Neptune Firebomber

[Stationair8]

Whatever to the Neptune Firebomber that the guy in WA was developing.

I have been reading the book Beneath Southern Skies and the story about a company called Aerocorp and the conversion of the Neptune. Anyone got anymore info, or been shelved?

[sprocket check]

Gone to Canada I think due to CASA idiotic mis-handling and making life seemingly really difficult from what I hear.

[dash 27]

Fire Bomber, eh??

You might mean WATER BOMBER. You get in trouble these days droping fire.

Looks like a lovely example, shame its not used for what its configured as. Could have used it with the jet rangers with bambi buckets against the firestorms .

Where was Tanker 10. The DC 10. Rumored to show an appearance. Shame noone took the initiave to put on a show on how to put out spot fires with fleets of effective aircraft before the fire storm started. Thats bacause they are under snow in the northern hemisphere. Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, and Canada all have fleets of CL415's or land based bombing capabilities.

Don't get me started. PLEASE SOMEBODY, get some aircraft. MILITARY, or PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Search Airspray in canada and see what we are missing out on. Surely come at a 10% of the cost of the insurance bill that seems predictable every year.

Well done to all the guys who gave their all for the cause. It just would be nice if the authorities got serious with the equipment, so it actually made a difference.

[sms777]

Forget the Neptune!

Wait till you see the B26 Marauder on the horizon!.......
OOOO Sh!!!t .... sorry chief... am i in trouble now?

Ducking for cover!

[Yobbo]

I never understood why the Aussis don`t have a fleet of bombers. The northern hemisphere fleet is not being used during their winter, why not contract them to base some a/c in australia?

[VH-XXX]

Like this SMS?

[HarleyD]

XXX....shame on you

That is A26 Invader,

NOT B26 Marauder.

Invader = Sexy
Marauder = Pig

HD

[Led Zep]

I last saw it parked at Cunderdin but that was years ago. Shame because it was a great looker and when it did actually fly the sound and exhaust flames were magic in the evening twilight.

Forget a DC-10/747, what we need is a Martin Mars.

[Forestdump]

HD Thanks for the correction. You beat me to it. It is a fairly common mix up. The Douglas Invader was designated the A-26 as well as the B-26. The type rating on a Canadian license is B-26. I flew a B-26 for several years and I was constantly reminding my father that it was a Douglas Invader, not the Martin Marauder. The B-26's have been retired in Canada since 2004. And yes, firebomber is a perfectly acceptable term for these airplanes.

[Double Wasp]

I know its not as sexy as the B-26 but has anyone looked at the DHC-8 Q400 MR that is operated by Securite Civile in France. Would probably be helpful if this situation ever comes up again.
Now I know everyone gets in a huff whenever someone brings up a large aircraft tanker, ( it is a tanker by the way if it were a water bomber it would scoop and drop). Think of it as an added asset not as something that is replacing something. In other parts of the world the Tankers drop retardent to slow and direct a fire so the scoopers and helicopters can knock it down enough for the ground crews to come in and put it out. I feel we are missing a big part of the team here in OZ.
Airspray is selling its B-26's by the way.
DW

[SNS3Guppy]

We call them air tankers. Water is used by amphib tankers like the CL215, but water is not a very effective way to fight fire. Fire is fought from the ground, anyway...not from the air. From the air, we simply control it by directing where it burns...using retardant for the most part.

Yes, firebombing takes place, using fire from aircraft, but that usually involves drip torching or ignition spheres to set fires as a firefighting technique (backburns, etc).

In the US Neptune, Inc, operates a fleet of P2V's as air tankers. Years ago I flew for another operator that used several, and was carded in the P2V-7. Then we hauled 2,400 gallons of retardant.

The most common airtanker in Oz is the PZL Dromader...what we call a SEAT in the US (Single Engine Air Tanker). I operated those for seven years, too. A SEAT is an effective initial attack tool on fires, being used against fires when they first start, but it's ability to be effective diminishes as the fire grows in intensity.

The DC10 and B747 platforms have some limited value...but retardant application is most effective when done in a precision format, flown by experienced crews (which neither the DC10 nor B747 have...and the B747 isn't fielded yet). Dropping large quantities of water or retardant is impressive to the public, but not necessarily what's best for tactical application in firefighting, in most cases (unless one has very long, straight firelines...which is seldom the case).

We don't put fires out from the air. Dropping water or retardant doesn't do much on a large, active fire. One generally isn't going to put it out with water. Much of the retardant application is done in advance of the flame or offset from it, and is used to drive the fire in a direction toward natural barriers, divert it around structures, etc.

[Double Wasp]

SN3
I completly agree with everything you said except for the statement that water not effective. From what I understand Tankers put a line around (to contain) or accross (to direct) a fire. Then the Helos and the Scoopers come in and basically increase the relative humidity in the fire environment by dropping on or near the fire. Once the fire has backed off enough the ground crews go in and put it out.
The larger air tankers are the weapon that we are missing here in Australia.
Please correct me if I am wrong
DW

[Hempy]

type Cunderdin WA into Google Earth and you can see it parked on the ramp.

[VH-XXX]

You can blame Wikipedia for my -up.

[Deaf]

It is a fairly common mix up. The Douglas Invader was designated the A-26 as well as the B-26.

For the anoraks
Element of deliberate confusion
Martin was the B26
Douglas started life as the A26
Martin went out of service
Douglas became the B26 (must have caused problems with stuff still sitting in stores)
In the late 50's/early 60's Thailand didn't want US bombers based there but were happy with attack aircraft
Douglas went back to being the A26.

[Engineer_aus]

Its parked at cunderdin, as for why, FESA didnt want such a huge water drop and they were concerned about the safety of the public and hosues etc etc blah blah political blah blah. Theo is still around.

[SNS3Guppy]

I completly agree with everything you said except for the statement that water not effective. From what I understand Tankers put a line around (to contain) or accross (to direct) a fire. Then the Helos and the Scoopers come in and basically increase the relative humidity in the fire environment by dropping on or near the fire. Once the fire has backed off enough the ground crews go in and put it out.
The larger air tankers are the weapon that we are missing here in Australia.
Please correct me if I am wrong

Fire isn't fought that way, and tankers don't work that way. Air assets don't fight fire. Ground troops do.

Tankers are used to flank or work parts of a fire to contain it's direction or slow it's rate of spread while ground troops work the fire. Retardant lines may be used to reduce rate of spread or encourage the fire to move in another direction based on wind, natural barriers, vegetation or types of fuels, topography, slope, aspect (north/south, etc), and of course, threats to persons, structures, etc. Considerations include resources available to back up retardant lines, ground resources, turnaround times, etc.

One of the single most common, and most basic mistakes in retardant application, is to attack the head of the fire, or to go direct on the fire. Without an ability to build line rapidly with short turn-around times or ample air assets, the result is invariably splitting the head of the fire into two or more parts, increasing the rate of spread, and complicating the fire. Most of the time, this only increases fire activity, wastes retardant, and makes the fire worse.

Water cools fire directly, but cooling the fire is the least effective way, and most wasteful way, of controlling it's activity. Unless it's a small spot fire, then water doesn't put the fire out. Water and foam are short term measures, often most effectively used on small spot fires. Where water can be used in extended attack operations, it has to be available in very large quantities, and enough resources need to be present and capable of acting, which can keep a constant application of water on the fire. Scoopers, for example, must have the ability based on proximity of an uplift source, a short distance, and enough scoopers, to keep putting water on the fire every few minutes. Otherwise, the water is usually nearly worthless.

One must remember that in an active wildfire, temperatures above the fuels can exceed two thousand degrees Farenheight, and fuel temperatures and fire activity can mean that water dropped on an active flame front may do little more good than spitting in a camp fire. Water evaporates quickly, any cooling or loss of energy in the fire is quickly replaced and reheated, and the change in relative humidity is so minute that it's negligible in character.

Relative humidity of it's own accord does reduce fire behavior somewhat in intensity and rate of spread, but is a minor consideration compared to winds, slope, fuel moisture, etc.

Fuels on the ground are classed by the amount of hours required to effect a change in fuel moisture. Some fuels such as grass are one-hour fuels, but many fuels over 3" in diameter, like small tree branches, are into the thousand hour range. The introduction of local temporary changes in RH produce insignificant changes in the fire behavior for the most part, and no changes in the fuel moisture. Even a rainstorm only produces brief changes, and doesn't effect fuel moistures save for grasses and other one-hour fuels; the result in controlling fire spread isn't great.

I've chased a fire with retardant up to a lake, in Florida. I ran retardant down both flanks of the fire until the head ran into the lake and the fire ended. A week later we were back on the fire again. Same fire, other side of the lake. It continued to burn under the lake, came up on the other side, and kept running as a wind-driven fire. It was more intense on the other side and took more resources to control.

Fire won't "back off" by dropping scooping aircraft and helo buckets nearby. Nor do ground troops wait for a fire to "back off." Air assets are tools that ground troops request or use to apply to specific parts of a fire, in order to assist them in working the fire. Ground troops often work the fireline directly with shovels, pulaski's, handlines (hoses and water or foam), lighting backfires or backburns, running dozer or cat lines to cut away fuels and create fire breaks, and other tactical methods of fighting fires. In accomplishing this mission, they may request a helicopter to put water on a hotspot or to work a segment of a flank. They may look for a retardant drop to back up a bulldozer line or a road, to prevent spread across the road. In each case, the retardant use or water use is only one tool of many that the ground troops have at their disposal when working the fire.

I've spent many years as an IA, or Initial Attack pilot. I'm often the first one on scene, and in some cases, I do end up working the entire fire from the air. My efforts are always considered a temporary measure, however, until someone can get on the ground and work the fire. Even if it's a single tree. I may put a box around it or cross it with two retardant lines, but all I'm doing is buying time for a helattack team or hotshots to come in and hit the tree with a chain saw, dig a line around it, or do whatever is necessary to actually control and put out the fire.

Often as not, the most effective means of putting out a fire is to supervise it burning itself out. Air assets are put in use to attempt to reduce damage to danger to structures of personnel until that happens. A lot of fires are far beyond the capability of man to control, or extinguish, and firefighting efforts, both in the air and on the ground, are futile motions that take place in earnest, until nature decides enough is enough.

Large air tankers are one tool in the toolbox...but only one. You need not only the aircraft, but enough bases capable of supporting them, close enough to fires, spread throughout the country, to do some good. Some years ago in the US, in Florida, significant fires raged throughout the state. Early in the game, I was in the only large air tanker in the state. Other resources were enroute, but we found that with a temporary base set up in the City of Ocala, we had an hour to the fire. A flame front with 250'+ flame lengths was wind-driven, threatening structures, and moving fast...and two miles wide. Our retardant line with a heavy coverage level extended just a little over a hundred yards, using a large air tanker with a 2,000 gallon capacity.

The result was that the fire burned over our line before we could load and return with more retardant, and we were effectively wasting our time. The State of Florida wanted us to keep dropping however, because often as not it's as much a matter of public relations as it is doing anything effective. It was a given that we couldn't control the fire, but it was important that the public felt like every effort was being made to do so.

While Australia may be missing large air tankers, they aren't the be-all and end-all of firefighting...and such a lack doesn't mean that firefighting can't be effective. Getting a large air tanker program doesn't necessarily mean that you'd see a change in your fires there, either. Oz is a large place, with few airfields and long turnaround times. Even large air tankers put down very small lines of retardant when considering the amount of fireline that may be burning and the activity it may produce. Large air tankers can be effective tools, but are an insignifcant spec in the face of mother nature.

[chimbu warrior]

SNS3Guppy

This is the most comprehensive and informative stuff I have ever read on this subject. Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

[Fris B. Fairing]

SNS3Guppy

I found your account of aerial firefighting most informative but I'll have to show my ignorance of these matters by asking you to explain this one.

It continued to burn under the lake, came up on the other side, and kept running as a wind-driven fire.

Fires can do this?

Rgds

[SNS3Guppy]

Fires can do this?

That's exactly what I thought, too. To honest, when I first arrived in Florida, the types of fuels (plants) were different enough to the type of firefighting I was accustomed to doing, I thought the same thing about a lot of the green forested areas, too...until I saw them burn.

The one under the lake went into a pete bed and kept burning beneath the lake (just outside Gainseville), then came up on the other side and took off.

The trees there looked green, but were dry and brittle. We had to raise our drop height in large tankers from 200' to 300' and in some cases 400', because the weight of the retardant was topping the trees; it was breaking off the trees, sending them to the forest floor, and increasing the fire, in some cases.

Another problem we enountered there was palmetto, which is rich enough in pitch that it burns very hot, is hard to extinguish, and is very nearly explosive in an active fire.

Another problem which those on the ground had to face, but I didn't...was aligators. When I lived in Oz I became facinated with crocs and thus became a little familiar, but it's not something I've ever had to deal with during an active wildfire. I spent six years on the ground as a firefighter on top of a number of years in aerial fire now...but never saw an aligator. We had reports in areas were dropping about crews that were stuck because of aligators in the way. I thought that was interesting.

What was most striking about working down there, however, was just how different the nature of the job could be. One becomes accustomed to doing the job a certain way, and then moving to a very different climate with different weather patterns, winds, and fuels, and one has to adjust to an entirely different way of approching the fire. Including ones that burn under a lake.