Fire Bombers

[jinxx1]

A pleasant surprise yesterday was this P-2 (145906) that showed up in the morning. Of course this is the desert and it is the middle of winter. Is he lost?!

[Impatient Pete]

Caught my wife and me by surprise while out for a walk in her village in Spain. Not good quality at all, but it's a still from video.

Pete

[slick95]

Here are some of the airforce water bomber C-130 at EAA Airventure last year. They did a water drop, but I video taped it rather than take a still:

SLICK

[jinxx1]

Here are some of the airforce water bomber C-130 at EAA Airventure last year. They did a water drop, but I video taped it rather than take a still:

SLICK

That is a neat 130. It was at the Amigo Airshow in 2006 still carrying the Dayglo numbers.

[HOLMES]

]

A Martin Mars water drop. The stats on these bombers are mind boggeling!

A couple of head on water drops. First one is a Canadair CL-415 and the next is a PBY-5A Catalina.

Here's a Beech C90 King Air leading a DC-6B in to a water drop.

Here is a Douglas DC-6B Cloudmaster at the Abbottsford air show in 1993.

I love these shots ...WOW !!!

Thank you guys for posting these and the other photos too..

HOLMES

[Midway Sailor]

B-17 N9563Z

Rohnerville Airport, Fortuna, CA

September 04, 1984

And now....

Restored as B-17G "Fuddy Duddy"

Anoka County Airport, Blaine, MN

July 2005

[Tailspin Turtle]

I'm in the right seat of the Conair Turbo Firecat just like I was a few years earlier in a U.S. Navy S2F-1...

My mother wasn't in the left seat of the Firecat, though, and I got to fly it.

[HOLMES]

Nice additional photos..

thank you

HOLMES

[GreyGhost]

Really nice photos, Troy and TT !

Thanks for sharing them ...

Gregg

[HOLMES]

Guys

How many gallons does the DC-6B CLOUDMASTER and the rest of the Fire Bombers are capable of carrying.....

[B-17fan]

Alamogordo, New Mexico airport early '70s.

[HOLMES]

B-17 Fan

WICKED photo..

[Aaronw]

Guys

How many gallons does the DC-6B CLOUDMASTER and the rest of the Fire Bombers are capable of carrying.....

It varies a bit, the single engine Ag planes (Thrush, AG cat etc) carry 400-800 gallons. The S-2 Trackers carried 800 gallons, and the turbine conversions can fly with 1200, but only land with 800. I believe the Canadair "super scoopers" also carry around 1200 (I don't see these much).

The larger aircraft generally carry 2000-3000 gallons.

There have been a few larger than 3000 but rare, I think the C-97 that flew out of Alaska was 4000-5000 gallons, the Martin Mars is around 7000, the DC10 is 12,000 and the 747 is around 25,000 gallons.

[Aaronw]

Tanker 910

DC10

Moonlight fire, Plumas National Forest 2007

Canadair CL415

North fire, Santa Clarita, CA 2007

Tanker 09

P2V-7 Neptune

Zaca 2 fire, Los Padres National Forest 2007

Edited November 26, 2010 by Aaronw

[Aaronw]

SEAT (Single Engine Air Tanker)

Willows Airport, Willows, CA 2005

SEAT

North fire, Santa Clarita, CA 2007

Tanker 20

P3 Orion

North Fire, Santa Clarita, CA 2007

[HOLMES]

Aaronw,

thank you for the answer ...and those are REALLY SUPER additional photos too..

MY next curious question is that when they do use that water at some incident , are they able to control the amount of water that they release or

once the doors/undercarraige is opens to let it go, they cannot stop it or control the amount they want to use on that particular place..

Sometimes you see a small fire and wonder if they USE ALL of the water held or do they use a tiny fraction of it to douse it and return with the rest still left inside the Fire Bombers...What I mean is, is there a mechanism that allows them to control the amount of water being relased...

Thank you in advance

HOLMES...

edit:spelling.

Edited November 26, 2010 by HOLMES

[Aaronw]

The older tankers had a door system (basically multiple tanks, although some had one tank and the multiple doors allowed retardant to empty faster) anywhere from 1 to 16 doors depending on volume of retardant and tank builder (most had 4-8 doors). These doors could be opened all together (salvo drop), timed to open one after another adjusted for speed to provide a long continuous drop (trail drop), a split drop set up to drop 1/2 the load either as a salvo or trail drop or individual doors to make many small drops. The most common use with the larger planes was split trail drops, allowing two passes with longer drops, the smaller planes usually made a single trail drop.

In general aircraft had a door for every 250-500 gallons, but this was not a hard rule, as one example I know some of the B-17s only had 2 doors with a 2000 gallon tank.

In the 1990s Aero Union developed the constant flow tank that has become the industry standard. This is one full capacity tank with a computer controlled door, that regulates the flow. It can dribble out a small amount to fully open emptying the whole tank in a few seconds (I believe 50-500 gallons per second).

Here is a document showing the basic operation of the constant flow tank.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/pubs/pdfpubs/user_gd/ug-03.pdf

A third system was also built by Aero Union for Military C-130s, this is the MAFFS (Modular Aerial Fire Fighting System). This is a 3000 gallon tank loaded into a standard C-130, the retardant is discharged out the cargo door through two nozzles.

I wasn't home when I posted my earlier comment, this is what I have for airtanker specs.

Stearman PT-17, 100-200 gallons

N3N, 100-200 gallons

C-45 / AT-11 Twin Beech, 300 gallons

AG Cat, 300 gallons

Turbo Thrush, 350 gallons

TBM Avenger, 400-600 gallons

F7F Tigercat, 400-800 gallons

Air Tractor 802, 800 gallons

S-2 Tracker, 800 gallons

B-25, 925 gallons

AF-2 Guardian, 1000 gallons

PV-2 Harpoon, 1000 gallons

B-26 (A-26 Invader), 1200 gallons

S-2T "turbo tracker", 1200 gallons

PBY-6, 1250 gallons

CL-215, 1400 gallons

CL-415, 1600 gallons

B-17, 1800-2000 gallons

AJ-1 Savage, 2000 gallons

PB4Y2 Privateer, 2000 gallons

DC4, 2000 gallons

C-119, 2000 gallons

P2 Neptune, 2000-2700 gallons

DC6, 2300-3000 gallons

DC7, 2800-3400 gallons

C-130, 3000 gallons

P-3 Orion, 3000 gallons

C-97, 4500 gallons

Martin Mars, 7200 gallons

IL-76, 11,000 gallons

DC-10, 12,000 gallons

747, 20,500 gallons

As of 2002 only the AG Cat, Turbo Thrush, AT-802, CL-215, CL-415, S-2T, P-2, P-3, and DC-10 are certified for air tanker use in the US. The 747 was going through certification and I believe was finally approved in 2010, although I am not aware of it actually getting used on a fire yet.

[HOLMES]

Aaronw..

Thank you for your most comrehensive factual answer.This is great.

I thank you for the link too, that is useful too, and interesting read.

I would think that the the greater the airtanker can hold and is able to use would be most used.

THANK YOU

[Aaronw]

It is a balance betwen capacity and manuverability. In my opinion the P-3 Orion is the best tanker flown to date, closely followed by the C-130 (if the military would free up some later models, the A has been permanently grounded). Both of these had good capacity and loads of excess power so they were fast and could get in and out of narrow canyons. From what I've seen of the DC-10 the "super tankers" just can't get into the tight areas they are needed. Good for ridge lines and open fields, but pretty worthless in the mountains. I've watched P-3s get into places the old S-2s struggled with. The S-2Ts are not bad, but don't get through the forest canopy as well as the large tankers. The sub chasers have traditionally been quite successful, they were intended to get on station in a hurry, then throttle back for hours of patrolling so they usually have lots of power giving a good safety margin as well as high speed.

I've recently started to appreciate the AG planes, early on they were pretty worthless basically spitting on the fire, but in recent years they have started to fly them in groups of 2-3 which gives them a total retardant load equal to a heavy tanker while also providing very good manueverability and flexibility. They also have the ability to get in very low and slow. If the first pilot is on target the next can extend or reinforce the line as needed, if #1 missed, #2 can adjust and get on target, #3 follows #2 and can do the same. They also have the benefit of being able to use any airport or even a section of road as their base, unlike the larger aircraft which can be very useful in more remote areas.

[HOLMES]

Aaronw

It is a fascinating subject and impressive the way these guys work..

I should have thought manuverability would be upper most in mind when they

deploy certain Bombers........SIZE in this case does not matetr ...

In the montainous regions of California the largers Bombers would have a hard time getting

in and out of places where as , as you say, the smaller are far more niftier than

their largers more cumbersome sisters...

Appreciate your hepful answers Aaronw..

You answered MY question and more, Thank you.

HOLMES

[Aaronw]

You are welcome, as you might have guessed this is a subject I really like.

I just wish the government would be more proactive supporting new tanker development. Since 2002 the skies over fires have become less interesting, you know if you get tankers 90% of the time it will be a P2, P3, or S-2T. When I started work in the early 90s most of the WW2 bombers had already retired but there were still at least a 1/2 dozen large tanker operators (so more paint schemes) and quite a variety of aircraft including the DC4/6/7, C130, S2, S2T, P2, P3 and PB4Y2. I miss the sound of 4 big Pratt & Whitney or Wright radials coming in at tree top level, it literally made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck.

[C-130CrewChief]

You are welcome, as you might have guessed this is a subject I really like.

I just wish the government would be more proactive supporting new tanker development. Since 2002 the skies over fires have become less interesting, you know if you get tankers 90% of the time it will be a P2, P3, or S-2T. When I started work in the early 90s most of the WW2 bombers had already retired but there were still at least a 1/2 dozen large tanker operators (so more paint schemes) and quite a variety of aircraft including the DC4/6/7, C130, S2, S2T, P2, P3 and PB4Y2. I miss the sound of 4 big Pratt & Whitney or Wright radials coming in at tree top level, it literally made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck.

It's hard to keep the wings on a plane that isn't designed to divebomb. That's a lot of stress on the wing boxes. The amount of inspections we do because of the C-130 that went down in California.

is staggering. This plane was in tip top shape. Sometimes what we don't see can kill on these old planes. I would rather lose some variety than more lives.

Curt

[Aaronw]

It's hard to keep the wings on a plane that isn't designed to divebomb. That's a lot of stress on the wing boxes. The amount of inspections we do because of the C-130 that went down in California.

is staggering. This plane was in tip top shape. Sometimes what we don't see can kill on these old planes. I would rather lose some variety than more lives.

Curt

The C-130s with wing failures were A models that were never intended to fly again. Instead they were distributed to companies to do very stressful work. There have not been any issues with the C-130Es(?) the military uses with the MAFFS. The C-130 that went down in 2002 was built in the early 1950s and the quality of its maintenance is debated. I'm not a maintenance guy, but some claim H&P did a great job, others accuse them of cutting corners.

None of the aircraft being used for tankers were designed for the mission except for the CL-215 / 415. The DC4/6/7 had the best safety record of any aircraft used but they were sacked for politics. The FAA does not support the current measure being used to determine whether or not an aircraft is appropriate for the mission, in fact the people making those calls have no aviation maintenance experience at all.

Do I want unsafe aircraft flying fires? Of course not, but unfortunately a knee jerk reaction cut us from 40 heavy tankers to 7. I believe after 8 years we are up to 15 or so which just puts more wear and tear on the small number flying.

[C-130CrewChief]

C-130E's and H's are going through an extensive wingbox upgrade due to cracks similar to the ones that doomed the above mentioned C-130A. I read the investigation and crash reports on this incident, and the maintenance was top notch. As a matter of fact, a crack near the one that made the wing fail was repaired the prior year. The crack was just under some doublers that zippered. Completely out of sight. These fire bomber companies really do care deeply about their crews and ultimately their bottom lines. In this case it was an unnoticed crash that quite a few USAF aircraft were flying with that brought the plane down. The stress of bombing is what killed the crew. C-130As are flying all over the world still.

I agree that a lot of decisions being made are by bureaucrats who have no practical aviation knowledge. However, old planes being used in this roll is dangerous and frankly not worth the risk.

New planes designed for this kind of work are required.

Curt

[Aaronw]

New planes designed for this kind of work are required.

Curt

I agree, unfortunately don't see it happening. "It's always been done this way". Even when the economy was booming the people in charge were crying broke. Some of the tanker operator are evaluating other aircraft on their own, but still used aircraft designed for other uses.

I'm glad to hear someone who has some practical knowledge of aircraft maintenace say the companies are on top of their maintenace. I have nothing to go by except word of mouth, and as you might guess there is a lot of opinion and politics (lots of money) involved in the air tanker business.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Aaronw