Castanet

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 3290109868


i guess we will see how much interior likes the bclibs after this gets passed around on facebook .

Not on Facebook....( one of just a couple I suspect ) care to elaborate? Coulson owned the Mars water bombers but they have been sold I believe to be museum pieces in the States. The ministry found they are not cost effective to most fires, the smaller skimmers get more water down in the same period.
Coulson also owns a few S-61 helicopters( 10,000 lb max lift) that can be used with water buckets. They are handy for filling portable water tanks for any ground crews or dealing with spot fires outside the main body of fire.

seewood wrote:Not on Facebook....( one of just a couple I suspect ) care to elaborate? Coulson owned the Mars water bombers but they have been sold I believe to be museum pieces in the States. The ministry found they are not cost effective to most fires, the smaller skimmers get more water down in the same period.
Coulson also owns a few S-61 helicopters( 10,000 lb max lift) that can be used with water buckets. They are handy for filling portable water tanks for any ground crews or dealing with spot fires outside the main body of fire.

wayne is as we speak converting 6 737 to air tankers . it has nothing to do with mars plane. hawaii mars will be ready in august need to fix part the fuesalage . but the 737 be ready in next week . it doesnt take long to put the tanks on .

according to wayne the owner they also have c 130 tankers but they in australia because our govt wont give them contracts . heck even us air force hired coulson for firefighting .

^^^

maryjane48 wrote:but the 737 be ready in next week . it doesnt take long to put the tanks on .

I know you style yourself as an expert on... well.... pretty much everything but I'd really love to hear what your credentials are in the field of aircraft modification and conversion. Only asking because, as usual, your post is just ridiculous.

Ready "next week"?

"Doesn't take long to put the tanks on"?

First of all the tank goes "in" not "on" the aircraft. With the tank "inside" the aircraft the water/retardant has to have a way to get "outside" of it which means a LOT of engineering to design and then install a chute through to the bottom of the aircraft and external doors. Having been involved in the conversion of a C-130 tanker recently I can say with some authority that a fire tanker conversion of a B737 is going to be a very significant project. Like the C-130, the B737 is a pressurized aircraft, you can't just go hacking holes willy-nilly anywhere you like.

In other words "takes long".

The first Fireliner arrived in Port Alberni on May 26, after being repainted in Spokane, Wash.

Over the next few months, Coulson Aviation will convert the aircraft into an air tanker capable of carrying 4,000 gallons (15,141 litres) of water or flame retardant in a Coulson-developed gravity retardant aerial delivery system (RADS).

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/coulson-a ... fireliner/

Mr. Coulson said they expect to begin installing the retardant system in June with a completion date of December of this year. When that is complete they will start on another. The first conversion will be done by Coulson Aircrane Canada.

http://fireaviation.com/2017/05/21/coul ... r-tankers/

Installation of the tanks begins in June and should be complete by November. After two weeks of flight tests by the U.S. Forest Service in Southern California, where the aircraft will be tested for “next generation” classification, it should be ready for service by the end of the year.

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/i ... 1.20212148

they askèd in 2008 to be a contract firefighter team . its now 2017 thats 9 years . they have c130 in australia and on contract with us military . it doesnt take 9 years . them craft would have been ready and flying if the bclibs had a clue . hopefully our new premier signs them up right away . put bcers to work

According to the delivery scheduled outlined in the Air Force’s statement of work, the first outfitted HC-130H should be delivered within one year and each kit should take no longer than six months to install. A one-month flight test period is planned to ensure proper aircraft integration and retardant delivery accuracy.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -f-425653/


according to that with no rush they doing it in 6 months or less so clearly when things got dry our so called leader and forestry minister should have been on the ball . unless of course climate change is chinese hoax that most rightwingers inexpicably seem to put faith in, atleast one would be ready . plus they have night certifaction . only company in north america with that ticket . to bad they are in australia and alaska instead of here

maryjane48 wrote:https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1234598090002164&id=72363290109868


i guess we will see how much interior likes the bclibs after this gets passed around on facebook .

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4197766

But even if the province changed course and requested help from the Martin Mars, it would be weeks before it could join the fight against the fires in B.C., Coulson said.

The aircraft is currently undergoing maintenance as part of a program launched last year called the Ultimate Flying Experience, which allows pilots to pay for the experience of flying the giant airtanker.

That maintenance work will not be complete until August.

So if/when Horgan doesn't ask for help due to the limitations in the attached article, you'll be complaining about that too, right?

the us military has contract with wayne as does alaska and australia . the bclibs chose to use smaller craft which in steep terrain on smaller fires is good but this isnt that and bc is prone to large fires close to people . the libs made a mistake and now we are paying for it in lost homes and potential loss of life .


and your critisism is for a choice that may or may not be made and my reaction ? that awfully corncerned for bc of you .

I was just listening to an informative discussion on the radio about the fires and the Martin Mars bomber came up. The problem is its size. When it comes along, other resources need to stand down. They're removed from the fire, the bomber does its thing, and then an assessment needs to be done of the area where the drop was done. Because of the weight of the water dropped from the big bomber damage can be done to trees that can cause them to fall on firefighters so the area has to be inspected and marked before the firefighters can return to the area. Also, the bomber can only be used on certain lakes and then other aircraft need to stay clear. The smaller aircraft are far more versatile, do a better job, and are far more cost-effective. As the one expert said, people are emotionally attached to the Martin Mars bomber but they need to look at what's now available.

Urbane wrote:I was just listening to an informative discussion on the radio about the fires and the Martin Mars bomber came up. The problem is its size. When it comes along, other resources need to stand down. They're removed from the fire, the bomber does its thing, and then an assessment needs to be done of the area where the drop was done. Damage can be done to trees that can cause them to fall on firefighters so the area has to be inspected and marked before the firefighters can return to the area. Also, the bomber can only be used on certain lakes and then other aircraft need to stay clear. The smaller aircraft are far more versatile, do a better job, and are far more cost-effective. As the one expert said, people are emotionally attached to the Martin Mars bomber but they need to look at what's now available.

Yes the Martin Mars bomber is an outdated piece of fire fighting equipment, but if you actually read the article I posted you'd be aware of the fact that Coulson has offered up other types of more efficient air craft.

Urbane wrote:I was just listening to an informative discussion on the radio about the fires and the Martin Mars bomber came up. The problem is its size. When it comes along, other resources need to stand down. They're removed from the fire, the bomber does its thing, and then an assessment needs to be done of the area where the drop was done. Because of the weight of the water dropped from the big bomber damage can be done to trees that can cause them to fall on firefighters so the area has to be inspected and marked before the firefighters can return to the area. Also, the bomber can only be used on certain lakes and then other aircraft need to stay clear. The smaller aircraft are far more versatile, do a better job, and are far more cost-effective. As the one expert said, people are emotionally attached to the Martin Mars bomber but they need to look at what's now available.

It is also really slow. Those fire cats can drop a much water in much less time. Its day has come and gone. Much better equipment available.

Angling for $$$ is how Coulson comes across.

Hurtlander wrote:Yes the Martin Mars bomber is an outdated piece of fire fighting equipment, but if you actually read the article I posted you'd be aware of the fact that Coulson has offered up other types of more efficient air craft.

I read the article but my comments were about the Martin Mars bomber which was being discussed on the radio. This thread is a political thread and really has nothing to do with putting out fires.