Comments on: Waterbomber sense http://www.aircraftnews.com/2009/11/14/waterbomber-sense/ Breaking Aircraft News and Views Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:04:50 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Gene http://www.aircraftnews.com/2009/11/14/waterbomber-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-3718 Gene Thu, 27 May 2010 10:00:59 +0000 http://www.aircraftnews.com/?p=1060#comment-3718 Let's use it for dumping pig crap of the bad guys in both AOR's. One the drones have locked on....dump baby! Let’s use it for dumping pig crap of the bad guys in both AOR’s.

One the drones have locked on….dump baby!

]]> By: mgiles http://www.aircraftnews.com/2009/11/14/waterbomber-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-1596 mgiles Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:04:59 +0000 http://www.aircraftnews.com/?p=1060#comment-1596 Thanks Sam for the thoughtful reply. You make good points. I have conversed with the pilots of some of the heavy metal water bombers and they are not quite so dismissive of the capability of the large tankers as you are. Their opinion is that they handle terrain and manouvering very well. Also their anecdotal comments about dispersal of water load is that it is more effective than many expected. Clearly a lot more research is possible. Cheers Thanks Sam for the thoughtful reply. You make good points. I have conversed with the pilots of some of the heavy metal water bombers and they are not quite so dismissive of the capability of the large tankers as you are. Their opinion is that they handle terrain and manouvering very well. Also their anecdotal comments about dispersal of water load is that it is more effective than many expected. Clearly a lot more research is possible.
Cheers

]]> By: steve http://www.aircraftnews.com/2009/11/14/waterbomber-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-1565 steve Mon, 04 Jan 2010 05:10:57 +0000 http://www.aircraftnews.com/?p=1060#comment-1565 Although this aircraft is capable of holding a large amount of water or fire retardant, The DC10 is not at all practical for the state of Victoria as an effective fire suppression aircraft. It can only land at one airfield in the entire state and by the time it has filled been deployed, dumped its load and returned to the airfield to refill and refuel the sky cranes can drop the same amount of water much more effectively and efficiently in a quarter of the time. The DC10 also has to fly at a much higher altitude than rotary winged aircraft or smaller fixed winged fire bombers, especially in mountainous areas meaning that when its load is deployed by the time its hit the ground it has scattered in the wind and become less concentrated, hence limiting its ability to suppress fire behaviour. How many fires do we get in flat open country with no wind? And if we did have these perfect conditions, ground based fire appliances would be deployed rather than aircraft. Bigger is not the answer. Perhaps the State Government should spend the 10 million dollars employing extra fire-fighters and giving them better training in conjunction with community education and we wouldn’t need to spend vast amounts of money on what is basically something designed to please the uneducated public. Sam (Government Fire fighter) Although this aircraft is capable of holding a large amount of water or fire retardant, The DC10 is not at all practical for the state of Victoria as an effective fire suppression aircraft. It can only land at one airfield in the entire state and by the time it has filled been deployed, dumped its load and returned to the airfield to refill and refuel the sky cranes can drop the same amount of water much more effectively and efficiently in a quarter of the time. The DC10 also has to fly at a much higher altitude than rotary winged aircraft or smaller fixed winged fire bombers, especially in mountainous areas meaning that when its load is deployed by the time its hit the ground it has scattered in the wind and become less concentrated, hence limiting its ability to suppress fire behaviour. How many fires do we get in flat open country with no wind? And if we did have these perfect conditions, ground based fire appliances would be deployed rather than aircraft.
Bigger is not the answer. Perhaps the State Government should spend the 10 million dollars employing extra fire-fighters and giving them better training in conjunction with community education and we wouldn’t need to spend vast amounts of money on what is basically something designed to please the uneducated public.

Sam (Government Fire fighter)

]]> By: mgiles http://www.aircraftnews.com/2009/11/14/waterbomber-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-1558 mgiles Sun, 03 Jan 2010 07:39:31 +0000 http://www.aircraftnews.com/?p=1060#comment-1558 DOC very roughly is $10,000 per hour. Claims have been made that the contract for the DC10 is of the order of $10 million for the season. I would guess the Elvises are similar order of magnitude. DOC very roughly is $10,000 per hour. Claims have been made that the contract for the DC10 is of the order of $10 million for the season. I would guess the Elvises are similar order of magnitude.

]]> By: Julio http://www.aircraftnews.com/2009/11/14/waterbomber-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-1377 Julio Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:32:21 +0000 http://www.aircraftnews.com/?p=1060#comment-1377 Do you knw the costs to us of a DC10 and Erickson cranes? Regards Julio Do you knw the costs to us of a DC10 and Erickson cranes?

Regards

Julio

]]>