Air tanker support?

User avatar
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 31452
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by GordonH »

sherriff wrote:More than one plane can land at Kelowna, thousands of evacuees can fit into small towns. What is your point, don't you think we could help these people? So what if there is a 15 or 20 minute delay.


With only 1 runway, they can only land 1 plane at a time. Same with take off 1 at a time.

So if Kelowna airport could fit in the schedule these tankers, it would not be like Penticton or Kamloops. It would be between the commercial fights, since many have schedules to keep i.e connecting flights
"You've Gotta' Ask Yourself A Question. 'Do I Feel Lucky?' Well Do Ya...PUNK?" Harry Callahan
I don't care whether people like me or dislike me. I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
sherriff
Posts: 63
Joined: Aug 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by sherriff »

Fancy wrote:
sherriff wrote:Don't hurt too ask?

Never hurts to ask. Hopefully approval will be granted so Canada can at least act on it if necessary.

From what I have heard on the news and read here on castanet we needed these guys quite a while ago. I wonder if gov't. has looked around cause our fire fighters need more help. Our planes are just not big enough and lives are very much at risk. These guys are working beyond expectation and I'm sure exhausted.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 60431
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by Fancy »

I'm sure they have asked - there was an article in the paper about the Mars plane and why it wasn't being used.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 31452
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by GordonH »

Fancy wrote:I'm sure they have asked - there was an article in the paper about the Mars plane and why it wasn't being used.


Mars is slow, these others are slow loading since need long enough runway. They are faster to the fire zone due to they jet planes.
Could carry much larger fire retardant creating larger fire breaks on each pass
"You've Gotta' Ask Yourself A Question. 'Do I Feel Lucky?' Well Do Ya...PUNK?" Harry Callahan
I don't care whether people like me or dislike me. I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
sherriff
Posts: 63
Joined: Aug 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by sherriff »

Fancy wrote:I'm sure they have asked - there was an article in the paper about the Mars plane and why it wasn't being used.

Coulson, who owns the plane, said in an interview that the province has not asked or he would have got the plane ready.
User avatar
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 31452
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by GordonH »

sherriff wrote:More than one plane can land at Kelowna, thousands of evacuees can fit into small towns. What is your point, don't you think we could help these people? So what if there is a 15 or 20 minute delay.


With permission from National Defence, an option for landing (filling up) & taking off could be CFB Comox
"You've Gotta' Ask Yourself A Question. 'Do I Feel Lucky?' Well Do Ya...PUNK?" Harry Callahan
I don't care whether people like me or dislike me. I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
sherriff
Posts: 63
Joined: Aug 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by sherriff »

When Penticton had a big fire and losing houses the Mars, in spite of all the stories we hear came to their aid and put the fire out! Since the OK mountain park fire when the Mars was used for the last time here in BC the liberals would not hire them as they spoke out against the liberals in their fire protection for our forests etc. So much for freedom of speech. Politics will burn most of this province to the ground. Careful where your next house is located. By the way I did watch the Mars on the Penticton fire and saw the difference with my own eyes. Ground crews were still required to extinguish completely.
canuck500
Fledgling
Posts: 276
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 5:28 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by canuck500 »

Air Tankers/ Water bombers don't put fires out on there own in spite of what you want to believe. They can only cool it off and offer some containment. The only time a tanker will put out a fire out on it's own if it's small enough to blanket the entire thing.

As far as the Very Large Air Tankers don't forget in addition to runway they also need infrastructure to mix & load retardant. Have you seen the set up at the tankers bases we have already? Believe what you want to believe but I'd rather believe the people that are actually doing the job of forest firefighting.
dale mck
Posts: 36
Joined: Dec 4th, 2005, 7:51 am

Re: air tanker support?

Post by dale mck »

Besides the length of the runway,,,,they have to be designed to handle the weight of these much larger jets,,,,,along with the taxiway. And the width of the taxiway and runway. It sounds simple,,,until you know what you need to know.
seewood
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3614
Joined: May 29th, 2013, 2:08 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by seewood »

canuck500 wrote:Air Tankers/ Water bombers don't put fires out on there own in spite of what you want to believe. They can only cool it off and offer some containment. The only time a tanker will put out a fire out on it's own if it's small enough to blanket the entire thing.As far as the Very Large Air Tankers don't forget in addition to runway they also need infrastructure to mix & load retardant. Have you seen the set up at the tankers bases we have already? Believe what you want to believe but I'd rather believe the people that are actually doing the job of forest firefighting



Spot on. I read the turn around for the 747 tanker was 1/2 hour before take off again.
Penticton tanker base has huge retardant tanks for the twin engine Convair's and bigger Electra's. Can only imagine what is required if a 747 plus any other tankers using the same facilities.
Speed of the 747 though might be able to use a sole source suitable airport... Wonder what they would use for a bird dog with one of those ?
I am not wealthy but I am rich
User avatar
GenesisGT
Guru
Posts: 5254
Joined: Jun 19th, 2010, 12:21 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by GenesisGT »

The length of runway required to land or take off depends on many factors including the individual aircraft's empty weight, the fuel and payload on board, the wind direction and speed, the temperature, the humidity and the altitude/atmospheric pressure.

You might remember Phoenix Airport was closed this summer due to high temperatures.



The following is from Boeing

Minimum TORA (Take Off Run Available):
B747-400Domestic, CFM56-80C2B1, air conditioning off, Standard day, sea level, no wind, 0° runway slope, 450,000-510,000lbs: 4800ft

B747-400ERF, CFM56-80C2B5F, air conditioning off, Standard day + 17°C, 6000ft altitude , no wind, 0° runway slope, 15,600ft, MOTW reduced from 910,000lbs to 885,000lbs


Minimum Runway Landing Length:
B747-400, -400Combi, -400Freighter, -400 Domestic:
475,000 lbs, dry runway, sea level, flaps 30: some 5200ft

B747-400ER, -400ERF:
Maximum landing weight, wet runway, 6000ft pressure altitude, flaps 25:some 10,000ft

You see these figure vary GREATLY with the current conditions
Ladies and gentlemen, the future lies in the future!
bob vernon
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3794
Joined: Oct 27th, 2008, 10:37 am

Re: air tanker support?

Post by bob vernon »

Given a long enough fire season, it was inevitable that the Martin Mars and 747 ideas would show up. Bigger and bigger just has to be better.
squash junky
Fledgling
Posts: 181
Joined: Nov 6th, 2015, 3:38 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by squash junky »

I used to fly the 747-400. I doubt it can turn onto all taxiways and then there is the runway and taxiway bearing strength.
With a good load of water and high temperatures it will need some runway, but as the distances or times in the air are short not much fuel is needed so that compensates a bit.
Most limiting I think are the taxiways and room to maneuver. Would love to try :)
sherriff
Posts: 63
Joined: Aug 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

Re: air tanker support?

Post by sherriff »

bob vernon wrote:Given a long enough fire season, it was inevitable that the Martin Mars and 747 ideas would show up. Bigger and bigger just has to be better.

I think it is amazing that year after year we have forest fires that get beyond our capability and when they get really big the same thing comes up,,,,,a plane that can actually make a difference. So if we have one in our own province, why don't we use it? Our American neighbours even have them to use. Big fire.......big bomber. If big isn't better, why do we build big? If we look over time, fire fighting equipment has evolved bigger and bigger. As a firefighter (structure), the first thing we did was to use 1 1\2 inch hose until the 2 1\2 inch hose could be set up when we were looking at larger fires. Next was to call for more equipment. Couch on fire,,,water on the couch not on the walls or floor. Forest on fire,,,, water on forest. Water or retardant on forest in front of fire will prevent ground fire from spreading but when fire approaches lakes or rivers and jumps across I'm not thinking a narrow line of retardant is going to do much. Maybe the province might want to revisit their thinking and get some aircraft that can handle a fire that has grown to thousands upon thousands of hectares. :smt045
User avatar
cooldude
Fledgling
Posts: 217
Joined: Nov 9th, 2009, 8:37 am

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by cooldude »

We really need to put this whole "air tankers put fires out" mentality to bed. All air support, fixed wing and rotary, assist the ground crews-the horsepower on the ground if you will. Air support is provided for the Initial Attack, Paratack, Rap and Unit Crews as well as type 2 crews on the ground. They also assist the heavy equipment operators, as they build fireguards, safe zones and heli spots in conjunction with ground crews.

On the subject of bigger is better, actually it is not. So park that Martin Mars in the Smithsonian. We are simply replacing, worldwide, older fleets with newer, more efficient aircraft that are being retrofitted with water/retardant tanks. There are also amphibious aircraft as well CL 215T's and CL 415's and the AT 802's, which were produced specifically for suppression activities. And yes, you will see passenger jets converted to these types of air tankers for their speed and range. There are even C130's with tanks retrofitted inside. Some of these aircraft are not necessarily retrofitted for their capacity, but for efficiency. Its all about cycle and turn around times to the target or incident.

I have 25 years experience in wildfire suppression, and I hope that this sheds a bit of light on the subject for you all.

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”