Do we need bigger amphibian water bombers? (1 Viewer)

[Dimlee]

Is there any doubt? Of course it will continue. It's no longer possible to save stupid humanity. Maybe it's for the best...

Don't ruin our hopes. And Franek Dolas was an optimist, wasn't he?

 

[Shortround6]

Something to consider with the water bombers is the ability to get into and out of ravines and hillsides.
The Flip side is getting into lakes, reservoirs and harbors (calm coastal waters?).
Maybe the 4 engine planes have the same "field" performance as the twins?
In another thread one of our members had pictures of 3 Canadair's operating as a 'train', landing, scooping and climbing out in quick succession. Not sure if there were photos/videos on the other end. Maybe three drops just a minute or two apart are more effective than either one large drop and then a 10-20 minute delay to the next?
A lot may depend on each fire and/or terrain/fire load.

For some of these planes you need 2-3 crews for each plane. You need at least 2 crews for a long day to fly in daylight. If they try operating at night you need a 3rd crew. Some of the these planes have operated for around 48 hours in the early years (France or Spain?)

 

[Snautzer01]

We need Mars planes pronto or beter
I once stated that b-52 could carpet bomb with water. Still think it's do able.
In fact I do not know why not. I mean a shit load of water om target, good target practise low level, good publicity all round.
How many round usaaf will like to win?

 

[special ed]

Something to consider with the water bombers is the ability to get into and out of ravines and hillsides.
The Flip side is getting into lakes, reservoirs and harbors (calm coastal waters?).
Maybe the 4 engine planes have the same "field" performance as the twins?
In another thread one of our members had pictures of 3 Canadair's operating as a 'train', landing, scooping and climbing out in quick succession. Not sure if there were photos/videos on the other end. Maybe three drops just a minute or two apart are more effective than either one large drop and then a 10-20 minute delay to the next?
A lot may depend on each fire and/or terrain/fire load.

For some of these planes you need 2-3 crews for each plane. You need at least 2 crews for a long day to fly in daylight. If they try operating at night you need a 3rd crew. Some of the these planes have operated for around 48 hours in the early years (France or Spain?)

I'm reasonably sure those were in Spain last year. Excellent airmanship. They are somewhere on the forum.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is there any doubt? Of course it will continue. It's no longer possible to save stupid humanity.

We will adapt, we always do. Had the houses in LA been built to withstand wildfires they'd be fine today. I expect the building codes will be updated along the lines of these homes.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAePCm5PSnM

This video showcases a house awarded Wildfire Prepared Home status by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety. These are the sorts of homes in Los Angeles and other wildfire zones that will still receive owner's insurance. But if you build your home out of incendiary materials in a wildfire zone, I'd say your SOL.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqsD8c74vy8

 

[cvairwerks]

There are a couple of problems with using very large air tankers. Turnaround time is quite long. The 747's and DC-10's take a minimum of 30 minutes to reload, and that's after shutdown and not including post flight and servicing, which means that you get one drop about every two hours. The big guys need 10,000 foot runways to operate. They cannot drop below 300' AGL and have a very low maximum wind limitation for their drops. The slowest speed they can drop is in excess of 160 mph...Steep canyons are not accessible to them for drops. Sure, being able to carry 24,000 gallons of slurry is great, but if you can't put it where it needs to go, it's not worth much.