New weapon against wildfires - commercial airliners

[donco6]

Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. is developing a converted 747 cargo aircraft, specifically designed to fight fires.

The 747 cargo aircraft could carry 24,000 gallons, but it still needs FAA approval.

Supertankers, as they're called, are reportedly capable of flying 400-800 feet over a fire at 161 mph.

http://tinyurl.com/mnrn7

Probably not nimble enough for our mountain fires, but maybe they can take the pressure off the regular tankers. Can't be in service until next year's fire season.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Not a good application

Stall speed is too high and too prone to turblence

These things have to slow down to near stall speeds while closely following the mountainous terrain. Immediately upon the sudden release of their cargo (gross weight) at the fine line they experience tremendous up drafts or down drafts at near stall speeds under zero visibility conditions.

P-3 Orion is a better choice. I remember the SBD bombers left over from WWII. They were perhaps the best application

[Robb]

3. Good summary

I know a few of these wildfire pilots, and no one thinks this is a good idea.

[havocmom]

4. 747 as a fire fighter? Seems likely they would cause more fires

what with crashing and burning flying low & slow enough to do fire suppression work. Thanks for bringing up the stall speed and turbulence factors.

Growing up in Calif, I often got to see planes doing fire suppression work. SLOW matters BIG! Many times, we watched, nervously, as a B-17 would swoop down low into canyons to rain pink upon the fires. Always thought it was pretty wide in the wing span to brave tight canyons where fire creates its own unpredictable winds. But that magnificent plane had the advantage of being able to stay up at relatively lower speeds. Those guys could drop a lot of pink on a pretty tight target with amazing accuracy.

747? Holy Mother of Chaos, save us from that happening! There are enough fire fighters and pilots killed every year as it is.

[Ian David]

7. Maybe it's really being developed for chemical warfare?

Or perhaps a non-lethal hardening-foam weapon to immobilize troops on the battlefield?

[havocmom]

9. DOD, early in junta, said they had drugs to 'calm urban population'

and were just trying to figure how to administer it. Story was in news cycle less than 24 hours. Things that make ya go hmmmmmm. Nah, they wouldn't do that. They wouldn't tap our phones, torture people in prisons in Eastern Europe and Russia, pass an act which makes it possible to declare someone a terrorist then deny them all rights, and they wouldn't sell of our heritage national forests for a fast buck now either. Nah, they wouldn't do anything unethical.

Is Evergreen still CIA?

Was out in the hammock last night... watching big jets flying in grids, one right behind the other and to the port side... See it a lot, day and night. We are not in area with large airports. Been watching this grid thing for 4 years now.

And, yes, I know it's a CON-trail, not a chem trail, but lately I wonder.

But I just don't want a 747 flying to work fires in my area. Choppers with scoops can drag water from the lake and get it to where the rough country and trees are here in just a few minutes. That trick is probably not in a 747's repertoire.

[China_cat]

2. Does the CIA still own Evergreen?

[havocmom]

5. Runways would be a big problem in many areas where fires rage

Big runways for 747s tend to NOT be in areas where there are a lot of fires to fight. Lots of fire fighting budget for fuel would be going to the longer trips involved in getting to and from airports which could handle that big of a jet.

Sure it holds more, but time/fuel use would be a consideration to. Hell, in many areas, helicopters are used to get in and out of where the fires are.

And there is a reason firefighters parachute into some fire areas to work. Rugged country. Remote country. Short runways in closest airports. Some time, the runways aren't paved and you have to make a low pass over to chase the cows/sheep/deer/antelopes off the strip before you set down on them.

747 would mean LONG commutes.

[PsN2Wind]

10. But there are exceptions

Klamath Falls, OR has a runway that will handle any aircraft and would be ideal for Northern Calif, Southern to Central Oregon. Politics has kept the tanker base in Medford where the laden tankers have a long climb out, whereas in K Falls they would be lifting off at 4100 feet.

[Ian David]

6. Nothing new. That's how they always lose all our luggage. n/t

[applegrove]

8. Um - how would those sucker refill with water? Cause it is my

experience that the smaller water-bombers have to find a long lake to pick up some water. I don't think there would be a lake long enough.. so again - 747 would have a long way to go to refill.

This sounds silly. Somehow.