quote:

Originally posted by TomV:
Here is a video of a DC10 that I shot from my backyard last month.

[Video]

From your backyard, wow. That had to be interesting. I assume they got the fire under control.

or he moved!

Does anyone fly old WWII planes for fire fighting like in 'Always' anymore?

How do they fill the tanker?

Certainly they don’t skim over a lake and get water that way?

Nvrmd...just googled it.... Very interesting

The tank can be refilled in eight minutes, and when emptied it can be done in eight seconds!

They have to land to refill,so no scooping out of lakes.

The water when dropped can be 100yds wide and one mile long!!!

I flew the oldest tankers remaining, which were the PB4Y-2's (B-24 bombers, navy configuration, single tail, bigger engines). Built in 1944, those have been retired. The P2V-5 and P2V-7 Neptunes, which have two R3350 radials and two J-34 jets, replaced the 4Y's in naval service, and were operating alongside the 4Y's; after T-123 shed a wing in Estes Park, Colorado in 2002, the 4Y's were permanently retired, and the P2's kept flying. These were about 10-15 years newer, depending on the airplane. The last of the P2V's was retired two years ago (three years ago, actually, but they were brought out of retirement for some west coast fires, briefly).

AirSpray Canada had some A-26's and some TBM Avengers, but those have been retired. The A-26 was the airplane Richard Dreyfuss was supposed to be flying in Always. The actual airplane used from that movie sat at Billings for many years; I used to park my tanker next to it on days off.

We operated the C-130A; these were also retired in 2002 after an inflight breakup of T-130 at Walker, California. The A models were the newest tankers in service at the time; I flew the oldest, made in 1944, and the newest, made in 1954.

NASA studies some years ago determined that aircraft in fire service experience cumulative stress (and subsequent life reduction) at a rate 1,000 times that of commercial operations. Currently, aircraft operate in fire operations with significantly reduced operating lives and are retired far earlier than they might have been years ago.

Back in the day, nearly every pilot was also a mechanic, and we carried our tools on board, as well as a large number of spare parts; it was a u-break-it, u-fix-it world, and we did. Times have changed. Aerial fire continues to carry with it significant hazards, but the loss rate is much less today. Part of that is a move to more modern platforms.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
How do they fill the tanker?

Certainly they don’t skim over a lake and get water that way?

Nvrmd...just googled it.... Very interesting

The tank can be refilled in eight minutes, and when emptied it can be done in eight seconds!

They have to land to refill,so no scooping out of lakes.

The water when dropped can be 100yds wide and one mile long!!!

That depends on the tanker. Scooping aircraft do pickups on lakes; these are primarily the CL215, CL215T, and CL415. If the fire is near the water source, they can do a lot of work. Helicopters dip from rivers, lakes, and "pumpkins," which are rubberized pools filled from water tenders or trucks or hydrants, near fires.

Wheeled tankers, which include large air tankers and SEATs, load through hoses at tanker bases, though SEATs can also be filled directly off fire hydrants (done that many times). Fill time depends on the aircraft size, location, material being loaded, etc. Unless fuel is required, loading is typically done "hot" with engines turning, to minimize engine starts and stops (thermal and starter cycles), and ground turn time.

Drop size depends on the coverage level aind aircraft type, and tank system type. Coverage level is gallons per hundred square feet; coverage level 4 is four gallons/100 sq. ft. SEATs typically drop coverage levels 2-6, and most large air tankers drop up to an 8, with coverage levels up to 10 possible.

A limitation on coverage is that to be effective, the retardant must stop it's forward travel and fall straight down (otherwise only the approach-side of the fuels gets covered and the retardant becomes ineffective. Too heavy a coverage, and the retardant loses effectiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

From your backyard, wow. That had to be interesting. I assume they got the fire under control.

It was starting to get close, but we have a drainage culvert behind our back fence. So there is about 50 yards of rocks, really not a lot to burn. My wife has cleared all the tumble weeds and other burnable stuff, of course it would help if the neighbors did the same.

Once it started approaching the house they moved the planes (4) and helicopters (2) over towards us. They laid down the fire retardant and that put a quick end to the danger.

^^^^^^ Interesting, it seems the landing gear is down. I'm wondering why? Maybe to help slow the plane down a bit more? Dang!

The MD-87 is required to drop with gear down. Erikson has repeatedly attempted to get that limitation removed, but the FAA will not budge.

The MD-87 has a history of flame-outs and engine failures due to retardant ingestion in the rear fuselage-mounted engines. You can see in the picture that retardant has followed the empennage up until it's directly behind the aircraft; until some modifications were made, retardant was coming over the wing, and entering the engines inlet.

The short answer is that it's part of the tanker modification and a limitation on the airplane tanker conversion. It's unlikely the FAA will remove it.

I've flown other tankers in which we lowered gear a the top of a downhill drop, as additional drag, but that's technique. With the MD-87, it's a limitation and a requirement.

quote:

Originally posted by TomV:
It was starting to get close, but we have a drainage culvert behind our back fence. So there is about 50 yards of rocks, really not a lot to burn. My wife has cleared all the tumble weeds and other burnable stuff, of course it would help if the neighbors did the same.

Once it started approaching the house they moved the planes (4) and helicopters (2) over towards us. They laid down the fire retardant and that put a quick end to the danger.

You might be surprised how often fire burns through a retardant line, or burning materials go airborne and cross it to spot on the other side. Add a little wind, and fires can run extremely quickly through light grasses and desert fuels. With a wind driven fire line, you'll never outrun it.

A little known or appreciated fact is that more firefighters die from grass fires in wildland fire, than any other kind. Light fuels are easy to underestimate. In Southern Utah, around St. George, I've chased some fast-moving fires. I've had associates killed there chasing fires, and have nearly wound up the same. It's not too far northwest of that fire that two tankers crashed recently on a fire.

The largest loss of firefighter life in modern times on a wildland fire occurred in an area that had fuels much more sparse than what's in your back yard. I did the initial drop at Yarnell, and the fuel was so sparse that the smoke was very difficult to spot. A few hours later it exploded and ultimately burned through two towns and took out a hot shot team. The basic fuel model in that area was quite similar to what's in your back yard.

quote:

We operated the C-130A; these were also retired in 2002 after an inflight breakup of T-130 at Walker, California. The A models were the newest tankers in service at the time; I flew the oldest, made in 1944, and the newest, made in 1954.

Um, you sure you got the airframe right?
The C130's first flight wasn't until 1954.

TomV, is that Hurricane or Laverkin?

The B747 is frequently stationed out of Mather AFB in Sacramento. You can now drive up to the area where it’s parked and serviced. Pretty amazing machine. Our house is on the approach for Mather and it’s cool to see the 747 coming in to land.

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
TomV, is that Hurricane or Laverkin?

I'm in Washington City, between St. George and Hurricane.

Weird timing, just saw that a plane went down and the pilot was killed outside of SF fighting the fires there. RIP to the pilot.

quote:

Originally posted by Snake207:


Um, you sure you got the airframe right?
The C130's first flight wasn't until 1954.

Yes, I did.

The oldest tankers on the fireline at the time were the PB4Y-2, which I flew. The newest tankers on the line were the C-130A, which I also flew. Ours were 1954 models.

The gap from oldest to newest at the time? Ten years. The 4Y's were built in 1944.

Both the 4Y and the C-130A's were retired in 2002.

I'm tracking now....

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

c.

During an active fire in a canyon, I had an engine failure in a single engine tanker (SEAT). I put the airplane down on the mountainside, and when I came to a rest, black smoke was pouring out the engine inlet. I looked past the smoke to see a Jetranger on my nose, the pilot watching me. He was coming off the dip (water pickup) when I made my radio call and came out the canyon mouth, and he followed me as I put the airplane down. He had a full bambi bucket and stayed long enough to ensure a fire didn't start under the airplane, before going back to the fire we'd been working.

The sight of that Jetranger, through the smoke on my nose, was surreal.

Air Tractor?

That airplane was a PZL M18T Dromader with a Garrett TPE-331-10 turbine conversion. Other than a few state contracts, the Dromaders aren't in use for SEAT work any more. It's all air tractors; mostly on wheels, a few on floats, doing scoop work off lakes.

For SEATs, I was carded in, and flew on fires, radial powered M18's, and both Pratt and Garrett powered conversions. I also flew the S2R thrush, and the Air Tractor 502 and 802 on fires (in addition to large air tankers, air attack, etc). The 802 is the hands-down clear winner when it comes to single engine fixed-wing fire aircraft; it was purpose-built for the job, and works very well in nearly every respect. It handles better, maneuvers well, hauls a better load, has low maintenance, gets into places that other aircraft can't, and the airplane is built around a roll cage (an important consideration).

So...how does one become a pilot for the fire service? Do they even have a need for pilots or are they pretty well staffed?

I frequently see the DC10 tankers at MCC in Sacramento, along with MD80's, or whatever version they are. Erickson has a large presence there at times. Very impressive aircraft that demand unforgiving skills by the crews.