-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
@Daveroo - Canuck fire fighting planes to US
- Thread starter Paul Anderson
- Start date
In the times of our budget conscious economy and political infighting, this is something that the USFS and the Dept. of the Interior need to embrace; a fleet of capable, proven and versatile airplanes that could help stem the tide in fighting wildfires across our nation.
View attachment 95105
View attachment 95105
Daveroo
Members +
thanks for the link Paul,according to fire aviation this company who is buying the CL-415 has 4 or 5 CL-215s in AZ already.ive said in the past i just dont think these will benefit places like northern cal...there are a few lakes they could scoop from in my area (tahoe and eldorado national forests) but they are deep in steep walled canyons and if these have a superduper rate of climb when loaded..i just dont see it...also i wonder...lakes and bodies of water that dont allow even powered boats ect because they are drinking water reservoirs,would the CL214/415s be allowed to scoop from them?...i know the martin mars was a large aircraft...but it needed to use shasta in the north which took the advantage of its capabilities away,it was/is slow and had huge turn around times.i still think the heavy fixed wing ac are better,,there are airports all over norcal they can use and we have many portable retardant systems to fill them at just about any airport.
but back to the scoopers..yes they are great for areas that have alot of lakes or wide deep rivers..but what if they were dispatched to a fire in Lovelock nv....they would have pyramid lake or tahoe..which means a long "load and return" time.
all that said...i have no clue if they can be ground loaded with water or retardant...which if they are...then buy a fleet of them..they WOULD then be the best ac for it.i want to say though...water needs to be placed direct,which in personal fire fighting experience....siphons.. the need for pretreating with retardant is a huge issue to me..if you are only going to go direct,,then use a helicopter and ground pounders..
but back to the scoopers..yes they are great for areas that have alot of lakes or wide deep rivers..but what if they were dispatched to a fire in Lovelock nv....they would have pyramid lake or tahoe..which means a long "load and return" time.
all that said...i have no clue if they can be ground loaded with water or retardant...which if they are...then buy a fleet of them..they WOULD then be the best ac for it.i want to say though...water needs to be placed direct,which in personal fire fighting experience....siphons.. the need for pretreating with retardant is a huge issue to me..if you are only going to go direct,,then use a helicopter and ground pounders..
Daveroo,
I was thinking on the lines of a "Rapid Deployment Force", where a fleet could be dispatched to a "hot spot" to assist the bigger aircraft, continually scooping/ dropping water while the big boys drop retardant.
I just keep seeing these 100K+ acre wildfires in the West and keep asking myself "there has to be a better way"... especially after fires like Waldo Canyon, West Fork, Black Forest and Left Hand Canyon!
View attachment 95106
I was thinking on the lines of a "Rapid Deployment Force", where a fleet could be dispatched to a "hot spot" to assist the bigger aircraft, continually scooping/ dropping water while the big boys drop retardant.
I just keep seeing these 100K+ acre wildfires in the West and keep asking myself "there has to be a better way"... especially after fires like Waldo Canyon, West Fork, Black Forest and Left Hand Canyon!
View attachment 95106
Daveroo
Members +
well id go along with that.like i say (which im not a writer,im not good at making a point as i seem to drift off)...they would be great in places where the water source is close.especially if they are using something like the DC-10,a few years ago..or maybe it was 2011? anyway they flew 910 from McClellan in downtown sacramento to az..and also heard them talking about the fact they could make two loads in to NM aday.
but i still think what happened to Aero Union was akin to criminal activity,and as ive said before..i have/had inside information on that situation due to the Chief pilot/company general manager is a family friend,those planes should never have been grounded.
but i still think what happened to Aero Union was akin to criminal activity,and as ive said before..i have/had inside information on that situation due to the Chief pilot/company general manager is a family friend,those planes should never have been grounded.
hubbabubba
Charter Member
It's about time!
It will actually be the other way around. Big load aircraft does not equate with big quantity drops. In an analysis (HERE) made last year for the western U.S., the CL-415 was delivering more water than a C-130 after 150 minutes of operation, easily doubling the quantity of water delivered after 4.5 hours.
Another misconception, alas also present in the aforementioned document, is that the CL-415 only delivers water; not so! The crew can, at the flip of a switch, mix the scooped water with foam retardant contained in inner canisters.
"Using a Bombardier 415 aircraft, this effective firefighting technique takes only 12 seconds, travelling at 130 km/h (70 knots) and 410 metres (1,350 feet), to scoop up a 6,137-litre (1,621-US-gallon) water load.
The aircraft can scoop water from sites that are only two metres (6.5 feet) deep and 90 metres (300 feet) wide. When the water site is too small for a full pick-up, the Bombardier 415 aircraft takes a partial load and returns to the fire.
In addition, the Bombardier 415 aircraft doesn’t need a straight scooping path. Since the aircraft is still in "flying" mode while scooping, pilots can easily manoeuvre around river bends or visible obstacles in the water." from HERE.
I would add that this "water hole" can be man-made if no natural water body is available in strategic areas. The CL-415 being an "amphibian", it can also work as an "ordinary" water-bomber (yes, it can be "ground loaded with water or retardant"). More information HERE.
It will actually be the other way around. Big load aircraft does not equate with big quantity drops. In an analysis (HERE) made last year for the western U.S., the CL-415 was delivering more water than a C-130 after 150 minutes of operation, easily doubling the quantity of water delivered after 4.5 hours.
Another misconception, alas also present in the aforementioned document, is that the CL-415 only delivers water; not so! The crew can, at the flip of a switch, mix the scooped water with foam retardant contained in inner canisters.
"Using a Bombardier 415 aircraft, this effective firefighting technique takes only 12 seconds, travelling at 130 km/h (70 knots) and 410 metres (1,350 feet), to scoop up a 6,137-litre (1,621-US-gallon) water load.
The aircraft can scoop water from sites that are only two metres (6.5 feet) deep and 90 metres (300 feet) wide. When the water site is too small for a full pick-up, the Bombardier 415 aircraft takes a partial load and returns to the fire.
In addition, the Bombardier 415 aircraft doesn’t need a straight scooping path. Since the aircraft is still in "flying" mode while scooping, pilots can easily manoeuvre around river bends or visible obstacles in the water." from HERE.
I would add that this "water hole" can be man-made if no natural water body is available in strategic areas. The CL-415 being an "amphibian", it can also work as an "ordinary" water-bomber (yes, it can be "ground loaded with water or retardant"). More information HERE.
Daveroo
Members +
regarding the first link/report..would hold more water for me if they used real aircraft on real fires...not computer data....one of the circles in the "map" on the first page shows my area.im not a pilot,but the higher in elevation you are,the denser the air,correct? is why some of these high altitude airports are noted as dangerous?...if the CL-415 has to drop into a lake which is man made ( i can guarantee they wouldnt be able to scoop from the natural lakes here) most arent bigger than a parking lot.
French Meadows is 5280' ( these are all lake level.)
Hell Hole is 4577'
Loon Lake is 4846'
Lake Tahoe is 6247,Tahoe would ofcourse work fine due to its size.
i suppose if the pilot made his empty ingress from the mountain sides..or more clearly..the input river,then down the water surface and out over the dam,and down canyon...id buy it....
im out of time...but the fire retardant foam used is basically "whitewater" or "Litewater" ,which is used to keep the water from soaking into the forest duff so fast..when used in an engine,it helps to make the water "stick" to vegetation.
im still wondering if they have an external hot load connection from ground operations..? if so..they WOULD be an asset here.meaning if they were used here,id want them to scoop water and then have the ability to load at an ATB.
anyway youve provided alot of good info here....ill read more later..
French Meadows is 5280' ( these are all lake level.)
Hell Hole is 4577'
Loon Lake is 4846'
Lake Tahoe is 6247,Tahoe would ofcourse work fine due to its size.
i suppose if the pilot made his empty ingress from the mountain sides..or more clearly..the input river,then down the water surface and out over the dam,and down canyon...id buy it....
im out of time...but the fire retardant foam used is basically "whitewater" or "Litewater" ,which is used to keep the water from soaking into the forest duff so fast..when used in an engine,it helps to make the water "stick" to vegetation.
im still wondering if they have an external hot load connection from ground operations..? if so..they WOULD be an asset here.meaning if they were used here,id want them to scoop water and then have the ability to load at an ATB.
anyway youve provided alot of good info here....ill read more later..
hubbabubba
Charter Member
Very true, but you have to go with what you get. In "real life", no such competition was ever organized (to my knowledge) because of a lack of CL-415 in the US.
They have operated in British Columbia, Yukon and Alberta, which have topography very similar to your region, so I don't see why it would be so different.
Anyway, as the proverb say; "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." . Wait and see...
Daveroo
Members +
They have operated in British Columbia, Yukon and Alberta, which have topography very similar to your region, so I don't see why it would be so different.
well thats encouraging to me then.....remember im giving MY opinions in my posts....im no longer in the fire service so none of what i have holds water at all....lol....
i still havent read those other links..but thanks for them..ill do it later..
Dave
well thats encouraging to me then.....remember im giving MY opinions in my posts....im no longer in the fire service so none of what i have holds water at all....lol....
i still havent read those other links..but thanks for them..ill do it later..
Dave