Boeing 747 ...water bomber

[Bass ackwards]

I noticed this in a video in the Edmonton Sun on line. The province of Alberta is considering putting these behemoths to use.

It is, in fact, a 747 configured to act as an aerial firefighting tanker. It has the capacity to carry 20,000 gallons of firefighting agent (compared to 1,350 for a CL-415).

Here's a link to the company that operates them (actually, I think they only have one in service at this point).
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.html

Different...
(now if they can only figure out how to skim along the surface of a lake with one!)

 

[George Wallace]

Isn't Evergreen a "Front Company"?  >

Like our Kiowas, I don't think this technology in this form will enter the "Export" markets.

 

[aesop081]

Meh....

Its already been done for several years with a DC-10

the 747 is bigger but, so what ?

 

[CBH99]

A few things about that article...

*ahem*...it made its debut here at the LETHBRIDGE Air Show, not in Edmonton!!  Stop trying to steal out thunder Edmonton!!

Also, the province has made it very clear they are not interested in purchasing something like this.

 

[Bass ackwards]

Meh....

Its already been done for several years with a DC-10

the 747 is bigger but, so what ?

I didn't know that about the DC-10's.
If it has been done for several years then I would assume they are effective in that role ?
This just struck me as something unusual that I thought might be of passing interest to pilots, firefighters or aviation and/or firefighting buffs.

EDIT: Sorry CBH - wasn't trying to jump-start the Alberta civil war 
(if it's any consolation, I'm in Manitoba...so whaddaya expect...?)

 

[aesop081]

I didn't know that about the DC-10's.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

EDIT: Sorry CBH - wasn't trying to jump-start the Alberta civil war 
(if it's any consolation, I'm in Manitoba...so whaddaya expect...?)

I'm game.  Once they put out the one tree in Lethbridge, what do they do with the other 19,999 gallons?

 

[CougarKing]

Isn't Evergreen a "Front Company"?  >

Like our Kiowas, I don't think this technology in this form will enter the "Export" markets.

On a totally unrelated tangent, it looks like this Evergreen "front company" shares the same name with one of Taiwan's largest conglomerates.  :blotto:

Evergreen Group

 

[Larkvall]

Isn't Evergreen a "Front Company"?  >

A "Front Company'? You mean for the CIA?

 

[Spanky]

A "Front Company'? You mean for the CIA?

Are you sure it's just water coming out of that thing?  I think I'll be carrying an umbrella as well as my tinfoil hat.
But seriously, with the required runway length and the time taken to load 20,000 gallons, what kind of a turn-around time would be required?

 

[aesop081]

But seriously, with the required runway length and the time taken to load 20,000 gallons, what kind of a turn-around time would be required?

That quantity of water/retardant is a great initial attack. It can then be followed up by the smaller tankers if required.

 

[dapaterson]

On a totally unrelated tangent, it looks like this Evergreen "front company" shares the same name with one of Taiwan's largest conglomerates.  :blotto:

Evergreen Group

In a stop-over at Taipei international airport, I saw one of their passenger airliners - in Hello Kitty paint.  A somewhat unusual sight when you're jetlagged and not quite sure what time zone you're in...

 

[a_majoor]

I believe the Il-76 is also offered as a water bomber to interested parties. Jet transports can carry large loads, but I would be a bit worried about flying low and slow in a heavy and dealing with the turbulance of a fire and the sudden trim changes dumping 10's of thousands of litres of water would bring...pretty hairy flying.

 

[aesop081]

but I would be a bit worried about flying low and slow in a heavy and dealing with the turbulance of a fire and the sudden trim changes dumping 10's of thousands of litres of water would bring...pretty hairy flying.

Any low flying gets hairy. I'm sure the folks who will fly that beast know what is involved. Like i said before, its been done with a DC-10.........

 

[George Wallace]

I......, but I would be a bit worried about flying low and slow in a heavy and dealing with the turbulance of a fire and the sudden trim changes dumping 10's of thousands of litres of water would bring...pretty hairy flying.

The article states that it is designed "to be fought from higher, safer altitudes."

 

[Bass ackwards]

I read an article on the DC-10 last night that mentioned that it clipped some trees a few years back.
(is there a meter that measures pucker factor, like "6.2 on the rectum scale" or something...?)

But as George pointed out, the 747 is designed to operate at higher altitudes. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It would be good for remote fires where it's long turnaround time would be mitigated. I would be worried that the wing roots would not be designed for the stress involved in low mountain flying dumping ton's of water, followed by steep turns and climbs.

Personally I like listening the the roar of large radials of the Trackers and Mars flying over my house.

Slightly off topic
Did anyone see the vid of the waterbomber crash?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=669_Mu_zBAE

and frankly I would rather they built a modern version of the Mars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkfHCRChve8&feature=related

 

[Blackadder1916]

The article states that it is designed "to be fought from higher, safer altitudes."

The ""higher altitudes" would seem to be relative.

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/faq.html

How can a plane the size of a Boeing 747 fly low enough to be an effective firefighting tool?
Current firefighting aircraft use a gravity drop system. Quite simply, this means they have tanks with doors that open and discharge the aircraft’s contents. This type of system requires an aircraft to fly very low, around 200 ft. It is very dangerous work; especially since the majority of air tankers used in the U.S. are vintage World War II era aircraft designed for high altitude bombing missions.

Evergreen’s Supertanker utilizes a new type of pressurized system allowing the aircraft to fight fire from higher altitudes. . . . The system was designed to allow the Evergreen Supertanker to fly at a very safe altitude, 300 to 600 ft, and within its design envelope. Also, the Evergreen Supertanker’s tank system allows segmented drops. This means that the aircraft can drop its 20,500 gallons at multiple intervals while in flight.

 

[aesop081]

Well, i can say that i always feel happier/safer at 300 feet as oposed to the 100 feet i often find myself at.

 

[SupersonicMax]

300' is not as low as you may think.  Lots of time to do everything that needs to be done, most of the time.