Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Debate over use of giant fire bomber in the U.S.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Black Forest, Germany.
    Posts
    8,624

    Debate over use of giant fire bomber in the U.S.

    http://www.flightmemory.com/ I have been round the world 11.6 times!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,245
    Thanks for that, interesting read, I do wonder how many airfields near outbreaks are equipped to handle the likes of a 747, I wonder if it is close to a AUW when loaded and if it is comparable to a pax load. I wonder how long it takes to load, they say they are not being selected, well that little problem was the death knell for the Mars water bomber and that could replenish off a lake.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,404
    Interesting controversy. Naively, I would think that all limitations for using a big jet are contractualized andthe extra cast burdened on the contractor side. So, what's all the fuss? Why not use bigger airplane when the increase in forest fire leads to a surge in airdrop capacity?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ContEU/RU/UAE
    Posts
    4,759
    LOL. Sounds like somebody receives kickbacks to keep the 747 out of the game.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    8,996
    TonyA...you question about airfields...

    Most fires are in the west. So there are many ex-military fields (some WWII-size, others post-war SAC bases with 2 Mile runways) with the size to accommodate larger jets. Some are well known and near cities, others are lesser known and in locations you wouldn't expect a large airfield to be.

    Often it's not the existence of an airfield that's the limiting factor, it's whether or not there is a setup for mixing the "slurry" dropped.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,245
    Equipped to handle just does not mean length, it means fuel, it means air stairs capable of reaching the doors, it means tow bars , tugs etc, it means a ramp capable of supporting the weight of a loaded 747, and it means taxiways wide enough to accommodate a wide bodied aircraft etc. Where I work can handle everything, however the first weather diversion of a DC10 they realised none of the air stair would reach the doors, so a set had to drive over 50 miles to get here, so the pax and crew could get off!
    Last edited by TonyT; 25th July 2017 at 13:38.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES