CA fires: 747 fire fighting super tanker

[Vic]

I did a little research into this, and from what I understand the state of California did have an on-call contract with this company. I was wondering why we are not seeing it used in these fires. I noticed the states DC10 is being used. Also, what happened to the C130’s converted to fight fires? Were they strapped after the accident in 2002? Are large tankers the answer?

Here is a link to the company’s video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvBRWTumoZI

[Sigaba]

Source is here.

Helicopters, air tankers fight poor visibility
By Thomas Himes, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/30/2009 05:45:28 PM PDT

Smoke plumes from the Station Fire impaired visibility and hindered aerial firefighting efforts Sunday, according to officials.

The eight air tankers and 16 helicopters called in to drop water and flame retardant chemicals on the rapidly growing blaze couldn't take off until 10 a.m. because of low-lying smoke, a lack of wind and poor visibility, according to Richard Cordova, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry.

"They had to wait until the inversion layer broke" and the wind picked up, Cordova said. "They have to fly low to drop water, and to do that they have to be able to see."

Pyrocumulus clouds formed a shroud around Mount Wilson, making it difficult for planes and helicopters to navigate.

The clouds "are a symbol of a very intense fire that has burned for consecutive days," said Mike Whaling, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Fire Department. "Air tankers and helicopters will have to go up and attack it," because ground crews can't.

Once the smoke lifted, reconnaissance helicopters took off from Whiteman Airport in Pacoima to coordinate the aerial bombardments, according to officials.

"The winds have picked up a little, and that makes it easier for us to see" but it also fuels the fire, said Leslie Curtis, operations section chief for CAL Fire, after touching down at Whiteman Airport.

Shortly after noon, a DC-10 took off from Van Nuys to drop 12,000 gallons of flame retardant chemicals across areas north of Altadena, according to officials.

But even as aerial efforts got underway, firefighters on the ground struggled with steep terrain to douse flames fueled by 60-year-old brush, high temperatures, low humidity and increasing wind speeds.

"The ground crew is where they're having trouble," Cordova said. "The fire is so far back in the forest that crews have to hike in" with all their equipment in tow.

What difference, if any, the planes and helicopters will make remains unclear. They can neither fly in the dark of night nor gray of early morning smoke.

"We don't have the technological capability to fly at night," Cordova said.

[incarcerated]

Because they're using these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkfHC...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN5PY91sO7A&NR=1

They don't have to land, come to a stop, and be serviced by a ground crew between sorties;
They take 30 seconds to refill;
Costs less to operate than the 747 or 707;
There are two of them working the L.A. fires, each making two drops an hour.

There's a 707 working the fire as well (saw it last year at our local fire), but it takes an hour+ between drops.

But, heck, the state is broke, so Gov. Arnold was considering a cost alternative offered up by the state legislature, who wanted to send in hundreds of day laborers with these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8J45...eature=related

[Bill Harsey]

The 747 air tanker, built by Evergreen here in Oregon, has about the same dollar per gallons delivered cost as other air tankers.
It can make drops from higher altitudes than other air tankers because the water system is pressurized and can do this in measured amounts on multiple targets per run with a very high degree of accuracy. The higher altitude thing would make night drops possible.
There is nothing in the air that can put down as much firefighting liquid as this tanker.
The 747 is being based out of Sacramento and has about a 55 minute flight time to Los Angeles cruising at 600 mph loaded.

I've heard the C-130's are having aging (cracking, breaking) problems with the airframes and that is what grounded them. The fire fighting aircraft take a lot of stress.

[Vic]

Bill,
Thank you for your post. I was starting to feel like Cutis Lemay getting blank stares while explaining the importance of air power. Of course this system is better; it is the best out there. There are over 12,000 Boeing commercial jet liners out there to carry our fat asses and our piles of junk around, so it does not seem unreasonable to have a few hundred to overwhelm a fire. I wonder if it is one of those “do we really want to put the fire out” sort of things.

Originally Posted by incarcerated

Because they're using these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkfHC...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN5PY91sO7A&NR=1

They don't have to land, come to a stop, and be serviced by a ground crew between sorties;
They take 30 seconds to refill;
Costs less to operate than the 747 or 707;
There are two of them working the L.A. fires, each making two drops an hour.

There's a 707 working the fire as well (saw it last year at our local fire), but it takes an hour+ between drops.

But, heck, the state is broke, so Gov. Arnold was considering a cost alternative offered up by the state legislature, who wanted to send in hundreds of day laborers with these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8J45...eature=related

I know this might sound stupid, but exactly how do they refill...scoop the water up front? I saw the vids but was not exactly clear on that aspect. In any case, they are way cool!!

I heard an interview with the Terminator who said that some of the fires going now were with land that had not seen fires in like 30 yrs.. is that correct. How sad to lose such growth. It seems to be common in that part of the world though. Or are these kinds of fires a recent phenomenon, as in the past say 30 yrs.. or do they go back in history much further? Yet another reason to not live out there.

[incarcerated]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

...exactly how do they refill...scoop the water up front?

More than you wanted to know:
http://www.martinmars.com/aircraft.htm

The most frequently asked question regarding the Mars is "How do they pick up their water?". This part of the flying operation is, perhaps, the most demanding in terms of teamwork among the crew. The Captain executes a normal landing, keeps the the aircraft "on the step" and allows the speed to decrease to 70 knots. He then passes engine power to the Flight Engineer and selects the scoops to the "down" position. The ram pressure for injecting the water into the tanks is such that the aircraft is taking on water at a rate in excess of a ton per second. To account for this added weight, the Flight Engineer must advance the throttles to maintain a skimming speed of 60-70 knots to ensure the aircraft remains on the step. Pickup time is, on average, 25 seconds. When the tanks are full, the Captain will have the scoops raised, call for takeoff power from the Flight Engineer and carry out a normal loaded takeoff. Once airborne, the foam concentrate is injected into the water load (normally, 30 US gallons of concentrate into the 7,200 US gallon water load) where it is dispersed and remains inert until the load is dropped. Once dropped, the tumbling action causes expansion which converts the water load into a foam load. This process is repeated for each drop. In other words, this vital team work is carried out, on average, every 15 minutes per aircraft. For a Gel drop , the concentrate is injected during the scooping process to allow even mixing.

[Slantwire]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

some of the fires going now were with land that had not seen fires in like 30 yrs.. is that correct. How sad to lose such growth. It seems to be common in that part of the world though. Or are these kinds of fires a recent phenomenon, as in the past say 30 yrs.. or do they go back in history much further? Yet another reason to not live out there.

My understanding is that fire is part of the natural cycle. Clears out the undergrowth and puts a lot of nitrogen back into the soil, or something like that. They do intentional controlled burns for a reason.

If I'm correctly remembering a late 90s conversation with a Yosemite park ranger, a lot of the current wildfires are so bad because we squelched the natural fires for decades, letting the fuel accumulate. But the Pelosi and Boxer voters need to keep their homes near nature intact.

Originally Posted by Pinhead

. But the Pelosi and Boxer voters need to keep their homes near nature intact.

Any chance we can convince them to stay home and not leave ahead of the fires? Seems a good chance to cull out the undergrowth, I mean liberal voting crowd.. "no ma'am, no realy, it is just a small fire, nothing to worry about, you just stay right here...give me a holler if it gets to hot for you. I will down the canyon a ways.. no honest, it is quite safe here.. "

[mojaveman]

I grew up in Southern California and have watched countless fire fighting operations. In my opinion the best fire fighting aircraft are the Grumman S-2 Tracker and the Skycrane. I once watched an S-2 pilot roll the aircraft 45 degrees and hug the side of a hill to drop retardent on some personnel who were in danger of being overcome by flames. The plane is smaller than the larger ones and much more agile. It doesn't carry as large a payload but it can get lower and follow the terrain better. The Skycrane is another efficent aircraft because it can hover over a problem spot and dump it's load. It can also replenish it's capacity while hovering over a pond or lake. The stories about firefighters on the line getting hit by flying fish are true.

The most bizzare sight I ever saw was a Martin Mars fly over a fire. It is an old flying boat from the 40s that has been converted to fight fires. It can land on a large lake and while still moving suck in a tremendous amount of water. It is very similiar to the Spruce Goose that was built by Howard Huges.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by incarcerated

More than you wanted to know:
http://www.martinmars.com/aircraft.htm

The most frequently asked question regarding the Mars is "How do they pick up their water?". . . . The ram pressure for injecting the water into the tanks is such that the aircraft is taking on water at a rate in excess of a ton per second. . . . Pickup time is, on average, 25 seconds. When the tanks are full, the Captain will have the scoops raised, call for takeoff power from the Flight Engineer and carry out a normal loaded takeoff. . . . Once dropped, the tumbling action causes expansion which converts the water load into a foam load. This process is repeated for each drop.

Little fishies goin' for a ride! OH! the Osteichthyes, the Osteichthyes.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Little fishies goin' for a ride! OH! the Osteichthyes, the Osteichthyes.

And, of course, the source of the frequently repeated internet story about the 'dead scuba diver' in the burned trees.

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Pinhead

My understanding is that fire is part of the natural cycle. Clears out the undergrowth and puts a lot of nitrogen back into the soil, or something like that. They do intentional controlled burns for a reason.

If I'm correctly remembering a late 90s conversation with a Yosemite park ranger, a lot of the current wildfires are so bad because we squelched the natural fires for decades, letting the fuel accumulate. But the Pelosi and Boxer voters need to keep their homes near nature intact.

Yup. Instead of managing the fire cycle, agencies simply put fires out in the past, even if they were no threat. This led to BIG problems. Many plant species are fire dependent, that means they require periodic burns in order to maintain a healthy ecosystem. When you keep fire out of an area for years, the undergrowth gets abnormally thick, the fire tolerant/dependent species die off and are replaced with species that go up like Roman candles when torched.
It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

[Ambush Master]

These are really the best Aircraft for this mission, with the exception of the need for vertical lift and descent:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...ombardier_415/

[incarcerated]

They're using the 747, and a DC-10, an unspecified number of CL-145 Super Scoopers, the two Martin Mars, and any other air asset that they can get their hands on, including at least one GKW. CAL FIRE is probably glad to have them all.