747 Firefighting Airtanker
Thread Starter
747 Firefighting Airtanker
Original KATU story
Industry comments
June 17, 2003
Fire season sparks debate over fire fighting air force
Last year's deadly crashes put the forest service at a crossroads.
After a series of investigative reports by KATU and findings from a panel ordered by congress that revealed serious maintenance issues with the fire fighting air force, the agency grounded 11 planes reducing it's fleet by a quarter.
Among the planes sitting as fire season begins are aging C-130's and PB4Y's - they were planes so old that contractors had trouble replacing parts.
"Certainly if we get into a season like last year we're going to be stretched," said Jon Rollens from the U.S. Forest Service.
To compensate, officials are trying to find newer airplanes for its fire fighting air force.
Among the strong contenders in the short run might be single engine planes from a Texas company that said it could supply dozens of the smaller fire retardant planes. These small aircraft are similar to crop dusters.
The forest service is also pressing more helicopters into service and said it may use around 400 as the fleet is forced to expand.
But for the long-term officials are looking toward a larger solution.
Cargo giant Evergreen of McMinnville is planning to test the biggest aerial retardant plane ever conceived this summer.
"Really it was a vision that Mr. Smith had," said Penn Stohr of Evergreen Aviation.
Officials said company CEO Del Smith wanted to fit aerial retardant tanks into a 747.
"We've been working on this a year, it's really going to be exciting," said Stohr.
The exciting part will be when they test it sometime this summer in Arizona.
"There are naysayers that say that a big plane with a gigantic wing span has some limitations and indeed it does," said Stohr. "But my background experience is acceptable for this type of an airplane. The biscuit fire for example last year - that type of terrain is acceptable to this airplane."
Evergreen officials said that a 747 fitted with tanks that will carry some 24,000 gallons can drop a line of fire retardant 5 miles long, which is eight times longer than the largest fire fighting aircraft in operation.
At least one other company is working on plans to use jets to get to fires faster and drop more retardant than the aircraft currently in use.
Industry comments
June 17, 2003
Fire season sparks debate over fire fighting air force
Last year's deadly crashes put the forest service at a crossroads.
After a series of investigative reports by KATU and findings from a panel ordered by congress that revealed serious maintenance issues with the fire fighting air force, the agency grounded 11 planes reducing it's fleet by a quarter.
Among the planes sitting as fire season begins are aging C-130's and PB4Y's - they were planes so old that contractors had trouble replacing parts.
"Certainly if we get into a season like last year we're going to be stretched," said Jon Rollens from the U.S. Forest Service.
To compensate, officials are trying to find newer airplanes for its fire fighting air force.
Among the strong contenders in the short run might be single engine planes from a Texas company that said it could supply dozens of the smaller fire retardant planes. These small aircraft are similar to crop dusters.
The forest service is also pressing more helicopters into service and said it may use around 400 as the fleet is forced to expand.
But for the long-term officials are looking toward a larger solution.
Cargo giant Evergreen of McMinnville is planning to test the biggest aerial retardant plane ever conceived this summer.
"Really it was a vision that Mr. Smith had," said Penn Stohr of Evergreen Aviation.
Officials said company CEO Del Smith wanted to fit aerial retardant tanks into a 747.
"We've been working on this a year, it's really going to be exciting," said Stohr.
The exciting part will be when they test it sometime this summer in Arizona.
"There are naysayers that say that a big plane with a gigantic wing span has some limitations and indeed it does," said Stohr. "But my background experience is acceptable for this type of an airplane. The biscuit fire for example last year - that type of terrain is acceptable to this airplane."
Evergreen officials said that a 747 fitted with tanks that will carry some 24,000 gallons can drop a line of fire retardant 5 miles long, which is eight times longer than the largest fire fighting aircraft in operation.
At least one other company is working on plans to use jets to get to fires faster and drop more retardant than the aircraft currently in use.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to the Beriev Be-200 project? I read an article about it some time ago and it seems an efficient fire-fighting plane to me. It's able to pick-up and drop 12 tons of water/retardent.
Couldn't this be (part of) a solution for the American forest fires? Or doesn't the USA want to buy Russian technology? Prefering to invent it all themselves? Re-inventing the wheel, so to say.
Couldn't this be (part of) a solution for the American forest fires? Or doesn't the USA want to buy Russian technology? Prefering to invent it all themselves? Re-inventing the wheel, so to say.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: "THAT" place??!!
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conair Aviation(who do these sort of conversions on various aircraft types) from British Columbia, Canada, were working on plans a few years back to convert a 737 to a fire-wagon. The idea was to convert an airframe that could be used to deploy to the fire-site quickly, using an airframe that was (somewhat) cheap and readily available.
Plans were dropped for reasons unbenownst to me but they were close to cutting metal back then, I'm told.
It's workable. It would be neat to see, of course, but the main point is if it saves lives and property, then all the effort will be worth it.
If anyone can do it, Evergreen certainly can. Best of luck.
~R.D.
Plans were dropped for reasons unbenownst to me but they were close to cutting metal back then, I'm told.
It's workable. It would be neat to see, of course, but the main point is if it saves lives and property, then all the effort will be worth it.
If anyone can do it, Evergreen certainly can. Best of luck.
~R.D.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's already available on the Ilyushin 76 (hope this works!)....
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/229621/M/
but what really intrigued me was the recent news that BAE are considering a water bomber version of the 146!!!
Can you imagine those feeble wings standing up to it?!?!?!
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/229621/M/
but what really intrigued me was the recent news that BAE are considering a water bomber version of the 146!!!
Can you imagine those feeble wings standing up to it?!?!?!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 737 coversion, the Be-200 and the Il-76 'projects' have all been discussed (although I'm not sure that's the right word - you think PPRuNers are rude 
) on the Tanker Pilots' board. Unfortunately they don't archive posts, but from memory the 737 had insurmountable structural limitations - centre wing box IIRC. As to the Russians, it'll never happen IMO. Neither type is currently certified in the US (but most of the US tankers aren't either), but that's a small impediment compared to overcoming the NIH syndrome of the US authorities, various fire agencies and most of all the above-mentioned pilots. Most of them think jets are the devil's work, air tankers must have round engines - preferrably incendiary Wrights 
The sheer testosterone factor of the prospect of a 747 dropping mud from 100ft might be convincing enough to get one done. Long-term solution ? Doubtful.
) on the Tanker Pilots' board. Unfortunately they don't archive posts, but from memory the 737 had insurmountable structural limitations - centre wing box IIRC. As to the Russians, it'll never happen IMO. Neither type is currently certified in the US (but most of the US tankers aren't either), but that's a small impediment compared to overcoming the NIH syndrome of the US authorities, various fire agencies and most of all the above-mentioned pilots. Most of them think jets are the devil's work, air tankers must have round engines - preferrably incendiary Wrights The sheer testosterone factor of the prospect of a 747 dropping mud from 100ft might be convincing enough to get one done. Long-term solution ? Doubtful.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IL76 approach looks especially interesting. I would think that discharging the fire suppressant over the open rear ramp would involve far fewer modifications to the airframe than would conversion of a commercial aircraft. I'd be interested to know whether this system can be palletized or if it has to be bolted/welded/glued/wedged into the airframe. Thoughts?
There is further information on the IL76 water bomber configuration at http://www.eastwest-agency.de/fire.htm
AeroLLoyd has a press release posted (see: http://www.aerolloyd.com/firefighting.htm ) announcing they'd entered into a contract for North American use of an IL76 water bomber, but the release is dated June 1999. I've no idea whether anything ever came of this deal, but I'd be interested to learn more... Sadly, one might argue that policies is as big a threat to firefighting aircrews as the mission is. There are a number of younger, more appropriate airframe types that might be used in US firefighting if only they could break into the market. However, US government contracts, by their nature, tend not to encourage use of, for instance, a shiny new Bombardier 415 (CL415) over an aged DC4 (yes, yes, of course the DC4 can carry something like 70% more "water" then the CL415, but I'm thinking more in terms of airframes that don't have many good hours left in them)...
I've heard of US Federal Emergency Management Agency officials saying things like "we're not going to have any Russians or Russian airplanes coming here to fight this fire," but I'd argue that it has less to do with the specific post-Soviet lineage of aircraft or driver and more to do with the fact that the folks they are rejecting are simply not US companies. If I'm reading the data correctly, something like 653,000 acres have burned in the US already this year. Seems to me that we might consider putting aside at least a portion of our preference for US companies in the interest of doing a more efficient job. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Dave
There is further information on the IL76 water bomber configuration at http://www.eastwest-agency.de/fire.htm
What happened to the Beriev Be-200 project? ... Couldn't this be (part of) a solution for the American forest fires? Or doesn't the USA want to buy Russian technology?
I've heard of US Federal Emergency Management Agency officials saying things like "we're not going to have any Russians or Russian airplanes coming here to fight this fire," but I'd argue that it has less to do with the specific post-Soviet lineage of aircraft or driver and more to do with the fact that the folks they are rejecting are simply not US companies. If I'm reading the data correctly, something like 653,000 acres have burned in the US already this year. Seems to me that we might consider putting aside at least a portion of our preference for US companies in the interest of doing a more efficient job. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles,CA,USA
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'other airline company' desiring to fly fire-fighting jets is Omni Air International, using a DC-10-10. Their pilots won't fly it, but US Forestry Service pilots will. It will hold almost 180,000 lbs of fire retardant.
This, like the 747, would only be used/needed for the biggest brush fires. I think it would help, given that PB4Ys, P2Vs and C130As are getting REAL old.
This, like the 747, would only be used/needed for the biggest brush fires. I think it would help, given that PB4Ys, P2Vs and C130As are getting REAL old.
Thread Starter
I agree with your opinion of the feasibility of this project and the other options that have been proposed in the recent past.
However, I don't think I understand the reference to US Airtankers not being certified in the US, as I am unaware of a single airtanker that is not certified. I'm not talking about public use (which they all ultimately are) state or federal agency operated aircraft, but commercially operated tankers.
There is certainly a line of thinking regarding big round motors, but the C-130's were getting pretty popular prior to their demise last year. The P-3's are still out there though. I think much of the use of the big old round motored aircraft is economic, but also tough airframes designed for efficient operation at lower altitudes.
It must be said however, that there is nothing more spectacular than watching the round motor tankers providing an impromptu airshow on a fire. KC-97, PB4Y, DC-6 and DC-7, real sounds from the past.
However, I don't think I understand the reference to US Airtankers not being certified in the US, as I am unaware of a single airtanker that is not certified. I'm not talking about public use (which they all ultimately are) state or federal agency operated aircraft, but commercially operated tankers.
There is certainly a line of thinking regarding big round motors, but the C-130's were getting pretty popular prior to their demise last year. The P-3's are still out there though. I think much of the use of the big old round motored aircraft is economic, but also tough airframes designed for efficient operation at lower altitudes.
It must be said however, that there is nothing more spectacular than watching the round motor tankers providing an impromptu airshow on a fire. KC-97, PB4Y, DC-6 and DC-7, real sounds from the past.
PPRuNe Engineering Dept Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Deep in the boglands of Western Ireland
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I'd like to know is why can't they make an "anti-fire bomb" that could be dropped from a conventional warjet? No aircraft conversions, just drop them using the same avionics as they do for "dumb" bombs. All those AF Reserve B-52s could be put to good use, "carpet bombing" a large area. Hell, you could even bring in FJs for rapid response (F-18s with Multiple Ejector Racks apparently carry more bombs than B-17s did).
D'ya think I'm talking crazy?
D'ya think I'm talking crazy?
One of the major advantages of the flying boats is that a structure strong enough to take water landings generally stands up in the fire fighting role.
I don't see how a jet airliner structure built for high level cruise converted to a low level dive bomber is going to hold on to its wings for an extended period.
So that leaves you with Canadairs or Shin Meiwas. The era of water bombing on the cheap is rapidly coming to a close just as global warming is making things hot in the American South West.
I don't see how a jet airliner structure built for high level cruise converted to a low level dive bomber is going to hold on to its wings for an extended period.
So that leaves you with Canadairs or Shin Meiwas. The era of water bombing on the cheap is rapidly coming to a close just as global warming is making things hot in the American South West.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: US
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I'd like to know is why can't they make an "anti-fire bomb" that could be dropped from a conventional warjet?
So you're stuck either using a bomber, and putting the water in the bomb bay (but here too, capacity is not as great as you might think: modern bombers rely on high explosives and precision for their punch, not on sheer volume of explosives) or on transport planes, which by definition have high internal volume available to haul things around.
So while it's fun to think of an F-18 divebombing a fire, it's simply not a practical solution to the problem.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyclic, I meant that most tankers operate on a Restricted CofA, no Type Cert. ever having been issued/sought (just like warbirds). The ex-airliners excepted of course, and a quick check of the FAA register shows that some of those are indeed licensed in the standard category !
Should a Russian tanker ever be used in the US, it might be able to avoid FAA registry (the Canadian tankers do), but could surely get a restricted registration if not. Still don't see it happening though.
Should a Russian tanker ever be used in the US, it might be able to avoid FAA registry (the Canadian tankers do), but could surely get a restricted registration if not. Still don't see it happening though.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Couldn't this be (part of) a solution for the American forest fires? Or doesn't the USA want to buy Russian technology? Prefering to invent it all themselves? Re-inventing the wheel, so to say."
You guys crack me up.
It comes down to a cash issue: How can we get the most water on the fire for the least amount of money. Canadair's CL44 costs about the same as several WWII firefighters. We may yet have to pay the price though as WWII aircraft disappear.
RatherBeFlying nearly hit it on the nailhead with "So that leaves you with Canadairs or Shin Meiwas. The era of water bombing on the cheap is rapidly coming to a close just as global warming is making things hot in the American South West."
The root of the fire problem is in the political power wielded by the "tree huggers" in this country who took issue with the way the forests were managed. Low-intensity fires used to routinely roll through North American forests and served to clean out lower brush without affecting the larger trees. Fire was a natural event. Fire, in fact low-temperature fire like that of a natural burn actually triggers the pinecones to pop their seeds loose continuing the growth cycle.
Since the "tree huggers" got everyone out of the forests, including the thinning crews, the forest (a forest protected from fire by firefighting crews) has grown increasingly thick with underbrush --the very type which fuels massive wildfires unlike the natural "clearing burns" that man and nature used to undertake.
As a resident of Arizona who has watched many acres of this state go up in flames, I support recent moves to return to a practice of thinning the forests for their sake -and ours.
I work with many former firefighter pilots and they are a brave and hearty bunch of men and women. One young lady building time hit a hard thermal on a run-in and her Captain broke off the pass and dumped their load. When they returned to base they found the turbulence had broken the trailing spar in half on one wing. Had it not been a bomber designed to lose a spar to flack and still get home, she'd have been lost that day. (It was the Navy's B-24, the Privateer)
The 747 certainly wasn't designed to take the beating a firetanker sees on a low pass across a hot ridgeline. But, neither was the B-52 and that has become a large part of its mission since the middle of the 1970's. Despite its vaunted reputation, the Buff is a fragile bird. With careful maintenance and frequent inspections, it has soldiered on admirably. The same may hold true for the 747. It's capacity may offset the need to get right on top of the fire --and into the turbulence. If it can be shown to be economical, it will revolutionize aerial water delivery. I am told that as your distance from a usable lake water source increases, the benefits of a seaplane water delivery system diminish to the point where land-based equipment such as the P-3 with its larger capacity can be just as effective.
PT
You guys crack me up.
It comes down to a cash issue: How can we get the most water on the fire for the least amount of money. Canadair's CL44 costs about the same as several WWII firefighters. We may yet have to pay the price though as WWII aircraft disappear.
RatherBeFlying nearly hit it on the nailhead with "So that leaves you with Canadairs or Shin Meiwas. The era of water bombing on the cheap is rapidly coming to a close just as global warming is making things hot in the American South West."
The root of the fire problem is in the political power wielded by the "tree huggers" in this country who took issue with the way the forests were managed. Low-intensity fires used to routinely roll through North American forests and served to clean out lower brush without affecting the larger trees. Fire was a natural event. Fire, in fact low-temperature fire like that of a natural burn actually triggers the pinecones to pop their seeds loose continuing the growth cycle.
Since the "tree huggers" got everyone out of the forests, including the thinning crews, the forest (a forest protected from fire by firefighting crews) has grown increasingly thick with underbrush --the very type which fuels massive wildfires unlike the natural "clearing burns" that man and nature used to undertake.
As a resident of Arizona who has watched many acres of this state go up in flames, I support recent moves to return to a practice of thinning the forests for their sake -and ours.
I work with many former firefighter pilots and they are a brave and hearty bunch of men and women. One young lady building time hit a hard thermal on a run-in and her Captain broke off the pass and dumped their load. When they returned to base they found the turbulence had broken the trailing spar in half on one wing. Had it not been a bomber designed to lose a spar to flack and still get home, she'd have been lost that day. (It was the Navy's B-24, the Privateer)
The 747 certainly wasn't designed to take the beating a firetanker sees on a low pass across a hot ridgeline. But, neither was the B-52 and that has become a large part of its mission since the middle of the 1970's. Despite its vaunted reputation, the Buff is a fragile bird. With careful maintenance and frequent inspections, it has soldiered on admirably. The same may hold true for the 747. It's capacity may offset the need to get right on top of the fire --and into the turbulence. If it can be shown to be economical, it will revolutionize aerial water delivery. I am told that as your distance from a usable lake water source increases, the benefits of a seaplane water delivery system diminish to the point where land-based equipment such as the P-3 with its larger capacity can be just as effective.
PT
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with (and have heard the same thing) your point about proximity to usable lake water. Seems the CL-415's are really effective in Canada as there is an abundance of lakes. In the American Southwest that is just not an option, partly the reason why the forest service hasn't bought any of those aircraft. The 747 however hardly seems like a viable solution given turnaround times, access to that volume of water, available runways etc.
Like filling a swimming pool with a garden hose, how long would it actually take to fill a 747 with 100,000 tons of water? A day? Two?
Like filling a swimming pool with a garden hose, how long would it actually take to fill a 747 with 100,000 tons of water? A day? Two?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Shoreline
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would choppers be more useful in areas without near access to lakes (or large bodies of water). I think Skycranes or those gigantic Mils could carry enough retardant to make a sizable reduction in the size of a wildfire. I don't really know anything about the aerodynamics of such vehicles but are they more stable in riding out thermals and the like which would be present in such wildfires?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.