A 747 in California

[Conan Edogawa]

Do you know the adapted 747 which now should be used as a fire-fighting plane in California?



I saw it today on N24, a news channel in Germany.

[Rifleman]

This project has been going on for a  few yrs now..........it's not a new concept with the 747........

[spitfire boy]

[quote]This project has been going on for a

[alrot]

Boy.....! That's a lot of water indeed!!

[born_2_fly]

I believe the project was abandoned, the aircraft stripped out, and has now returned to cargo flights again.

The FAA wouldn't allow the use of the aircraft over federal ground, as it had not received the correct certification. So in fairness, (yes some areas it would be) it wouldn't be able to be used very widely anyway in the current fires.

Plus, I much prefer the DC-10  8-)

[Conan Edogawa]

This project has been going on for a  few yrs now..........it's not a new concept with the 747........

I haven't heard of it before..

I also just saw on TV that there's a DC-10, like Alex mentioned...

[DONTREADMYUSERNAME]

I was thinking about what if they could convert some KC-135 or KC-10s to drop water.......... I mean it shouldn't be that hard, just replace the nozzle on the boom

[Splinter562]

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_910

(Not exactly a KC-10, but basically the same airframe)

[DONTREADMYUSERNAME]

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_910

(Not exactly a KC-10, but basically the same airframe)

I knew about that aircraft (i even saw it on the news) but I was just wondering if the Air Force could maybe supplement the firefighting efforts in Southern California with their tankers.....

Just my wild imagination thinking out loud...

[Chris_F]

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_910

(Not exactly a KC-10, but basically the same airframe)

I knew about that aircraft (i even saw it on the news) but I was just wondering if the Air Force could maybe supplement the firefighting efforts in Southern California with their tankers.....

Just my wild imagination thinking out loud...

Don't think they could get enough flow rate out of the rig, and if they did I don't know if the aircraft would be easy to control as it shed its weight that quickly (as opposed to an airplane designed for such a task that caries the weight differently).  Plus, I believe the fuel used to refuel planes comes out of the same tanks the aircraft uses to fuel its own engines, so a dramatic redesign would be necessary there.

[Chris_F]

I believe the project was abandoned, the aircraft stripped out, and has now returned to cargo flights again.

The FAA wouldn't allow the use of the aircraft over federal ground, as it had not received the correct certification.

Not certified to dump water on a fire?  Sounds monumentally stupid to me.  In other words: sounds like something the government would do.  :)

[C]

I knew about that aircraft (i even saw it on the news) but I was just wondering if the Air Force could maybe supplement the firefighting efforts in Southern California with their tankers.....

Just my wild imagination thinking out loud...

Chris has hit the nail on the head - a tankers flow rate is tiny compared to the release of water by "water bombers". Even of dump an airliner may only be pumping out 2.5-5 tonnes per minute.

Hence a large tank (with a big hole) is the only practicable solution.

[Ashar]

If that thing was to crash, would it catch fire? :-?

[C]

If that thing was to crash, would it catch fire? :-?

Judging by the amount of fuel onboard, almost certainly. I'd imagine one of the first things they'd do in any major emergency would be get rid of the dead weight of the water anyway...

Bearing in mind the survivablilty of such incidents it's fairly academic anyway!

[DonAlfonsoRoKil]

N24 ist zwar en guter Sender,
aber er hat die Angewohnheit, alles alle zwei monate von neuem zu zeigen,
und das auch wenn ein Film 2 Jahre alt is!

Really no news, that 747 project...........