Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Newforest
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Apr 2005
    • 8888

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

    https://apnews.com/31830d15270641c69c28c82a3f644acf

    Great photo!
    http://www.flightmemory.com/ I have been round the world 11.83 times!
  • TonyT
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2006
    • 9023

    #2
    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.

    Comment

    • TomcatViP
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Nov 2011
      • 6110

      #3
      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?

      Comment

      • Distiller
        Talent on Loan from God
        • Oct 2003
        • 4760

        #4
        LOL. Sounds like somebody receives kickbacks to keep the 747 out of the game.
        "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

        Comment

        • J Boyle
          With malice towards none
          • Oct 2004
          • 9793

          #5
          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.

          Comment

          • TonyT
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Oct 2006
            • 9023

            #6
            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, 13:38.

            Comment

            Unconfigured Ad Widget

            Collapse

             

            Working...
            X