Here we have powerful bureaucrats of the US Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management calling Congressmen out to
ensure a high level of protection from the air extremists.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyh ... ci_2723308
P-3 air tanker crashes in Northern California
Moderator: Latest news team
enter, the 747 Supertanker
Flight International says Evergreen ready to roll out a test:
http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_i ... otalRecs=5
http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_i ... otalRecs=5
-
HorsePower
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 00:00
- Location: France
Hi Seb:
I'm for the IL-76 just on the basis that it's proven over
10 years' use. Need I go further than that?
Boeing builds aircraft to carry people and cargo; not to
be used as droppers on low/slow missions. That's how
the Il-76 was built. The waterbomber function is a
natural adaptation to a pre-existing function.
Do you think Boeing wants 747s fighting fires on low and
slow missions? Old 747 aircraft, not built or stressed for
firefighting; aircraft close (in hours) to big D checks;
more money than the aircraft is worth?
Odd how in one article, you'll see that the USFS doesn't
want large tankers and a huge fight with Congressmen
has broken out about them and then in another, a
US Forest Service fellow says maybe 10 big aicraft is
just what they need:
http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacfl ... omber.html
I think it's safe to conclude what the USFS really wants to
say is a big aircraft will be great - as long as it's American.
So it appears there will be no repeat of the space program in
firefighting if the USFS and the BLM have their way.
I'm for the IL-76 just on the basis that it's proven over
10 years' use. Need I go further than that?
Boeing builds aircraft to carry people and cargo; not to
be used as droppers on low/slow missions. That's how
the Il-76 was built. The waterbomber function is a
natural adaptation to a pre-existing function.
Do you think Boeing wants 747s fighting fires on low and
slow missions? Old 747 aircraft, not built or stressed for
firefighting; aircraft close (in hours) to big D checks;
more money than the aircraft is worth?
Odd how in one article, you'll see that the USFS doesn't
want large tankers and a huge fight with Congressmen
has broken out about them and then in another, a
US Forest Service fellow says maybe 10 big aicraft is
just what they need:
http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacfl ... omber.html
I think it's safe to conclude what the USFS really wants to
say is a big aircraft will be great - as long as it's American.
So it appears there will be no repeat of the space program in
firefighting if the USFS and the BLM have their way.
By the way: word out of Canada is that Canada would
go with the IL-76 if the US did. So the report I posted
here about CBC covering bureaucrats from both sides
of the NA border saying essentially the same things about
the IL-76 will not apply in case the Boeing 747 works;
which is doubtful.
Keep in mind the Boeing's liquids discharge is pressurized,
so the liquids will perhaps not be able to penetrate dense
forest canopy. This is the knock on the MAFFs C-130 units,
which are also pressurized.
The IL-76 drops by gravity pure liquids, as rain, with no
pressure, i.e. as the P-3 Orion and the downed 33 'air tankers'
did before some were brought back again.
These bureaucrats are good-ole boys. No special aviation
expertise...esp in large aircraft, where they are most
definitely not qualified.
go with the IL-76 if the US did. So the report I posted
here about CBC covering bureaucrats from both sides
of the NA border saying essentially the same things about
the IL-76 will not apply in case the Boeing 747 works;
which is doubtful.
Keep in mind the Boeing's liquids discharge is pressurized,
so the liquids will perhaps not be able to penetrate dense
forest canopy. This is the knock on the MAFFs C-130 units,
which are also pressurized.
The IL-76 drops by gravity pure liquids, as rain, with no
pressure, i.e. as the P-3 Orion and the downed 33 'air tankers'
did before some were brought back again.
These bureaucrats are good-ole boys. No special aviation
expertise...esp in large aircraft, where they are most
definitely not qualified.
Seb and others:
In the US, this tanker situation
is, in the estimation of this pilot,
author, and lawyer (nice combo)
a national crisis.
http://www.johnjnance.com/
If I seem untoward in any remarks
on the 747, consider that 747
proponents fielded these remarks
through a Portland newspaper:
product slander.
A copy of the piece, complete with corrections,
can be found here:
http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2 ... 910_us.htm
Winston Churchill said about using big, long range
bombers in WWII over smaller, mid-range bombers when
a public row broke out and Churchill became intemperate
with commanding officers who would oppose his choice:
In the US, this tanker situation
is, in the estimation of this pilot,
author, and lawyer (nice combo)
a national crisis.
http://www.johnjnance.com/
If I seem untoward in any remarks
on the 747, consider that 747
proponents fielded these remarks
through a Portland newspaper:
....effectively declaring a half-truth war of words andEvergreen’s Penn Stohr isn’t too impressed with the IL-76 either. “I wouldn’t walk under the wing of that thing for fear it’d fall on me,” he said. “It wasn’t an airplane that was well-thought out in design. It isn’t U.S.-type certified. And I think the Forest Service would rather buy American.”
The Forest Service’s Barnett also noted crash statistics that show that a total of 48 IL-76s have gone down over the years.
product slander.
A copy of the piece, complete with corrections,
can be found here:
http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2 ... 910_us.htm
Winston Churchill said about using big, long range
bombers in WWII over smaller, mid-range bombers when
a public row broke out and Churchill became intemperate
with commanding officers who would oppose his choice:
http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2 ... 910_us.htmIn war, it isn't necessary to be nice. It is
only necessary to be right.
-
HorsePower
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 00:00
- Location: France
I just found (again) an old thread on Aviatsiya concerning Il-76 and Evergreen. Also I remember I have read on a paper that Boeing has plans to make a waterbomber from a conventional C-17 loaded with "paper" containers. I forgot how much water (60.000 l?) it was able to carry but it was a lot. Also it was possible to split the load into numerous drops.
Regards
Seb.
Regards
Seb.
The C-17? So expensive! Great airplane and most definitely
a leading candidate if the US were very determined to make
firefighting a higher priority than it is.
Multiple drop capability might be overstressed. I suspect
a lot of the batching designs are safety-related.
Right now, you have the US bureaucrat telling everybody
everything is/will be fine; that not even the P-3s are so
important to their future plans and they see a future in
helos, teeny, tiny tankers, and the like. Not a whisper
on the C-130 which we used to hear a lot. Nothing on
Bombardier, which I think would need to be convinced
to go back into production. Even the Be-200 people
have been quiet although their stock (Russia's 1st IPO)
has done well.
Last year, another one of them (the man that took most of the 33
down) said this about the 747:
Every day a different story, but as of today, they are
the Emporers With no Clothes and have resorted
to name calling politicians who critize them and make
suggestions extremists, so you can see we have the
bastards on the run.
a leading candidate if the US were very determined to make
firefighting a higher priority than it is.
Multiple drop capability might be overstressed. I suspect
a lot of the batching designs are safety-related.
Right now, you have the US bureaucrat telling everybody
everything is/will be fine; that not even the P-3s are so
important to their future plans and they see a future in
helos, teeny, tiny tankers, and the like. Not a whisper
on the C-130 which we used to hear a lot. Nothing on
Bombardier, which I think would need to be convinced
to go back into production. Even the Be-200 people
have been quiet although their stock (Russia's 1st IPO)
has done well.
Last year, another one of them (the man that took most of the 33
down) said this about the 747:
http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacfl ... omber.htmlIf it is as successful as hoped, it could cut the size of the air tanker fleet significantly. Or as Tony Kern, the U.S. Forest Service's top aviation official, put it: "You'd never see a fleet of 20 of these things but you might see a fleet of 10."
Every day a different story, but as of today, they are
the Emporers With no Clothes and have resorted
to name calling politicians who critize them and make
suggestions extremists, so you can see we have the
bastards on the run.
Nobody seems to think to ask what the Russians must think
about all this. Believe me, they know what's going on and if
you look up the dictonary meaning of corruption, this is
a great example of it. (The dictionary I use now:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)
Anyway - before Bratislava, three Sergeis: Shoigu, Ivanov,
and Lavrov ran articles in Novosti stressing the importance
of getting global emergency response worked out bi-laterally,
with the Americans. Disappointed with the UN, NATO and
other institutions who can't seem to get things done,
I guess they wanted their President to put it to the American
President that in this area, the whole would be greater than
the sum of the parts. A paragraph in the form of something
less than a resolution came out of it but it didn't give the
appearance of being a super-high priority and you never read
a thing about it in the western media. Just Russia's.
It's no secret that disaster response has a poor reputation.
You only have to look nationally - at the US Forest Service in
this case, to know there are a lot of not-so-bright people
working the area. I call them parochial Luddites.
Of course, there is the possibilty of malice, but Napoleon is
said to have mused: Never put down to malice that which
you can attribute to stupidity.
about all this. Believe me, they know what's going on and if
you look up the dictonary meaning of corruption, this is
a great example of it. (The dictionary I use now:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn)
Anyway - before Bratislava, three Sergeis: Shoigu, Ivanov,
and Lavrov ran articles in Novosti stressing the importance
of getting global emergency response worked out bi-laterally,
with the Americans. Disappointed with the UN, NATO and
other institutions who can't seem to get things done,
I guess they wanted their President to put it to the American
President that in this area, the whole would be greater than
the sum of the parts. A paragraph in the form of something
less than a resolution came out of it but it didn't give the
appearance of being a super-high priority and you never read
a thing about it in the western media. Just Russia's.
It's no secret that disaster response has a poor reputation.
You only have to look nationally - at the US Forest Service in
this case, to know there are a lot of not-so-bright people
working the area. I call them parochial Luddites.
Of course, there is the possibilty of malice, but Napoleon is
said to have mused: Never put down to malice that which
you can attribute to stupidity.
How the folks in the countryside feel about importing Russian firefighting:
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/search/ci_2725251
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/search/ci_2725251
from the floor of the US House of Representatives, April 26
Rep Dana Rohrabacher
46th District of California
It is time for the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service to change its attitude, quit trying to protect a good-old-boy network which is unable to function, and to permit others to get into this business, including the Russians, who we would like to have invest in this type of domestic, peaceful technology.
Rep Dana Rohrabacher
46th District of California
NIFC/Forest Service's spokesperson, Rose, says
No thanks, Rep Rohrabacher....we're covered.
http://firechief.com/news/calif-crash-renews051305/
No thanks, Rep Rohrabacher....we're covered.
http://firechief.com/news/calif-crash-renews051305/
The only poll ever run (in conjuction with this reprinted
piece: http://www.vadscorner.com/tooproud.html) said
94% of 15K respondents in the online poll
wanted to give the IL-76 waterbomber a chance.
4% said "Solve American problems with American solutions."
2% didn't know.
A NIFC statement from 2004 says the big Russian
aircraft could be used as a 'deviation' in the
event the planners saw unacceptable risk to life
and property but these same bureaucrats this year
have said that with a preponderance of flying thimbles,
they can do the job.
The next thing that will happen, based on experience,
is that there will be a risk to US life and property and it
will be high but the bureaucrats will use the excuse that
they have not planned for incorporation of the Russian
aircraft and that to incorporate it in the middle of a fire
season, in and of itself, presents unacceptable risk.
Besides, they will say they are short manpower needed
to do the job of incorporation.
Of course, this flies in the face of the request, that same
year, made by FEMA for two (2) IL-76 waterbombers.
All you really need do is clear the air and the ground
where the waterbomber is to drop and let fly.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you
cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
piece: http://www.vadscorner.com/tooproud.html) said
94% of 15K respondents in the online poll
wanted to give the IL-76 waterbomber a chance.
4% said "Solve American problems with American solutions."
2% didn't know.
A NIFC statement from 2004 says the big Russian
aircraft could be used as a 'deviation' in the
event the planners saw unacceptable risk to life
and property but these same bureaucrats this year
have said that with a preponderance of flying thimbles,
they can do the job.
The next thing that will happen, based on experience,
is that there will be a risk to US life and property and it
will be high but the bureaucrats will use the excuse that
they have not planned for incorporation of the Russian
aircraft and that to incorporate it in the middle of a fire
season, in and of itself, presents unacceptable risk.
Besides, they will say they are short manpower needed
to do the job of incorporation.
Of course, this flies in the face of the request, that same
year, made by FEMA for two (2) IL-76 waterbombers.
All you really need do is clear the air and the ground
where the waterbomber is to drop and let fly.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you
cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
What makes it all kind of interesting now is the outright
rejection of the IL-76 (proven) contrasted with scheme-
a-dreaming that the Evegreen 747 'supertanker' (one 2004
test with a smaller load than the IL-76 has been
carrying for 10 years) ....will work out.
I cite in support of my contention that the Forest Service
(at least some part of it), hoping after hope that somebody
- ANYBODY but the Russians - will somehow, magically, drop
a perfectly good (American) large air tanker on their laps, this
report:
http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacfl ... omber.html
rejection of the IL-76 (proven) contrasted with scheme-
a-dreaming that the Evegreen 747 'supertanker' (one 2004
test with a smaller load than the IL-76 has been
carrying for 10 years) ....will work out.
I cite in support of my contention that the Forest Service
(at least some part of it), hoping after hope that somebody
- ANYBODY but the Russians - will somehow, magically, drop
a perfectly good (American) large air tanker on their laps, this
report:
http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacfl ... omber.html
but the B1 bomber conversion is possible. It made low altitude attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Maybe already in the crackdown against Bosnian Serbs by NATO.
If a B1 can do a low altitude attack on a tractor full with refugees in Kosovo, it can exstinguish a bushfire with some water, isn't?
And now the war is over and the work accomplished in that arab region, no more work for the Lancers. Bring them home, and use them against the fires. Go for it Arnold!
If a B1 can do a low altitude attack on a tractor full with refugees in Kosovo, it can exstinguish a bushfire with some water, isn't?
And now the war is over and the work accomplished in that arab region, no more work for the Lancers. Bring them home, and use them against the fires. Go for it Arnold!
heh - actually, the C-17 would make an exceptionally fine
firefighting airplane....and it's recommended here....along
with the IL-76:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_95281483
The trouble with such painstaking articles is that they need
to be long to be comprehensive and in order to read it, you
need to be a real safety buff and actually concerned with the
state of aviation in this dramatic environment.
6 pages as I recall. Who really bothers?
firefighting airplane....and it's recommended here....along
with the IL-76:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_95281483
The trouble with such painstaking articles is that they need
to be long to be comprehensive and in order to read it, you
need to be a real safety buff and actually concerned with the
state of aviation in this dramatic environment.
6 pages as I recall. Who really bothers?
NTSB on the safety of remaining US tanker fleet:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyh ... ci_2756537
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyh ... ci_2756537
Anybody but the Russians
http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanbernardi ... .f299.htmlThree tanker proposals are undergoing board scrutiny, Fisher said. They are Evergreen International Airlines' Boeing 747 Supertanker, Nevada-base Minden Air's converted BAE-146 commuter jet, and the Victorville-based DC-10.
"We're well along in development," spokesman Rick Hatton said of the little-publicized DC-10 project by 10 Tanker STC, LLC. "We're about to push her out of the (hangar) and take it to the Paris Air Show in June."
Capable of dropping 12,000 gallons of fire retardant -- a load equal to that of four existing tankers --the DC-10 could be operational this fire season.
'We'll Be Ready to Go'
"We'll be ready to go this July," said Hatton, a partner in the project. "But no one has hired us yet." Evergreen's 747 also could begin work this year or next.
"We hope to be flying experimentally (on fires) this season ... and flying full-time next season," said Jordan Hanson, spokeswoman for Evergreen.
With a capacity of roughly 20,000 gallons, the 747 does the work of seven conventional tankers, she said.
Though the idea remains to be tested, Hanson said the jumbo tanker is supposed to be capable of dropping retardant in mountainous terrain and near homes -- including those in Southern California.
Flying at 160 mph between 400 and 800 feet above the ground, the big jet would attack fire in valleys and atop canyons.
"It can work right at the ridges of those canyons to keep fire from leaving those areas," the spokeswoman predicted