafts 3G limitation for turbulence a minumum of about 18000 lbs had to be maintained in the wings. External tanks where removed.
The system could fire one, two or three shots with a maximum spread of about 400 metres. Three shots enabled you to triangulate small spot fires. A one shot pass down a slope would add about 10 knots to the aircraft meaning that flap overspeeds occasionally occurred.
So to use them effectively with sufficient concentration of effort you would need 4 to 6 C130's at about $1 million a pop in leasing fees.. .The RAAF at the time where not keen on tying up one C130 on continuous standby which was another problem as we were permanently on three hour standby and on severe days one hour standby.
In my opinion, Elvis is the way to go with its flexibility and quick turn arounds. One Canadair would also have operating restrictions in a lot of bush fire areas without suitable lakes and rivers.. .Cheers <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Spectacular flying but sadley it had several draw backs. Unlike the US where they stacked 6 to 12 aircraft and continually bomb the fire, the C130 was restricted in Victoria due to aerodrome pavement and runway length, particularly on hot northerly days. Hamilton, Mangalore and East Sale where set up with portable swimming pools to mix the retardent. Hamilton was particularly interesting on a hot day. Refil of retardent and compressed air took about 25 minutes due to small pumps(9 in the US). Travel and turn around time meant it was about an hour between sorties.
The system held about 3000 US gallons and the system weighed about 9000 lbs empty (from memory). To protect the aircrafts 3G limitation for turbulence a minumum of about 18000 lbs had to be maintained in the wings. External tanks where removed.
The system could fire one, two or three shots with a maximum spread of about 400 metres. Three shots enabled you to triangulate small spot fires. A one shot pass down a slope would add about 10 knots to the aircraft meaning that flap overspeeds occasionally occurred.
So to use them effectively with sufficient concentration of effort you would need 4 to 6 C130's at about $1 million a pop in leasing fees.. .The RAAF at the time where not keen on tying up one C130 on continuous standby which was another problem as we were permanently on three hour standby and on severe days one hour standby.
In my opinion, Elvis is the way to go with its flexibility and quick turn arounds. One Canadair would also have operating restrictions in a lot of bush fire areas without suitable lakes and rivers.. .Cheers <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
There is no time like when the fires are burning to seek funding - in fact by the time it comes to officially seeking a commitment for funding, once all the fires are nothing but a memory, it is generally scrubbed as the problem is out of everyones mind!
Due to the expense of committing and configuring aircraft specifically for fire-fighting, the most popular means is to maintain a small dedicated capability, complimented by contracted additional equipment as required. This results in the majority of "call when needed" contracting being performed by helicopters, as they can be simply and easily configured, by adding a bucket.
Equipment designed or reserved specifically and solely for firefighting is costly and is not versatile. The only option with this equipment is to either move it around the world to meet various fire seasons, or accept that it will spend a lot of time and expense on standby and parked.
This has resulted in the growth of not only simple airborne firefighting systems, but also some complex and highly efficient convertible installations.
Government investment and support will be based upon the maximum capability for the minimum investment. By utilising and contracting the commercial equipment available locally, a fair capability can be predicted with an investment of essentially nothing. By letting the commercial marketplace bear the financial burden of preparing and equipping a fleet of capable aircraft, the expense for fire fighting can be maintained at minimal levels and paid for as it is used (or not, as the case may be!).
The recent fire season in Australia (and recent North American fire seasons) have highlighted the problem with this approach, the lack of an additional capability should the primary response become exhausted. With the cost of mobilising equipment around the world (and the commercial potential for a zero fire season), it becomes a apparent that the ability to augment the capability with existing military, or other local resources with an effective convertible capability is extremely attractive.
As discussed above, the capability for C-130's is available and proven. However, the Blackhawk modification, the Firehawk programme is a very well designed and (cost)effective capability to add to your existing Blackhawk fleet and capability - and believe me, that will be foremost, on both counts, in most politicians minds! . .<a href="http://www.sikorsky.com/programs/firehawk/" target="_blank">Sikorsky Firehawk link</a>
We often see military Blackhawks (and other stuff) on fires here in the States, they are generally released when commercial resources become available for dispatch. I cannot say that I would be keen to compete with the military for firefighting business, but in the event that all first-response capacity is exhausted, it is imperative that the capability be prepared, rather than the wholly unacceptable situation of being unable to undertake any action. The helicopter is a very effective and adaptable fire-fighting tool, as it is capable of performing a changing range of missions, with limited support and resources. Like everything, it's all down to money!
Due to the expense of committing and configuring aircraft specifically for fire-fighting, the most popular means is to maintain a small dedicated capability, complimented by contracted additional equipment as required. This results in the majority of "call when needed" contracting being performed by helicopters, as they can be simply and easily configured, by adding a bucket.
Equipment designed or reserved specifically and solely for firefighting is costly and is not versatile. The only option with this equipment is to either move it around the world to meet various fire seasons, or accept that it will spend a lot of time and expense on standby and parked.
This has resulted in the growth of not only simple airborne firefighting systems, but also some complex and highly efficient convertible installations.
Government investment and support will be based upon the maximum capability for the minimum investment. By utilising and contracting the commercial equipment available locally, a fair capability can be predicted with an investment of essentially nothing. By letting the commercial marketplace bear the financial burden of preparing and equipping a fleet of capable aircraft, the expense for fire fighting can be maintained at minimal levels and paid for as it is used (or not, as the case may be!).
The recent fire season in Australia (and recent North American fire seasons) have highlighted the problem with this approach, the lack of an additional capability should the primary response become exhausted. With the cost of mobilising equipment around the world (and the commercial potential for a zero fire season), it becomes a apparent that the ability to augment the capability with existing military, or other local resources with an effective convertible capability is extremely attractive.
As discussed above, the capability for C-130's is available and proven. However, the Blackhawk modification, the Firehawk programme is a very well designed and (cost)effective capability to add to your existing Blackhawk fleet and capability - and believe me, that will be foremost, on both counts, in most politicians minds! . .<a href="http://www.sikorsky.com/programs/firehawk/" target="_blank">Sikorsky Firehawk link</a>
We often see military Blackhawks (and other stuff) on fires here in the States, they are generally released when commercial resources become available for dispatch. I cannot say that I would be keen to compete with the military for firefighting business, but in the event that all first-response capacity is exhausted, it is imperative that the capability be prepared, rather than the wholly unacceptable situation of being unable to undertake any action. The helicopter is a very effective and adaptable fire-fighting tool, as it is capable of performing a changing range of missions, with limited support and resources. Like everything, it's all down to money!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a couple of Chinooks up north - could they be fitted with a similar system to the blackhawk/skycrane?
C model had 20,000lb hook and D model three hooks - have any trials been done with that aircraft
C model had 20,000lb hook and D model three hooks - have any trials been done with that aircraft
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Little colonial airfield in the land of prawns, beer & roos
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly thanks to those pilots working Vincentia on Christmas day from all us locals!!
But then back at work on Boxing day to find the Navy still has no Bambi Buckets after working with borrowed kit in both '94 &'97 and literaly unable to help in our own back yard. This is criminal!
I fully understand the benefits of the contracted support system as us mill types only get called when it's realy bad and we don't need to make a living out of it BUT a small outlay (3 - 4 buckets) would have drasticaly helped one of the longest burning fires this summer all visable from our own ATC.
Once again the reports will be writen, submitted, lost, found, lost again, burried in damp peat and finaly recycled as firelighters before any common sense progress is made.
Right thats my rant and maybe it makes up for having to hose down the christmas lunch!!!! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
But then back at work on Boxing day to find the Navy still has no Bambi Buckets after working with borrowed kit in both '94 &'97 and literaly unable to help in our own back yard. This is criminal!
I fully understand the benefits of the contracted support system as us mill types only get called when it's realy bad and we don't need to make a living out of it BUT a small outlay (3 - 4 buckets) would have drasticaly helped one of the longest burning fires this summer all visable from our own ATC.
Once again the reports will be writen, submitted, lost, found, lost again, burried in damp peat and finaly recycled as firelighters before any common sense progress is made.
Right thats my rant and maybe it makes up for having to hose down the christmas lunch!!!! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Cyclic Hotline
Good points. On the Black Hawk, I would reiterate my previous post above: the Fire Hawk is an extensive modification to the Oz Black Hawk, it is not a quick fix. And we have 36 of them, so which do you mod? A bambi bucket, however, could be done relatively quickly. But why would you use a Black Hawk (3000 litres or so) over a CH-47 (9800litres or so)?
Did you find the cost of the Fire Hawk kit? Remember the cost of a CH-47 bucket is about US$33000 in country.
csl: why not read the posts above? All of your questions have been adressed.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Good points. On the Black Hawk, I would reiterate my previous post above: the Fire Hawk is an extensive modification to the Oz Black Hawk, it is not a quick fix. And we have 36 of them, so which do you mod? A bambi bucket, however, could be done relatively quickly. But why would you use a Black Hawk (3000 litres or so) over a CH-47 (9800litres or so)?
Did you find the cost of the Fire Hawk kit? Remember the cost of a CH-47 bucket is about US$33000 in country.
csl: why not read the posts above? All of your questions have been adressed.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Helmet,
Whilst the Chook with a bucket is an attractive proposition, I'd be surprised to see enough deep water sources capable of filling such a Bambi within, say, 10 miles of most of the fires that we have dealt with over the past 4 weeks. I've been pushed at times to find reasonable holes for a 930 litre bucket, and as a result some transits have been 6-7nm. This is (ISTM) the main advantage of a large belly tank system with a donkey dick capable of sucking from shallow sources.
Whilst the Chook with a bucket is an attractive proposition, I'd be surprised to see enough deep water sources capable of filling such a Bambi within, say, 10 miles of most of the fires that we have dealt with over the past 4 weeks. I've been pushed at times to find reasonable holes for a 930 litre bucket, and as a result some transits have been 6-7nm. This is (ISTM) the main advantage of a large belly tank system with a donkey dick capable of sucking from shallow sources.
John Eacott: agree totally. The bigger the aircraft, the more applicable the belly tank IMHO. I believe the bucket manufacturers are trying to close the gap by offering a donkey dick on the bucket enabling the pilot to use either solution dependant upon water source, so that they dont lose the quick fill capability of the open bucket, but they gain the shallow capability of the belly tank. But the point is - is 4 Chook's with 9800 litre buckets better than nothing at all? Or what is the best solution?
I think Harry Peacock made an excellent point about the military acquiring such equipment. You may be intrested to know that they borrowed buckets again this year!. . <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
I think Harry Peacock made an excellent point about the military acquiring such equipment. You may be intrested to know that they borrowed buckets again this year!. . <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
The Kiwi Airforce (sux sux and sux ait) turned up this year with Spray buckets, which are operated by compressed air lifting the bottom valve, both for filling and dumping. Took a long time to fill, as the unit slowly sank as it reached a fill level commensurate with the power available, and seemed to dump much slower than the Bambi, with a much wider (Spray) pattern. Certainly more suitable to shallow water holes than the Bambi, but still only able to fill to the depth of the water available. Not so good for hover drops (spray pattern too wide to dump on smokers), and problematic when the air line failed (sitting in the hover with 400kg more in the bucket than you have power to lift is a no win situation <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ), but a possible alternative to the Bambi.
Re the military, we were told from a variety of sources that they had actually purchased a number of Bambi's following the 97 debacle, but they were all one size. Not a lot of value, Squirrel buckets on a Sea King <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Re the Chooks/buckets, anything that was available would have been a Good Thing over Christmas. Long term, what value can there be on a CWN when the crews are on Christmas hols, the military system (probably) requires umpteen stages of training and continuation endorsements, and the cabs are based 1000 miles away? . .Disregarding comms requirements such as RFS/GRN, NPWS Lo band VHF, fuel availabilty, etc. We ran dry of fuel over the critical period, and were refused hot refuelling from military sources, adding 45 minutes to turn rounds by the time the paperwork was done, the fuel spill treated (on concrete.... <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> ), and the truck dailied before being moved away! No wonder the Aircrane has it's own BP tanker, complete with lights and siren
Re the military, we were told from a variety of sources that they had actually purchased a number of Bambi's following the 97 debacle, but they were all one size. Not a lot of value, Squirrel buckets on a Sea King <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Re the Chooks/buckets, anything that was available would have been a Good Thing over Christmas. Long term, what value can there be on a CWN when the crews are on Christmas hols, the military system (probably) requires umpteen stages of training and continuation endorsements, and the cabs are based 1000 miles away? . .Disregarding comms requirements such as RFS/GRN, NPWS Lo band VHF, fuel availabilty, etc. We ran dry of fuel over the critical period, and were refused hot refuelling from military sources, adding 45 minutes to turn rounds by the time the paperwork was done, the fuel spill treated (on concrete.... <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> ), and the truck dailied before being moved away! No wonder the Aircrane has it's own BP tanker, complete with lights and siren
I followed your fire season with great interest. Usual types of fire fighting dilemma's I see, at least the same problems are common the world over! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
What type of buckets were the NZ ships using? Any of you guys ever used the Griffith buckets?
Too bad that we never knew of the shortage of Bambi buckets, as we could have arranged a lease and shipped out a bunch of Blackhawk sized buckets in an instant! (Maybe another time though). Do you guys use KFM-985's for FM's? The Forest Service won't allow them now, so they are a good deal used over here now.
I agree that the availability of reserve resources for the military is a pretty important part of the equation. Maybe there will be Bambi buckets for all teh different aircraft in this years budget? Those big buckets for the Chinook are monstrous things to work on and lug around, but they work pretty well, although as you so correctly state, you need an adequate water source!
All I know, is that if it is my house that is in danger of being burned down, I don't care who or what comes to save it, just do it!
In the original discussion there were some qustions about the C-130 systems. It is (perhaps?) interesting to note that these systems are manufactured by Aero-Union, the same as the FireHawk set-up.
<a href="http://www.aerounion.com/asd_a2.htm" target="_blank">C-130 RADS system</a>
<a href="http://www.aerounion.com/asd_a3.htm" target="_blank">MAFFS System</a>
<a href="http://www.aerounion.com/asd_a4.htm" target="_blank">Firehawk systems</a>
<a href="http://www.sei-sales.com/sei/seii1105.htm" target="_blank">Bambi bucket.</a>
What type of buckets were the NZ ships using? Any of you guys ever used the Griffith buckets?
Too bad that we never knew of the shortage of Bambi buckets, as we could have arranged a lease and shipped out a bunch of Blackhawk sized buckets in an instant! (Maybe another time though). Do you guys use KFM-985's for FM's? The Forest Service won't allow them now, so they are a good deal used over here now.
I agree that the availability of reserve resources for the military is a pretty important part of the equation. Maybe there will be Bambi buckets for all teh different aircraft in this years budget? Those big buckets for the Chinook are monstrous things to work on and lug around, but they work pretty well, although as you so correctly state, you need an adequate water source!
All I know, is that if it is my house that is in danger of being burned down, I don't care who or what comes to save it, just do it!
In the original discussion there were some qustions about the C-130 systems. It is (perhaps?) interesting to note that these systems are manufactured by Aero-Union, the same as the FireHawk set-up.
<a href="http://www.aerounion.com/asd_a2.htm" target="_blank">C-130 RADS system</a>
<a href="http://www.aerounion.com/asd_a3.htm" target="_blank">MAFFS System</a>
<a href="http://www.aerounion.com/asd_a4.htm" target="_blank">Firehawk systems</a>
<a href="http://www.sei-sales.com/sei/seii1105.htm" target="_blank">Bambi bucket.</a>
Cyclic,
Not many users for the Griffiths these days. Bulky and heavy. I love the KFM 985, but most of the agencies are getting esoteric trunking systems which require dedicated radios, and are generally a PITA for operational use. Kiwi's called their buckets "Spray", which they assured me is the maker's tag. Or maybe it was their accent, and I misheard <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Not many users for the Griffiths these days. Bulky and heavy. I love the KFM 985, but most of the agencies are getting esoteric trunking systems which require dedicated radios, and are generally a PITA for operational use. Kiwi's called their buckets "Spray", which they assured me is the maker's tag. Or maybe it was their accent, and I misheard <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
