Interesting article on aerial fire-fighting inc. video of DC-10 doing drop

[Downwind Lander]

Originally Posted by A Squared

That's also not a MAFFS or MAFFS 2 system. It's a completely different tank and drop system developed by Coulson. It can be installed in C-130's, and in fact has been installed in a C-130, but it requires fairly extensive airframe modifications.

The MAFFS can be installed in any Herc without extensive modification.

I am pretty confident that I am right. It takes type H or J - maybe E. I did some work when the French Air Force sat on their hands as Notre-Dame burned. They have some Canadairs (now Bombardier, I think) and Hercs but no MAFFS or MAFFS2 systems. What a mess. They reckoned on Twitter that, if used, the water would knock the walls down. The tragic truth seems to be that they bought the wrong gear for that type of fire since the MAFFS, pumping water out backwards at 140kts, causes the water to descend vertically, like very heavy rain.

The Coulson product is called RADS and, along with the Canadair doesn't have that feature. The water will have a forward velocity of some sort when it arrives at ground level. This won't matter much for forest fires but is an issue for urban ones.

In due course, there are going to be some harsh words spoken in Paris.

[Euclideanplane]

However, the use of RADS in urban environment is not obviously encouraged either, judging from unitedaero.com/firefighting/rads-systems/ where it only states "The RADS II provides reliable, versatile, effective and economical fire fighting capabilities. In grasslands, heavy timber or chaparral".

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Downwind Lander

I am pretty confident that I am right.

It is difficult to say what you are confident you are right about, exactly. But my comment was that the system installed in the specific Hercules referenced in slf.au's post is not a MAFFS. I have direct personal knowledge of that airplane and that system. If you mean that you think that system installed in that airplane is a MAFFS, you are in fact, *not* right. If you're declaring that you are "right" about something else, I'm not sure what you are referring to or why you're making that declaration in response to my comment (3+ years later).