Fire Planes
 

ß íå çíàþ âû çíàåìòå Ðóññêè.

I bet Kerry would buy them if he was president!:D

Не смотрите на меня, я' не знаю

It looks like Pravda carried over the same writing staff from the 80's. If their plane is so impressive and they care so much about the US wild fires, why doesn't Ilyushin loan out a plane for a month as a demonstration?

Что Nader делать?

Does it have a bigger payload than this...?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1090604780.jpg

Randy :D

They were going to use this one, but it's full of ***** until next January?


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1090605923.jpg

Just kidding, couldn't resist.

Nader? You are living in a dream world.

ÿ äóìàþ, âû ó÷èò ðóññêîãî â ñîâåòñêîì ñîþçå.

More true and unbiased words have never been uttered...Comrade.

That article is nothing more than a joke.

Noah, there's a very old Russian joke that goes. . .


Ïðàâäà íåò èçâåñòèÿ é èçâåñòèÿ íåò Ïðàâäà.

Thom MUST know this and must be joking.

edit: Forgive my spelling, it's been a long time.

"There is no news in 'Pravda', and no truth in 'Izvestiya'"

I came across the article while looking up something totally other, but related to firefighting. The subject of fire planes had popped up a few days ago, and in the spirit of political insensitivity, I felt obligated to post it.

There's some definite truth in Thom's article, about the plane anyway..

http://www.waterbomber.com/

The Russians have built some amazing aircraft.. Putin is Bush's buddy now right? Whats wrong with buying some of their planes, if nothing else compares - and nothing else does.

I don't beleive any government agency buys new aircraft for firefighting. Every one I have seen has been military surplus.

Last I heard, CDF uses S-2s and P-3s, USFS uses C-130s.

Maybe Matt will chime in.

Tom

Uh huh.

Let's take a lookie at this cold war bomber, aka the "Candid."

Il-76 MDP: Firefighting conversion of Il-76 demonstrated first in 1990;

up to 44,000 kg (97,000 lb) of water/fire retardant in two cylindrical tanks in hold;

discharge, replenishment and draining systems;

drop zone aiming devices;

up to 384 meteorological cartridges in dispensers for weather modification;

able to water-bomb an area of 500 x 100 m (1,640 x 330 ft), or to carry, and parachute when required, 40 fully equipped firefighters;

all airborne fire equipment (known as VAP-2: dischargeable aviation system; weight 5,000 kg; Il,025 lb) can be installed in standard Il-76, or removed, in 4 hours;

tank replenishment time 10 to 15 minutes; discharge time 6 to 7 seconds, with option of successive discharge of tanks to cover 600 x 80 m (1,970 x 260 ft);

airspeed during discharge 130 to 215 knots (240 to 400 km/h; 150 to 248 mph) at 80 m (260 ft).

So far, so good. What about the runways needed for this a/c?

Well, it's max takeoff weight from an unprepared surface is MD from unprepared surface 157,500 kg (347,225 lb).

Takeoff run: MD, variant 1,700 m (5,580 ft)
Landing, MD variant 900-1,000 m (2,950-3,280 ft)

The promoter's web site is even less optimistic.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1090621088.gif

That's a bunch, more than the old Herc C-130b's.

By the way, due to three crashes of the Hercs, they were all grounded in 2002.

Any of you firebombers know what the surface condition and length of the Air Attack bases are?

Ok, looks like Santa Barbara's got 6052x 150 as the longest runway.

Double tandem gear, there's a weight limit of 245,000 pounds. Too heavy at Max gross. How about empty weight? 89,000 kg x 2.2 = 195,000 pounds. So you could only carry about half the water load, and no fuel, to land at Santa Barbara.

Where are the other Air Attack bases, guys?

Interesting article, Tony. Looks like the USFS came to the same conclusion I did after ten minutes of research.

Looks like the Hercs are back:

The agencies developed a strategy for the 2004 firefighting season to supplement aerial resources with other available aircraft such as large helicopters and helitankers, single engine airtankers (SEATS), and military C-130 aircraft equipped with the Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS).

http://www.nifc.gov/nr_airtanker-contracts.html

All right, I found the list. Now, you have to make a comparison to the "Type I" tankers, no fair comparing to a Grumman Ag-Cat.

Let's pick a couple where the DC7s or DC6s are based. They carry 3000 gallons of retardant, just like the Herc.

Klamath falls: 10301 x 150 (OK)
Knoxville: 9005 x 150 (OK)
Prescott: 7550 (Marginal)

Hmm, somebody should go through the list. . . .

Here's a good thread on the IL-76 and the new B-747 waterbomber.. from flymig.com so you know they are biased towards Russian aircraft.. but it's interesting nonetheless..

http://www.flymig.com/forum/posts/1080130220.htm

Now that we've lost 750,000 acres, 23 lives and almost 3,000 homes to the
current string of wildfires in Southern California, it's less than
comforting to be told that better firefighting equipment could have been
brought in to ameliorate the disaster, but that's exactly what U.S.
Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Curt Weldon (R-PA) contend.

In a Washington, D.C. press conference on October 30, Rohrabacher and Weldon
led a cadre of other officials in decrying the US Forest Service's refusal
to consider the Russian government's Ilyushin-76 (IL-76), an air-tanker that
carries 11,000 gallons of water (more than three times the capacity of the
Hercules C-130, our largest domestic water-drop craft) as part of their fire
suppression arsenal. Rohrabacher, who passionately held the floor and called
for an immediate end to the "bureaucratic logjam" that was keeping this
life- and land-saving technology from our reach, called the conference when
the USFS ignored his demand for a meeting and a prompt, stateside
demonstration of the IL-76's capabilities.

The IL-76 can drop a near-solid sheet of water on an area the size of 12
football fields in 10 seconds, and because it uses a gravitational, rather
than a pressurized, release system, which creates a simulated downpour
rather than an aerosol mist, much more of the water released from its holds
actually makes it to the ground. Since 1995, the Russians have repeatedly
offered a pair of manned, tanked and waiting IL-76s during major U.S. fire
outbreaks-asking only for primary expenses to be covered-but the US Forest
Service, the body in charge of all wildfire control on federal land, has
told them time and again that their services were neither needed nor wanted.

Tom Robinson, a fire administrator and instructor of
fire prevention with the Virginia Offices of Fire Programs and Emergency
Services in Richmond,VA who admits to being a "crusader" and "zealot" on the
subject of the IL-76. In 1996, he joined Global Emergency Response
(waterbomber.com), a Canadian-Russian-American joint venture created to
co-sponsor the IL-76 in disaster mitigation around the world. The venture
looked hopeful at first, with a positive response from a USFS specialist
after a demonstration in England. But the response was squelched on this
side of the Atlantic, and since then, the USFS has stymied all attempts to bring
the IL-76 to the States, even for a further demonstration.

This could well be viewed as criminal, according to Robinson, who says
that most of the homes and many of the lives lost in the last several
major US fires could have been saved had the Russian tanker been
deployed. “I’d risk my reputation on it,” he says; a reputation that
includes Marine service and a plethora of official honors for his work in fire prevention and suppression, including President Bush Sr.’s 1000 Points of Light award and a National Heroism award from the Secretary of HUD. “The plane does not fit into the Forest Service’s method of operation,” he says, “and if they can’t control it, they don’t want anyone else to.” Robinson, a staunch patriot by all accounts, accuses the Forest Service of a misplaced protectionism and overblown national pride. “They just don’t want to relinquish control,” he says, “but someone with good sense is going to take firefighting away from the Forest Service.”

Robinson also says that the US Forest Service continually
misrepresents the Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act of 1989, saying
that it disallows foreign assets to be drawn into a firefighting scenario until all private contractor assets are completely exhausted. What the Act actually states is that foreign assets may be called in when domestic assets are no longer capable or readily available to handle the situation at hand. Contrary to the various reports of on-scene fire control experts and crew commanders, the USFS officially maintains that this type of capability downfall has never occurred.

“Please don’t think we’re picking on the firefighters,” says Robinson,
having been one himself for many years, with a handful of successful
international missions on the IL-76 under his belt. “They are doing
everything they can with what they’ve got.” But what they’ve got, he
says, is insufficient, and the USFS knows it.

Rohrabacher, Weldon and Robinson are hardly alone in their crusade.
Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) wrote President Bush a letter
requesting that he go over the Forest Service’s head to request an IL-
76 demonstration, but the administration has yet to reply. Perhaps if
the planes were deployed now, at the tail-end of such horrendous
devastation, the public would raise such an outcry over recent,
needless losses that no one would truly benefit, but at this point,
Robinson is not willing to settle for mere capitulation.

“I want vindication,” says Robinson. He also states that some lowerlevel
USFS personnel have come forward to say that they know the
planes should be allowed in, but are loath to speak out for fear of losing
their jobs. “My goal is to stand before the California Legislature and
address the Forest Service in a open forum,” says Robinson. “Forest
Service personnel should be held criminally liable for what they have
done.”

What's interesting is this bigger is best approach.

Neither the Il-76 or the 747 are exactly low level fliers in the fire bombing sense.

The Canadair 412 water bomber, although far far smaller is and its used extensively in Europe. They are happy to dump parts of the Mediterranian Sea onto fires without too much concern as to saltwater damage...

OK its a super scooper in the same way the Martin Mars is, except it also has full landing gear to use hard runways...

As to why not use the Il-76, there are a few C-141s at Davis Monthan that could have the same conversion, or reopen the C-5 line or even new build C-17s to do the job....all of which would probably be more appropriate both politically and in reality more effective than the Candid.

The others used (DC-4/6/7, Neptunes,Orions and Electras) are really beingi to show their weaknesses and age. Ok they are cheap....

If would be nice to see the Mars flying again, mainly becuase as flying boats they look so damn good in action...

What is strange is that of all the options avaliable so little is being done to address the issue. Its is clear that there are insuffucient resources, Il-76s or others to deal with the problem and very slow progress to solving it...

I agree, the Martin Mars wins the style contest hands down.

Interesting, the comparison to the 747.

Il-76 wingspan: 165 feet
747: 211 feet (closest boeing product is 767, 170 feet)

Doesn't strike me as the best marketing approach.