Page 1 of 1

Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:36 pm
by cheesegrater
"You will not bring the Russian planes in here: We're not having any Russians coming here and fighting our fires."

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/los-alamos-01.htm

http://www.rense.com/general43/still.htm

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/33 ... etail.html

http://www.desastres.org/noticias.asp?id=13062005-1

http://www.osm.org/site/story/11182005arson

http://www.didyouknow.org/firefighters.htm

http://www.waterbomber.com

I think think it is riddiculus that the Americans are too proud to use a Russian aircraft. Russia buys American aircraft such as Boeing. Why can't America return the favour? The Il-76 is a more than capable aircraft, it's the fastest, biggest waterbomber, it can take off grass airfields, operate in Siberian/Arctic weather, and is a proven waterbomber.

Re: Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:25 pm
by beaky
Nobody asked me about this.... ::) I would've said "OK".

Re: Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:40 pm
by RitterKreuz
ditto... i would have said ok too.

Re: Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:27 pm
by Mobius
Why not?  Anyone hear about the 747s they're converting into a firefighting airplane.  Maybe they were waiting for that. ???

Re: Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:21 pm
by cheesegrater
Why not?  Anyone hear about the 747s they're converting into a firefighting airplane.  Maybe they were waiting for that. ???


I doubt that.

In June 1998, Flagler Country in northeast Florida was ablaze. Fires were so bad the Daytona 500 had to be cancelled. Half-a-million acres were eventually devastated and several hundred homes destroyed. A standard criticism about the IL-76 is that it won't work in mountain areas: Flagler County is pancake flat.

On June 22, EMERCOM made an offer to then-Gov. Lawton Chiles to bring in the Waterbomber and a crew. The plane would have been in Florida within 48 hours, Robinson said. All the Russians asked was that the state cover the costs of fuel and maintenance for the aircraft and food and lodging for the crew. A cap of $500,000 for 30 days was placed on the mission.

At first, everything seemed to be moving without a hitch. The state of Florida said OK. Both the Federal Aviation Agency and the State Department gave their approval. The Florida Air National Guard was going to host the aircraft and its crew at Patrick Air Force Base.

Suddenly the governor decided against the offer, and the whole thing fell through.

At a press briefing Chiles tried to justify his decision. "The Forest Service told me that the plane was so big and carries so much water it would destroy homes and kill the firefighters," he said.


Here they say that the Il-76 is too big. If the Il-76 is too big, the 747 certainly is.

James Harrison is a battalion chief with the Santa Barbara Co. Fire Dept. in southern California. In his nearly 40-year career as a firefighter he's fought both structure fires and wildfires.

Asked if he thought the amount of water discharged is not really a good thing, Harrison laughed.

"I know the Forest Service disagrees with me, and I disagree with them," he said. "Whichever. But I don't understand why there's anything other than a political reason that I'm not aware off of that we wouldn't at least bring that plane over here and try it."


Although, a firefighter says the size of an aircraft is not a bad thing.

Robinson said that two years ago during the Cerro Grande fire near Los Alamos, EMERCOM had two planes sitting on the runway in Moscow, fully crewed, each plane having three eight-man crews, ready to take off. They had been requested by FEMA, but at the last minute, FEMA told them they weren't needed after all.

The Associated Press reported that then-District IX FEMA director Buddy Young went to the fire and publicly announced, "You will not bring the Russian planes in here: We're not having any Russians coming here and fighting our fires."


Political reason...

[quote]But in fact, Robinson pointed out, this has nothing to do with the IL-76 being Russian-made and owned.

The Canadians have their CL-215 tankers and CL-415 SuperScoopers. They developed the CL-215

Re: Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:42 am
by SilverFox441
CL-215's and 415's have long been used in US forest fires...

And why not? They are simply the most effective water bombers in the world. They might not get there first, they might not carry the most water...but they can transfer the most water to a fire over time.

None of this pansy nonsense of going back to place where they can be refilled...they find water, grab water and take it to where it's needed.

Simply put...

If you have a forest fire problem, you call for a SuperScooper or settle for second best. :)

Re: Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:03 am
by Ivan
If you have a forest fire problem, leas a Be-200. Takes off from water and takes more load than any canadair

Re: Il-76 Waterbomber

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:21 pm
by SilverFox441
Simply an inferior copycat. :)

Be-200 has a greater capacity, but can't carry more water in most cases. I know that sounds strange, but the fact is a higher reload speed and lower manueverability mean that it has to terminate scooping earlier and can't use some water sources that a SuperScooper can.

It was an admirable idea, it might even lead Canadair to build that CL-615 as a turbofan now that someone has made a turbofan work in the role...

That aircraft will still be the world leader in fire fighting.  ;)