Do we need bigger amphibian water bombers?

[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.

 

[Shortround6]

This is from the 1986-87 'Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft' on the Canadair CL-215 (Twin R-2800s)
"The aircraft carries a maximum water or retardant load of 5,346 liters (1,176 Imp gallons). The tanks can be ground filled in two minutes, or scoop filled in 10 s while the aircraft planes at 70kts (130km/h; 81mph). Pick-up distance in still air, from 15m (50 ft) above the surface on approach to 15m (50ft) above the surface on climb out, is 1200 meters (3,935ft).
On a number of occasions single CL-215s have made over 100 drops totaling more than 540,600 liters (117,600Imp gallons) in one day. Full loads have been scooped from the Mediterranean in wave heights of up to 2 meters (6 feet). In 1983 a Yugoslavian CL-215 made 225 drops totaling 1,202,850 liters (264,597 Imp gallons) on fires in one day.
Max take-off weight land 43,500lbs
Max take-off weight water 37,700lbs.
Stalling speed. 15 degrees of flap, 43,500lbs 79 knots (145kph; 90mph)
Max rate of climb at MAX continuous power 43,500lbs 305 m (1000ft)/min.

Again this is from the 1986-87 Jane's and is for the 5th series CL-215 using R-2800-CA3 engines.
It does not say what the drop speed/s are.
Max Cruising speed was 157 kts (291kph, 181 mph) at 10,000ft max continuous power.

 

[SaparotRob]

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?

Great idea. Could the current crop (survivors) of B-52 be structurally capable? I'm somewhat aware of the upgrades to be made to the Stratofort. I don't think the majority of B-52s have been modified yet.
It would be awesome to see this plane add to its history by putting fires out instead of being the cause.
Of course, I am biased.

 

[GreenKnight121]

Looking at the multiple water bomber sorties over Los Angeles, I'm wondering how they keep the traffic separated. Is there an air boss flying overhead assigning targets?

Yes, there is - CAL FIRE has several converted OV-10 Broncos that operate as airborne flight-control masters*, directing aircraft courses, timing, etc for safest effective operations.
They had 16 as of spring 2021.

The OV-10's are flown by contract pilots working for DynCorp with a CAL FIRE Air Tactical Group Supervisor in the other seat, responsible for managing the incident airspace and coordinating the air tankers and helicopter operations over the incident.

They have an auxiliary fuel tank fitted in the cargo compartment aft of the rear seat which allows them to remain over a fire for 5 hours before having to land and refuel (and change the aircrew due to fatigue).

* Funny, using an aircraft designed as a FAC (Forward Air Control) aircraft for combat zones to control aircraft attacking wildfires - almost like the missions are really similar, eh?

OV-10 Archives - Fire Aviation

fireaviation.com

A lineup of OV-10 air attack ships at McClellan Air Field, March 24, 2016. Photo by Bill Gabbert.

Fleet | California Fire Pilots Association

www.calfirepilots.com

Laying a smoke trail for the tankers to follow in on the fire:

 

[SaparotRob]

Yes, there is - CAL FIRE has several converted OV-10 Broncos that operate as airborne flight-control masters*, directing aircraft courses, timing, etc for safest effective operations.
They had 16 as of spring 2021.

The OV-10's are flown by contract pilots working for DynCorp with a CAL FIRE Air Tactical Group Supervisor in the other seat, responsible for managing the incident airspace and coordinating the air tankers and helicopter operations over the incident.

They have an auxiliary fuel tank fitted in the cargo compartment aft of the rear seat which allows them to remain over a fire for 5 hours before having to land and refuel (and change the aircrew due to fatigue).

* Funny, using an aircraft designed as a FAC (Forward Air Control) aircraft for combat zones to control aircraft attacking wildfires - almost like the missions are really similar, eh?

OV-10 Archives - Fire Aviation

fireaviation.com

A lineup of OV-10 air attack ships at McClellan Air Field, March 24, 2016. Photo by Bill Gabbert.

View attachment 814339

Fleet | California Fire Pilots Association

www.calfirepilots.com

Laying a smoke trail for the tankers to follow in on the fire:

View attachment 814340

FAR EFFIN' OUT!

 

[ThomasP]

Now if we can just figure out how to use OA-10Cs for the job.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I had no idea that Cal Fire has its own air force. They should buy some CL-515s.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Now if we can just figure out how to use OA-10Cs for the job.

Oxygen-sucking thermobaric bombs vs. wildfires would be interesting.

 

[EwenS]

I had no idea that Cal Fire has its own air force. They should buy some CL-515s.

They already have a substantial "air force". 23 S2T Turbo Trackers and a C-130H tankers on their own fleet with another 6 C-130H to be transferred from the USCG and converted to the role. The S2T capacity is 1,200 gals (I assume US = 4,500 litres). Then add 13 S-70 Firehawk helicopters (1,000 US gals = 3,800 litres) + 3 more on order. And they lease in addiional tanker support as required.

 

[EwenS]

I would not be surprised if a US manufacturer bought a license to build more DeHavilland CL-515s. The production rate of 4-6 aircraft a year (the CL-415 production line peaked at 5 aircraft before Bombardier sold the rights to Viking) will not meet the demand.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVcHdYWhAx8

Note the date on that video - July 2024 and that they were building production aircraft 1. The De Havilland Canadair 515 as it is now named since Oct 2024 is, AIUI, not due to be certified until 2028 with service entry following immediately after that.

De Havilland now producing first DHC-515 with 2028 in-service goal

De Havilland Canada is assembling its first DHC-515 Firefighter in Calgary and expects to begin delivering the aircraft by early 2028, a bit later than previously anticipated.

www.flightglobal.com

At present the order book looks something like this:-
Croatian Air Force - 2
Greece - 7
Indonesia - 6
Portugal - 2 (delivery reported due in 2029)
European Union - 22 (for use in a pooled fleet to fight fires in Portugal, Spain, France, Greece & Italy)

Total - 39 to date.

Doesn't seem like there is a rush of customers to buy them at present. We also don't know how far De Havilland Canada could increase production if the demand were to increase. Commercially, why would you grant a licence when you can build all the orders yourself? The one factor counting against it is the cost which seems to be around $37m. Cost has always been a major factor with firefighting aircraft which is why so many types have been converted to the role after years of service with the military or the airlines. Given that they spend so much time sittiing around for a significant part of the year doing next to nothing, makes ownership of a fleet harder to justify, unless like some of the commercial companies you can chase the fire season around the world.

 

[SaparotRob]

Oxygen-sucking thermobaric bombs vs. wildfires would be interesting.

 

[Snautzer01]

You sure? Making a vacuum yes kill Flames. However in a greater field on fire the vacuum will be filled with very hot air and debris .
Kills life. Flames? Not sure.

 

[Shortround6]

Oxygen-sucking thermobaric bombs vs. wildfires would be interesting.

You have removed, temporarily, one aspect of the "fire tetrahedron", heat, fuel, and oxygen and chemical reaction.
Maybe you have taken out two or interrupted one/two.
What you still have is fuel, and heat (above or below ignition temperature?).
What happens when the oxygen comes back? Is the wood hot enough to spontaneously combust (chemical reaction restarts?)

I once put out a small fuel (gasoline) spill with water. Wide fog blew the fire (burning vapors) off the top of the fuel. Spill was small enough that the flames could not get back around the wide fog pattern. A very large scale blowing out the candle trick.
But we still had 30-40 sq ft of gasoline giving off flammable vapors waiting for an ignition source.

If the thermobaric bomb adds to heat load with either radiant heat or convection you may wind up as bad or worse off in just a few minutes.

Water does several things. It cools the burning material below the ignition temperature. IF you can apply the water faster than the fire can evaporate it.
It creates steam, which pushes air out of the way and partially smothers the fire. Now in high winds the steam gets pushed away or dispersed real fast.
The water helps break the chemical reaction.
Wood doesn't actually burn. What burns is the flammable vapors given off by the heated wood (see thread on alternative fuels or German logistics).
If you can coat the wood with water is slows/stops the vapors from being given off or at least slows them down reducing the intensity of the fire just above the surface of the wood.
If the thermobaric bomb just sucks the air the flammable vapors out of the area. When the fresh air rushes in you still have very hot wood giving off vapors.
Wood typically ignites at around 482°F (250°C) (depends on type, moisture content and so on).
You can blow out a twig. Trying to blow out a 15cm dia piece of wood does not work very well. Trying to blowout a hillside even with a sizable "bomb" may not work very well either.

What I did with that fire was buy time to break out the 5 gal foam can/s and the foam equipment to blanket the fuel spill to greatly reduce the re-ignition danger.

 

[EwenS]

One of the BBC reports was following a team of fire fighters on the ground. They were conducting a lot if "digging" in the wake of the fire to put out "burning" roots etc under ground level, that had the potential to set things off again.