B-747 fire fighting tanker

[wink]

Take a look at the latest in wild fire tankers. I remember when they tested this hog. They had a temporary restricted area five miles wide so no one wandered under the thing. I think when A4s retires from flying the line he should jump on this. After all, they call it "Fire Attack". What better job for a washed up B747 airline pilot who spends his days reliving his glory as an intrepid Navy attack pilot. I bet A4s is the first guy flying this thing to roll in on a fire in a 30 degree dive and pull off popping flares and chaff.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0418tanker18.html

Here is the video.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/747_water_tanker.htm

 

[skidkid]

"Visual, Cleared Wet!"

"Dash-2 soak lead's hits"

 

[A4sForever]

Oh, God !!! Could this be my dream come true ..... ???? Be still, my beating heart !!!

NO SLACK IN HEAVY ATTACK !!! BTW, 30 degrees is for pussies ---- 45 degrees at least (for a good hit) --- lots of smiles so no one will be offended

 

[Fly Navy]

Awesome!

 

[wink]

NO SLACK IN HEAVY ATTACK !!! BTW, 30 degrees is for pussies ---- 45 degrees at least (for a good hit) --- lots of smiles so no one will be offended [/size]

30 degrees in your puny A-4 or A-6 may be for pussies. But I should think a 30 degree dive with a 500 foot pull out in this hog would take some brass ones. All the same, the job is yours for the taking!!

 

[Fly Navy]

30 degrees in your puny A-4 or A-6 may be for pussies, but I should think a 30 degree dive with a 500 foot pull out in this hog would take some brass ones. All the same, the job is yours for the taking!!

I could handle it.

*looks around at everyone looking at him like an idiot*

What?

 

[Lonestar155]

I wonder if it can hold more water if the 747 came equipped with the JATO?

 

[A4sForever]

30 degrees in your puny A-4 or A-6 may be for pussies. But I should think a 30 degree dive with a 500 foot pull out in this hog would take some brass ones. All the same, the job is yours for the taking!!

So true ... outside the simulator, the only times -- twice -- I have flown the Whale "like a fighter" (hmmmm ..... like she REALLY wanted? deep down?) was dodging Typhoons while comin' in and landing @ Manila and Guam.

Truly yanking and banking -- way over the "prescribed" limits -- you gotta do what you gotta do, sometimes; quasi-IFR/VFR, definitely clawing and tryin' for all VFR -- because I like to live and I wanted to make the layover at both places -- good hotels/pools/drinks/chow.

) many smiles, so as not to enrage anyone who reads this post ... )

 

[Brett327]

Now they need a version with pontoons that can swoop down and refill by skimming over a lake. That would kick serious ass. Can you imagine the commotion that might cause on lake Wenatchee, A4s? You could refill and hit the Whidbey "H" on the way out!

Good times,

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

I wonder if it can hold more water if the 747 came equipped with the JATO?

The early models with early model engines had a "water injection" switch selection for take-off @ MGW's --- maybe prophetic??

 

[A4sForever]

Now they need a version with pontoons that can swoop down and refill by skimming over a lake. That would kick serious ass. Can you imagine the commotion that might cause on lake Wenatchee, A4s? You could refill and hit the Whidbey "H" on the way out! Good times, Brett

It's often been my "dream fantasy" to come down the beach @ NUW @ 100' and as fast as that old girl would go --- 450-500 KIAS ??? HEY !!!! You have your dreams and I'll have mine ..... ) max smiles so as not to outrage ....)

 

[eddie]

<http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/august/i_ids4.html>

<http://www.firehogs.com/a10demo.shtml>

Similar topics for anyone who may be interested...

 

[PropStop]

The early models with early model engines had a "water injection" switch selection for take-off @ MGW's --- maybe prophetic??

how did that water injection thing work?

what's with all the smiles, you been offending people of late?

 

[A4sForever]

PanAm -- early Clipper (*sigh*) probably with "water" ...

PROP:

How it worked ??? Not 100% sure from the technical standpoint --- I just fly 'em, I don't build 'em. But let me see if I can give you the layman's version. The system was going out when I was coming in ..... it was still installed on our early birds, but deactivated.

747 "Whales" and many other early turbofan aircraft utilized a water injection system for much the same reason that a reciprocating engine does ---- it cools the engine some and adds density to the air when a full power takeoff is used on short runways, high altitude runways, and during hot weather -- like all over the Orient, most of the time.

I am only aware of it installed on early PW powered classic 747's as the original JT9D and other early variants were quite underpowered compared to Rolls and GE engines of the same period on the classic 747's. Eventually the system was removed as it took expected engine life from @ 12000-15000 hours down into the 5000-6000 hour range, making it a very expensive system to use. The significant loss of engine on-wing life was because the water system had the undesireable byproduct of allowing dramatic increases in engine stress and pressures on heavy takeoffs, thus shortening engine life --- not the water use in the engine per-se.

And if it failed on take-off --- STAND BY !!!

Later on many operators upgraded the PW JT9 engines to variant(s) that produced more acceptable power output that was able to produce the desired takeoff numbers without the H2O injection -- and better engine life to boot . Make sense ???

(edit: more smiles for takeoff --- and don't lose your water ... )

 

[A4sForever]

Crash victims' families file suit
Plaintiffs claim firefighting planes not properly maintained
By Steve Geissinger, SACRAMENTO BUREAU Updated: 04/25/2005

SACRAMENTO — Self-described "tanker widows" have filed a lawsuit in federal court that accuses the Forest Service and five other federal agencies of allowing a contractor to fly a faulty military-surplus firefighting plane that crashed and killed their loved ones.

California relatives of the most recent victims in a series of U.S. air tanker crashes — which threatens to ground the remainder of the aging fleet essential to protecting semi-arid California — are among those expected to join in the lawsuit or file their own in federal court in San Francisco.

Attorneys plan, in part, to cite the government's own recent independent reports that found U.S. Forest Service safety and contracting standards unacceptable.

A representative of the U.S. Forest Service, which has been defending its aerial firefighting program, was not immediately available Sunday for comment.

The Forest Service and its co-defendants — the Agriculture, Interior and Transportation departments, the Bureau of Land Management and the Federal Aviation Administration — have not formally responded.

The complaint, filed Friday in the 10th U.S. District Court in Wyoming by a Missoula, Mont., legal firm, says that, "For many years, the defendants (federal agencies) have either neglected to, or failed to, properly provide the required updatedmaintenance schedules, repair techniques and procedures."

Government agencies "were completely responsible" as the plane underwent "extensive and improper modifications to serve as a fire-fighting bomber aircraft," the complaint says.

The new lawsuit supersedes an earlier one filed solely against the Wyoming private contractor operating one of two air tankers that broke up in mid-air and crashed in 2002. P4Y-2 co-pilot Milton Stollak, of Cathedral City, died in that crash in Colorado. The other ill-fated plane that year was a C-130 that crashed in California. In the wake of those crashes, the Forest Service has been forced to ground most of its 33-plane fleet. One of only seven U.S. air tankers remaining that can fly over populated areas, a P-3 Orion, crashed Wednesday in Northern California, killing three aviators.

(NOTE: soooooooooo..... are the Feds grounding the F/S fleet because of safety concerns or because of lawsuits ??? What are they going to replace the current fleet with as the wildfire season starts to ramp up?? Hmmmmmm ..... bring it on, bureaucrats.)