Waterbombing B737
Cilba thank you for such a positive story. Large airtankers in combination with helicopters and smaller aircraft combined with forces on the ground are game change. Why Australia had not fully embraced this concept in the past still befuddles me!
Thankyou for that 'Cilba'. I was wondering and about to enquire what the 'refill / turn around time' is, plus the necessary 'transit time to the site', to make these large aircraft effective.
I appreciate they must use a 'suitable' large airport, unlike the many smaller types, and I was wondering which was more effective in dropping - in view of the turn around times....
Cheers
I appreciate they must use a 'suitable' large airport, unlike the many smaller types, and I was wondering which was more effective in dropping - in view of the turn around times....
Cheers
As usual the Yanks come and save the Aussies this time with 737 firebombers ( all be it ****boxes ) Imagine trying to get an Australian brain around converting a B737 to firebomber. Then your MORON regulator CASA complete idiots would give 800,000 reasons it wont work. KEEP AMERICA GREAT.
USA went to the moon and inventor. Airplane,Electricity, light bulb, motorcar,Jeans, Burgers, computer, internet,iPhone and YES THE B747/737/DC10 Fire bomber to name a few good work.
Australia inventor of the dobber, red light camera and multi layer regulations for everything hahahaha what a place.
USA went to the moon and inventor. Airplane,Electricity, light bulb, motorcar,Jeans, Burgers, computer, internet,iPhone and YES THE B747/737/DC10 Fire bomber to name a few good work.
Australia inventor of the dobber, red light camera and multi layer regulations for everything hahahaha what a place.
Burgers required Australia to invent the "pacemaker"!
You even needed us to invent the "Hawaiian pizza" that if you don't eat it all, you can put in the "refrigerator".
With a "Cochlear implant" you can hear the voice on "Google Maps" when you drive to the bottle shop to get a "goon box" to put in the "esky"
You even needed us to invent the "Hawaiian pizza" that if you don't eat it all, you can put in the "refrigerator".
With a "Cochlear implant" you can hear the voice on "Google Maps" when you drive to the bottle shop to get a "goon box" to put in the "esky"
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its good to see you still have so much knowledge about Australia 4 Holer. As a successful aviation business proprietor you would know that all the fire bombing aircraft in Australia are privately owned and therefore subject to the basic of business, return on investment. Given how low the annual hours flown have been historically, in your expert view, how can anyone make a profit out of a low hour conversion?
Wunwing
Wunwing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another note. Given the obvious effects of climate change on the Australian and North American weather it seems to me that large fire bombers will have to remain in the US/Canada for most of the year. That means that Australia will have to source our aircraft locally.
There seems to be some confusion as to the status of the Coulson B737. Some say its been purchased by NSW and some say its leased. Whatever it is I think that it has already proved itself as a fire bombing platform. So where to from here?
This raises to me ,2 questions. Is the State based model the way to go or is this better done by the Commonwealth? The other is what is the best aircraft for an Australian based operation?
To me we have 5 possibilities.
(1) Convair 580
(2) BAE146
(3) Hercules
(4) Orion
(5) B737
I have left out the Canadair option as they are out of production.
Option 1 is obviously getting "past it "but would be cheap for an initial setup if already converted aircraft are available. There is already C580 operational experience in Australia both as freight and firebombing.
Option 2.A number of North American operators are moving in the BAE146 and derivatives and there is a long history of the type here in both airline and fire bombing ops.
Option 3 is a classic Australian stuff up. Just as we started to lease in US Hercs for fire bombers our Government managed to scrap 12 C130Hs from the RAAF. Score 100% Feds for forward thinking.
Option 4. We are also scrapping Orions despite their obvious possible use as firebombers. Again forward planning in evidence?
Option 5 There is a long history here of B737 operations but I suspect that there are limited airports, particularly inland that can handle a B737?
Whatever we do has to be done soon but given the absolute chaos of Government of all shapes in this country I doubt if anyone in Government can see beyond the next few weeks of the electoral cycle?
Wunwing
There seems to be some confusion as to the status of the Coulson B737. Some say its been purchased by NSW and some say its leased. Whatever it is I think that it has already proved itself as a fire bombing platform. So where to from here?
This raises to me ,2 questions. Is the State based model the way to go or is this better done by the Commonwealth? The other is what is the best aircraft for an Australian based operation?
To me we have 5 possibilities.
(1) Convair 580
(2) BAE146
(3) Hercules
(4) Orion
(5) B737
I have left out the Canadair option as they are out of production.
Option 1 is obviously getting "past it "but would be cheap for an initial setup if already converted aircraft are available. There is already C580 operational experience in Australia both as freight and firebombing.
Option 2.A number of North American operators are moving in the BAE146 and derivatives and there is a long history of the type here in both airline and fire bombing ops.
Option 3 is a classic Australian stuff up. Just as we started to lease in US Hercs for fire bombers our Government managed to scrap 12 C130Hs from the RAAF. Score 100% Feds for forward thinking.
Option 4. We are also scrapping Orions despite their obvious possible use as firebombers. Again forward planning in evidence?
Option 5 There is a long history here of B737 operations but I suspect that there are limited airports, particularly inland that can handle a B737?
Whatever we do has to be done soon but given the absolute chaos of Government of all shapes in this country I doubt if anyone in Government can see beyond the next few weeks of the electoral cycle?
Wunwing
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ridicule and derision are among the oldest and most pathetic attempts to prove your point, but anyway...I'm not sure what else you would call an airframe that ran up 70,000-odd thousand hours and around 57,000 cycles in revenue service over 22 years before being retired? Successful, yes, but polish a turd it's still a turd.
By the way, for someone who seems to be so hung up on spelling, you could at least try to get my username right...
By the way, for someone who seems to be so hung up on spelling, you could at least try to get my username right...
ON the other side this " ****box old" machine is still operating, saving lives and assisting to great benefit the community affected by fire. I'm guessing you haven't had to need such help from situations, apart form shatting your daks when the barbie wont light straight away,.
IM guessing if the crew operating said machine saw this, by the way I'm guessing they are highly trained, risk these conditions and no doubt have contributed to saving people, while you sit behind your screen with a bad attitude, bad breath, dandruff and whinge at your ingrown toe nails......they would look at you with pity......kinda the look we give that person we all came across in flight training that gave up after 35 hours of not going solo...........
Why don't we pop out and visit these guys in person and I'm sure you will be granted your time to tell them what you think of their machine......
Im standing by for your reply Captain............................
On another note. Given the obvious effects of climate change on the Australian and North American weather it seems to me that large fire bombers will have to remain in the US/Canada for most of the year. That means that Australia will have to source our aircraft locally.
There seems to be some confusion as to the status of the Coulson B737. Some say its been purchased by NSW and some say its leased. Whatever it is I think that it has already proved itself as a fire bombing platform. So where to from here?
This raises to me ,2 questions. Is the State based model the way to go or is this better done by the Commonwealth? The other is what is the best aircraft for an Australian based operation?
To me we have 5 possibilities.
(1) Convair 580
(2) BAE146
(3) Hercules
(4) Orion
(5) B737
I have left out the Canadair option as they are out of production.
Option 1 is obviously getting "past it "but would be cheap for an initial setup if already converted aircraft are available. There is already C580 operational experience in Australia both as freight and firebombing.
Option 2.A number of North American operators are moving in the BAE146 and derivatives and there is a long history of the type here in both airline and fire bombing ops.
Option 3 is a classic Australian stuff up. Just as we started to lease in US Hercs for fire bombers our Government managed to scrap 12 C130Hs from the RAAF. Score 100% Feds for forward thinking.
Option 4. We are also scrapping Orions despite their obvious possible use as firebombers. Again forward planning in evidence?
Option 5 There is a long history here of B737 operations but I suspect that there are limited airports, particularly inland that can handle a B737?
Whatever we do has to be done soon but given the absolute chaos of Government of all shapes in this country I doubt if anyone in Government can see beyond the next few weeks of the electoral cycle?
Wunwing
There seems to be some confusion as to the status of the Coulson B737. Some say its been purchased by NSW and some say its leased. Whatever it is I think that it has already proved itself as a fire bombing platform. So where to from here?
This raises to me ,2 questions. Is the State based model the way to go or is this better done by the Commonwealth? The other is what is the best aircraft for an Australian based operation?
To me we have 5 possibilities.
(1) Convair 580
(2) BAE146
(3) Hercules
(4) Orion
(5) B737
I have left out the Canadair option as they are out of production.
Option 1 is obviously getting "past it "but would be cheap for an initial setup if already converted aircraft are available. There is already C580 operational experience in Australia both as freight and firebombing.
Option 2.A number of North American operators are moving in the BAE146 and derivatives and there is a long history of the type here in both airline and fire bombing ops.
Option 3 is a classic Australian stuff up. Just as we started to lease in US Hercs for fire bombers our Government managed to scrap 12 C130Hs from the RAAF. Score 100% Feds for forward thinking.
Option 4. We are also scrapping Orions despite their obvious possible use as firebombers. Again forward planning in evidence?
Option 5 There is a long history here of B737 operations but I suspect that there are limited airports, particularly inland that can handle a B737?
Whatever we do has to be done soon but given the absolute chaos of Government of all shapes in this country I doubt if anyone in Government can see beyond the next few weeks of the electoral cycle?
Wunwing
Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 To date two aircraft have been configured as water bombers to hold 2,640 gallons of water or retardants. When not used as water bombers, in just over 2 1/2 hours, the aircraft can be converted to accommodate up to 78 passenger seats or carry up to 19,000 lbs of cargo
Howabout none of the above. All these hulls are limited to long bitumen runways that could be hours from the action. You would be better served by a fleet of Skycranes. The CL415 is still untried in action is, frankly, criminal!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with multi use aircraft is that when needed the fire bombing use will be subject to "commercial needs". The only way to guarantee their availability is dedicated airframes and crews.
The RAAF and Qantas to a degree shared a couple of B707s towards the end of the B707s airline life. I don't think either side was all that happy with the conflicts between operations
.
The problem of multi types is that standing expenses are high. Different crews, different equipment, different spares etc and different expectations. One of the reasons why air ambulance helicopters are to a degree standardised or were in NSW up to recently
Selection of type would depend on if we are working to a Federal or State operation. Skycranes may be OK in one state, but response time between the West and East would be poor.
Per hour operation and standing costs would be lower on a fixed wing.
Wunwing
The RAAF and Qantas to a degree shared a couple of B707s towards the end of the B707s airline life. I don't think either side was all that happy with the conflicts between operations
.
The problem of multi types is that standing expenses are high. Different crews, different equipment, different spares etc and different expectations. One of the reasons why air ambulance helicopters are to a degree standardised or were in NSW up to recently
Selection of type would depend on if we are working to a Federal or State operation. Skycranes may be OK in one state, but response time between the West and East would be poor.
Per hour operation and standing costs would be lower on a fixed wing.
Wunwing
Its pointless for Australia to go ahead and build our own, Coulson and other groups in America have spent years developing the technology and much of it is patented and its not a simple as fixing a tank to the aircraft, I had the chance to have a chat to one of the engineers on the RJ85 tanker at the Avalon airshow a few years back, said it look 6 years from design to first flight and that some of the original design engineers of the RJ85 came out of retirement to work on and assist in the conversion.
My knowledge of the 737 in NSW is that the NSW government put money into the development of it and thus has control over it, meaning they get first say on when it comes to Australia unlike the others which come over once they are released by Calfire.
Plus don't forget for every skycrane and large air tanker there are dozens of Australian owned aircraft in the firefighting fleet. For example Victoria has a fleet of 49 Aircraft this year, 6 of which are from overseas.
My knowledge of the 737 in NSW is that the NSW government put money into the development of it and thus has control over it, meaning they get first say on when it comes to Australia unlike the others which come over once they are released by Calfire.
Plus don't forget for every skycrane and large air tanker there are dozens of Australian owned aircraft in the firefighting fleet. For example Victoria has a fleet of 49 Aircraft this year, 6 of which are from overseas.
A fleet of Q400 multi roll water bomber is certainly worth a look at.
In addition to dropping retardant it can ferry in fire crews and supply's, evacuate persons if required, operate on unpaved runways.
Operating costs would be far less than for the B737, they can if need be sold off to a secondhand market as a pax aircraft or a freighter as the water bomber tank is external attachment and not a structural modification.
They carry 2,640 gallons of retardant (the B737 is 4,000 gallons), so if you scatter a few crews with planes in the hot zone airports they could mobilise faster to the fire while the others are on transit to the fire.
In addition to dropping retardant it can ferry in fire crews and supply's, evacuate persons if required, operate on unpaved runways.
Operating costs would be far less than for the B737, they can if need be sold off to a secondhand market as a pax aircraft or a freighter as the water bomber tank is external attachment and not a structural modification.
They carry 2,640 gallons of retardant (the B737 is 4,000 gallons), so if you scatter a few crews with planes in the hot zone airports they could mobilise faster to the fire while the others are on transit to the fire.
The C130 seems to have a operating cost around 60% of a FA-18 from US military figures - I imagine the Q400 would be several factors lower in operational costs.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bend a lot
The C130 operating costs would depend on who owns and operates them them. Have a look at the Fire Aviation site for the story of the ex US Govt Hercs being converted for the US Forestry Service and the fiasco that its become. I'm sure that our mate 4 holer would be able to use this as an example of how its done in the US.
Overall final costs per hour of operations are the result of many things including purchase price of the aircraft and its ongoing maintenance. If the Hercs were so expensive I doubt if Coulsens would be running them. If the Australian Govt had kept the C130Hs, then the purchase price would have been 0 thus making the concept viable. The same for the Orions. At least 3 Canadian operators and one US operator have L188s/Orions. Having worked as an LAME on both L188s and C130s, I don't see that the costs of a C130 would be much different to L188s.
The Q400s may be suitable but the purchase cost must be much greater than the cost of a B737 300.
The Bae 146 is cheap to purchase and the fire engineering seems to now be pretty good, with a wealth of type experience in Australia
As I said earlier, first thing to look at is the model. Federal or State. Common sense would indicate Federal, but the chances of common sense or even reality in that arena is a big, big ask.
Federal would enable larger aircraft in a pool. Possibly the US model where the US Govt provided the airframes for conversion and then operated by contractors. That was a good system until the CIA got involved. Hopefully that type of thing is not a problem here.
Having sat at a roadblock and watched small aircraft try to contain a fire and then watched the DC10 knock it down in one pass, I must admit I'm a convert to large aircraft in the right circumstances.
Wunwing
The C130 operating costs would depend on who owns and operates them them. Have a look at the Fire Aviation site for the story of the ex US Govt Hercs being converted for the US Forestry Service and the fiasco that its become. I'm sure that our mate 4 holer would be able to use this as an example of how its done in the US.
Overall final costs per hour of operations are the result of many things including purchase price of the aircraft and its ongoing maintenance. If the Hercs were so expensive I doubt if Coulsens would be running them. If the Australian Govt had kept the C130Hs, then the purchase price would have been 0 thus making the concept viable. The same for the Orions. At least 3 Canadian operators and one US operator have L188s/Orions. Having worked as an LAME on both L188s and C130s, I don't see that the costs of a C130 would be much different to L188s.
The Q400s may be suitable but the purchase cost must be much greater than the cost of a B737 300.
The Bae 146 is cheap to purchase and the fire engineering seems to now be pretty good, with a wealth of type experience in Australia
As I said earlier, first thing to look at is the model. Federal or State. Common sense would indicate Federal, but the chances of common sense or even reality in that arena is a big, big ask.
Federal would enable larger aircraft in a pool. Possibly the US model where the US Govt provided the airframes for conversion and then operated by contractors. That was a good system until the CIA got involved. Hopefully that type of thing is not a problem here.
Having sat at a roadblock and watched small aircraft try to contain a fire and then watched the DC10 knock it down in one pass, I must admit I'm a convert to large aircraft in the right circumstances.
Wunwing
Wunwing the C130s, L1888s and Bae 146 are all 4 engine turbine aircraft.
There is a very clear trend away from 4 burners to 2 burners due to cost.
Getting a "free airframe" from the RAAF and putting it on the civil register would not be a cheap,fast or fun thing to do.
Yes Federal should be the way forward, but they have no vision.
To be effective a variety of aircraft would be needed and in a fair size fleet.
Medium and Large Helicopters, a large fleet of medium bombers (over 1,000 gal under 10,000 gal). Some heavy bombers up to 20,000 gal a couple of super heavies would also be nice if economical conversions can be done.
There is a very clear trend away from 4 burners to 2 burners due to cost.
Getting a "free airframe" from the RAAF and putting it on the civil register would not be a cheap,fast or fun thing to do.
Yes Federal should be the way forward, but they have no vision.
To be effective a variety of aircraft would be needed and in a fair size fleet.
Medium and Large Helicopters, a large fleet of medium bombers (over 1,000 gal under 10,000 gal). Some heavy bombers up to 20,000 gal a couple of super heavies would also be nice if economical conversions can be done.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw this thing in action in Europe, quite spectacular to watch it scoop up a load and go back for another dump. Able to deliver a load quite rapidly to over 100km away but unfortunately unable to get down low in mountainous terrain.
The Beriev Be-200 Altair would be a good machine for the job, but I don't see the Australian government buying Russian aircraft anytime soon. Even if they are perfect for the job. They would rather buy expensive lemons from the US @ A (F-35). Not a fire bomber, but an example of when a perfectly good Sukhoi would have been a better and cheaper choice to replace the F18 and the long departed F111.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Beriev Be-200 Altair would be a good machine for the job, but I don't see the Australian government buying Russian aircraft anytime soon. Even if they are perfect for the job. They would rather buy expensive lemons from the US @ A (F-35). Not a fire bomber, but an example of when a perfectly good Sukhoi would have been a better and cheaper choice to replace the F18 and the long departed F111.
And then try and fit a Sukhoi into a network made up largely of other American built systems. It’s hard enough with European platforms. Goodbye to interopability with our Allies too.