747 Fire fighting water tanker
 

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

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

we need ten
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NJS (the old NJS), if my memory serves me correctly, proposed exactly this some years back. Even had a demo aeroplane out here. Fell on deaf ears.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jumbo Loads
 

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

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

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

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

WilliamOK
That's not a very well thought out comment to make. When your house and loved ones are in the line of some inferno I wonder if you will be singing the same tune then? I doubt it.

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

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

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

I wonder how much it would take to mod the C130Js for firefighting ops? Heard they have issues with wingspars though.

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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