Firefighting Planes

[eddie]

So, as per usual, my "backyard" (SOCAL) is burning...

Thought I saw a news clip of crop-duster Pawnee being used to drop retardant a day or three ago. I thought these were all State and Forest Service assets of one kind or another. So is that just some kind of "good deal" for a local crop-duster, or is there more to it than that.

 

[Stearmann4]

Eddie,

yes, the planes are "crop dusters," (usually Air Tractor 802s), but configured for fire drops. They're called "SEATS", (Single Engine Air Tankers). Mostly used for an initial attack to keep a fire at bay until bigger equipment can get on station, but also good for confined areas where a C-130 or P-2V may not be able to get into.

As of a few years ago, the SEATs saw limited use, but now that so many large, contract tankers have been grounded, their use has exploded (so to speak).

MR-

 

[CAMike]

Great effort by all the FF crews this week. I hope they get the upper hand on the fires soon. I live south of Yosemite and the FF crews are still trying to get a hold of the "control burn" the USGov started a few days ago by accident of course. (100 degree day with strong winds).

I saw the video of the DC-10 dropping retardant yesterday as well. That's a big A/C and lots more payload than the S-2's. Glad to see that DC-10 crew is doing ok after the tree trimming incident two years ago. I wish them the best of luck. The Santa Ana winds haven't even started up in So Cal yet this year, could be a long dry fall.

Here's the link to both:
DC-10 Air Drop:

and the Tree Trimming Link: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070627/news_1n27plane.html

 

[scoolbubba]

The 747 was used on the CA fires for the first time. Good video, too!

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/evergreen_aviations_747_supert.html

 

[Brett327]

The 747 was used on the CA fires for the first time. Good video, too!

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/evergreen_aviations_747_supert.html

Bunch of morons commenting on that site - hilarious.

Brett

 

[whitesoxnation]

Bunch of morons commenting on that site - hilarious.

Brett

lol

It would be money well spent. I applaud evergreen as always they put safety first and always have been a top notch government contractor. I am just saying that my time in a PB4y2 flying out of BIFC really gave me a graphic understanding of the dynamics of a tanker, and as innovators Americans can do better then retrofitting a plane to fly at a very dangerous speed and still having limited effectiveness. Do you think for a second if this airplane was that effective they would be flying around the world trying to sell it? Anything over 200knots is futile and you can bet with the updrafts at full flaps the pilot is puckering and it is still flying to fast. Walk across the highway and look at the Spruce Goose, now that would be a hell of a tanker!

 

[scoolbubba]

Someone claiming that a 747 isn't viable, and in the same post saying we should use the spruce goose...a plane that flew once to all of what, 50 feet off the water? brilliant.

 

[Flugelman]

Someone claiming that a 747 isn't viable, and in the same post saying we should use the spruce goose...a plane that flew once to all of what, 50 feet off the water? brilliant.

I sorta suspect that the last sentence was kind of "Tongue in Cheek"...

 

[SteveG75]

Well, the Mars Hawaii has been working the San Bernardino fire. Seems the BC gov't is not interested in hiring them this year so they are working down in CA.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/100milefreepress/news/56672767.html

 

[PropAddict]

The Mars Hawaii

Forget P-8. Let's build a bunch of those.
Just think of how many buoys that baby could hold. . .
And ditching would move to the "Normal Procedures" chapter.:icon_tong

 

[eddie]

Forget P-8. Let's build a bunch of those.
Just think of how many buoys that baby could hold. . .
And ditching would move to the "Normal Procedures" chapter.:icon_tong

Other than certain aerodynamic considerations (guess?), is there a reason Navy Patrol moved away from floatplanes and flying boats? Could there ever be a place for them again, in a world awash with funding?

 

[Brett327]

Other than certain aerodynamic considerations (guess?), is there a reason Navy Patrol moved away from floatplanes and flying boats? Could there ever be a place for them again, in a world awash with funding?

In which bizarro parallel universe does that world exist? They're not terribly efficient and I can't imagine a tactical reason to justify having something like that around. Interesting side note - I wonder if there are any turbine powered float planes.

Brett

 

[Flugelman]

In which bizarro parallel universe does that world exist? They're not terribly efficient and I can't imagine a tactical reason to justify having something like that around. Interesting side note - I wonder if there are any turbine powered float planes.

Brett

The Japanese have this one.

 

[Brett327]

The Japanese have this one.

Yeah, Iv'e seen that abomination flying around Iwakuni. I meant jets though, as opposed to turboprops.

Brett

 

[Flugelman]

The Russians are trying to market this one.