R3350's
 

Thanks for the info Wunwing. I am just a tad envious of you. I am very pleased that the Connie and the P2V7's are being operated by you people. Many happy hours, safe take-offs and smooth landings to you in the future.

R3350's and PRT's
 

If memory serves me rightly some of the reliability reputation stemmed from a high rate of blower failures. That was eventually traced back to a Logistics sanfu putting low pressure/altitude blowers in the high pressure/high altitude stock numbered pool.

Memory also recalls some swagger and pecking order in FE's concerning just who had the latest greatest 'got her home'.

The Connies had the reputation of always bringing the crew home.

(I date myself.. guilty.. clean the oil out of the wheel wells once for me)

Well guys in answer to the crits on the 146 just a few points. The 146 tanker has been converted in Canada, flies beautifully before and after dispersing its retardant. It is built like a brick sh** house, is STOL and four motors in that enviroment can only be an advantage. It is no irony that the RAF are in the process of commisioning 2 off QC variants to replace C130H aircraft that are younger in years.For the record the reason that it has four engines (not five) is that we could not fit six on.

Whilst big pistons are lovely to see and listen to, this enviroment is not the place for them. Along with the ageing airframe it is time to call it a day for these types. How much loss of life does it take !

I flew the BAe 146 for almost 20 years and during that time I only ever had to shut down one engine. The aircraft is enormously strong and it is pretty agile. I would have thought that it would make a bloody good fire bomber.

gleaf,

The blower failures on Connie's et al were in engines up to the 'D' series. The 'E' had beefed up main and blower bearings, but the operation at low blower solved the problem; it was the gear change which caused most of the drama.

However, I assume you're not confusing blower failures with PRT failures [the latter on the 'E' engine being solved by opening up the PRT hood exhaust.]

G'day ;)

Wait until the retardant gets gummed up in the speed brakes.

Should have been ref: JW411.
My bad.

BAE-146
 

Just a question SkyTramp, have you ever flown a BAE-146? I know that Neptune Air out of Missoula, Montana and ConAir our of Abbotsford, B.C. did their due diligence on the BAE-146 as a fire suppresant aircraft. They found the aircraft to be more than suitable. Your comment on the airbrake and possible consequences during a drop would bear further investigation/examination by yourself.

After watching the CV-580 tankers do their thing over my house this afternoon, I was wondering about the fate of the turboprop Kawasaki P2Js. Have they all been scrapped?

Also, thanks to the crews of tankers 42, 44, 471 and 474.

BAe 146
 

Having flown "them", I doubt that the air-brake is the problem being referred to: it is an extremely robust and effective system, the chances of it becoming "gummed up" are as close to zero as makes no odds.
The post might be an oblique reference to the fixed tailplane and elevators: one issue was re-hydration and subsequent freezing of de-icing residues, the fix was inspection and removal of residues after the use of type IV fluid.
The second was the accumulation of water in the elevators themselves due blocked drainage paths, this was subject to an AD which increased the number and diameter of drain holes, operators also included a 10 second draining period in the "full and free movement" part of the before takeoff checklist.

Space:

I was in one of those tankers, it is nice to be appreciated :)

Teddy:

All the L188 tankers had to have the tail cone sealed to prevent the tail filling up with retardent and screwing up the elevator and rudder control booster packs. Every Tanker comes back with the whole belly smeared with residual retardent right to the back. Since the 146 will almost always be bombing with the spoilers out so keeping the inside of the spoilers from getting gummed up will be a challenge for all the conversions.

Flapoot
You may possibly be right about the big pistons but but your comments on the aging airframes is a bit incorrect.The Neptunes are about the same age as the CV580 and L188 airframes with probably a lot less hours. The Orions (are they still in use) would also have a lot of hours up, way more than the Neptunes that they replaced.

The L188s and CV580 seem to be doing a good job so it appears that the safety problems (if there is any) may be engines not airframes.

It would be interesting to find out what happened to the Japanese produced propjet Neptunes?

Ultimately anything to do with fighting firesd is risky evn onthe ground so there is no perfect aircraft evn a new purpose built one.

Thanks for all the hard work, Big Pistons Forever, sadly it looks like the fire got our house this afternoon.

The ridge line was attacked all day long with C-130s, CV580s and CH-54s. That 65 mph downburst sealed our fate though. In the end, it's all just stuff.

Space - sorry to hear about your loss. I flew in and out of DEN today. On the way in the Larks arrival was shut down so we went PUB BRK FQF from center and COS approach. We were over COS at 14000 and we saw the fires west of COS from under the plume. On the way out of DEN on the Pikes departure we saw the backside of that fire and the ones up north. A lot of smoke out there.

Sorry to hear about your house. All I can offer is everyone tried their hardest but some days Mother Nature can't be beat.......

I flew the BAE146 (smileliner) for a bit. I don't know where the retardent would come out from, but I wonder if the landing gear, being body mounted, might suffer? does the retardent come out the tail, or the belly?

I know one place here in Nevada was looking at the BAE146 for fire bombing...but that was over five years ago and they didn't follow through.

After a little googling, some more info on the 146 firetanker conversion can be found here and here. Looks like the retardant is dropped just aft of the main gear.

so, the 146 would make a fine fire bomber. I imagine they are more expensive to obtain than are old straight wing prop planes.


I think DC9s would make a nice fire bomber too...using the ventral stair area as the ''bomb bay'' for the fire retardant and the whole fuselage for the tank.


The 146 can takeoff and land on very short fields and can even three engine ferry if one of the engines is damaged.

anyone who flys them know they land nice...except in crosswinds...little different but manageable

The BAe146 lands very nicely in a crosswind. I have managed just fine in 35 knots across on more occasions than I care to remember. Mind you, I only flew the aeroplane for 19 years so what do I know.

"say no more!"--:ok: