747 Fire fighting water tanker
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point turnarounds. I should have said brought it kicking and screaming into the 20th century 
. 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...
Cheers
CB
. 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...
Cheers
CB
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadair etc.
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Age: 67
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1112325/L/
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accuracy
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
Hope all had good Christmas and have a safe & prosperous year.
ABX
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"...both think that the 747 and other large a/c cannot get close enough to our fires, due to terrain issues..."
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?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Because we have very few bodies of water compatible with that a/c.
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.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 13th Jan 2007 at 01:38.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/im...ntrightweb.jpg
http://www.cadottephotography.net/images/Dropweb.jpg
http://www.cadottephotography.net/images/DropAweb.jpg
http://www.cadottephotography.net/im...ntrightweb.jpg
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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
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:
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
AustralianMade
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Out in the weather!
Age: 54
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Oz
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,
ABX
Cheers,
ABX
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.