Do we need bigger amphibian water bombers? (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

And maybe Australia?

That last article was dated December 2021. They were predicting this updated G-111T would be certified within 18 months and production would start in 2025.

A year later they had acquired an old airframe to serve as an engineering prototype with new production variants to begin rolling off the production line "within five years", so by the end of 2027. So already another two years down the line. From a Dec 2022 article:-

"Today's announcement is just the beginning as we are already working on next-generation technologies to produce new variants such as the Zero Emissions Hybrid powered Albatross and even a stretched 44-seat variant."

So already the focus of the project was shifting. By Feb 2024 AAI was claiming it had some orders but wasn't releasing any details. Just how firm were / are they? And as far as I can see as of the end of 2025 nothing has so far emerged from their hangar to even begin the certification process. Re-engineering a 1940s aircraft to meet today's safety standards is not going to be an easy task.

There are numerous seaplane / flying boat / WIGE project proposals that have popped up over the years, but few ever reach reality. That includes resurrecting the PBY Catalina and putting floats on a C-130 Hercules. I read somewhere just yesterday that the various large long range wing in ground effect (WIGE) projects have hit a problem due to "rogue waves", which have now been found to occur more frequently than previously realised.

Feb 2024 article from the Guardian newspaper detailing some of the projects.
 
Do we need bigger amphibian water bombers?
Yes
Why?
'Cos they're freakin' AWESOME

'Nuff said :)
Make 'em yuge, paint it gold and it might get White House funding.

IMG_3724.png
 
Last edited:
That last article was dated December 2021. They were predicting this updated G-111T would be certified within 18 months and production would start in 2025.

A year later they had acquired an old airframe to serve as an engineering prototype with new production variants to begin rolling off the production line "within five years", so by the end of 2027. So already another two years down the line. From a Dec 2022 article:-

"Today's announcement is just the beginning as we are already working on next-generation technologies to produce new variants such as the Zero Emissions Hybrid powered Albatross and even a stretched 44-seat variant."

So already the focus of the project was shifting. By Feb 2024 AAI was claiming it had some orders but wasn't releasing any details. Just how firm were / are they? And as far as I can see as of the end of 2025 nothing has so far emerged from their hangar to even begin the certification process. Re-engineering a 1940s aircraft to meet today's safety standards is not going to be an easy task.

There are numerous seaplane / flying boat / WIGE project proposals that have popped up over the years, but few ever reach reality. That includes resurrecting the PBY Catalina and putting floats on a C-130 Hercules. I read somewhere just yesterday that the various large long range wing in ground effect (WIGE) projects have hit a problem due to "rogue waves", which have now been found to occur more frequently than previously realised.

Feb 2024 article from the Guardian newspaper detailing some of the projects.
I don't see the G-111T going anywhere. I would love to be wrong but I just don't see a market.
 
There are numerous seaplane / flying boat / WIGE project proposals that have popped up over the years, but few ever reach reality. That includes resurrecting the PBY Catalina and putting floats on a C-130 Hercules.
The US should just license build (or buy) the ShinMaywa US-2. I recall a news article where a fighter pilot was saved after ditching mid Pacific by a US-2 as no rescue helicopter had the necessary range (the US-2 has a range of 4,700 km, equal to 2,300 nmi). Seems like a good option for the USCG if not USN/AF, in addition to the water bomber role.
 
Last edited:
Do we need bigger amphibian water bombers?

Probably.
Now how many and at what cost?

The "standard" is now the De Havilland Canadair 515
which is in fact rather antiquated and has a bunch of aerodynamic add-ons.
But trying to resurrect a late 1940s (Grumman) design seems like really looking backwards and the Grumman is about the same size (but lighter) than the Canadair.

Now how much bigger do we want? 50% more water or 100% or ????
Larger may mean more restricted water scooping operations, Larger plane may need more room for approach and departure from the water scooping area/zone.
A larger plane may restrict numbers in the Search and Rescue role although some nations may need the added range/endurance.
The Japanese US-2 is over double the weight of the Canadair and has about 4 times the power.
Funding is the real problem and historically Firefighting aircraft have been on the lowest priority for funding, the need is real but Nations or provinces/states only come up with the money when forced to (30-50 year old aircraft fall apart in mid-air killing crews).
 
One other thing, the bigger the tanker, the larger the area required for operations. The DC-10 works great for large fires in relatively flat lands, but sucks try to work canyon or ridge fires. One of the videos I've seen about the -10 is that it needs a large airport and it takes 45-60 minutes to turn around. Pushing amphibs to that size, now you are needing lakes that have flat approaches to open and deeper water for several miles. I think the Mars tanker needed something like 5 miles of open water greater than 10' deep to make a scoop run.
We load 10 Tanker with 9800 gallons of retardant in 10 to 15 minutes. Water drops are less effective for the long term effect in most fuel types. They are great if you have crews to immediately take suppression efforts , but water doesn't have the long term effect. We vote for less scoopers more retardant dropping platforms. Just saying....
 

Attachments

  • Airattack Magazine WP 1185.jpeg
    Airattack Magazine WP 1185.jpeg
    135.2 KB · Views: 56
Canada had better get a wiggle on.

Canada built an iconic wildfire-fighting plane. Can it keep up with demand? | CBC News

"That pressure is already emerging. European aerospace companies and startups, such as Positive Aviation and Kepplair, are racing to develop competing firefighting aircraft. France has taken matters into its own hands as well, retrofitting an A400M military transport aircraft to be able to dump up to 20,000 litres of water or fire retardant. The efforts underscore what Gradek sees as a narrowing window for Canada's only producer of large, water-scooping aircraft. The world is not going to wait for Canada"
 
But does it?

As for the A-400M roll on roll off kit, there are two comments in the following article worthy of note.

"Unlike Canadairs, the A400M cannot scoop water from lakes or the sea; it must land to refill. For this reason, French officials emphasize that the aircraft is designed to lay protective retardant lines ahead of advancing flames, not to attack fire fronts directly."

And

"The French Air and Space Force operates more than 25 A400Ms, and lawmakers have stressed that the aircraft should remain a complementary tool, used occasionally and strategically alongside France's fleet of Canadairs, Dash 8s, and water‑bombing helicopters."


Of the countries in Europe only 7 operate the A400M, and that includes the UK where the question of acquiring fire fighting aircraft beyond existing helicopters has only just been raised in the past week.

As for Positive Aviation, it is a start up company, with proposals to convert second hand ATR-72 into water bombers. One of the conversions it is proposing is the FF72-S with floats to allow it to scoop water. Converting an ATR72 to a floatplane and getting it certified will take time and the timescale already seems to be slipping. The scooping floats have only just been delivered and the prototype is not scheduled to fly until 2027, certification planned for 2028 and service entry in time for the 2029 fire season. So far it has an order for 10 with a follow on option for another 10 from a single customer, Bridger Aviation. Their market seems to be in the USA.

The other version is being designed to drop retardant and joins a list of other companies that already have conversions of other ex airliners flying already e.g. BAe 146 / RJ, & Dash 8.

Kepplair is another start up company and it has only just acquired its first ATR72 for conversion with its own design of water drop system. I doubt it will manage to get its prototype converted and certified for service in 2027 which it seems to have been hoping to do.

Germany has also begun a project to convert two C-160D Transall transport aircraft into fire fighters in time for next season.

IMHO, with the market expanding, these aircraft may find a market, but I doubt if they will have a material effect on the market for the new build De Havilland Canadair 515.
 
But does it?
The market waits for no one, so it's rarely wise to leave a vacuum while demand increases. To that end, DHC is considering a 2nd production line.

And now the Ontario, Canada government wants a fleet of the things. With DHC having several dozen aircraft on back order and a projected production rate of perhaps 4-6 per year, Ontario's sixty aircraft is a ridiculous ask. To be fair this sounds more like showmanship where managing fire risk and prevention is the harder, more expensive path.
 
As an ex low-level fixed-wing pilot, if I was going to do the fire-fighting job, I would want to fly the DHC 515 due to its rugged, simple, reliable, tough and optimised features for that job.
Maybe even greater strength and more power would be even better!
For me, trying to do the job in a less capable adaptation would be bad. In my view, the nasty situations at low level always occur sometime and trying to do that job with a fragile modified airliner or similar would be a no-no. Somedays, you just have to pull 4G to miss the ground!

Good wishes to all low fliers!

Eng
 
As an ex low-level fixed-wing pilot, if I was going to do the fire-fighting job, I would want to fly the DHC 515 due to its rugged, simple, reliable, tough and optimised features for that job.
Maybe even greater strength and more power would be even better!
It does seem that every alternative is a poor compromise over the DHC 415/515. The anticipated 12–13 years between delivery of the last CL-415 (in 2015) at Bombardier and delivery of the first new Canadair 515 at DHC in 2028 is unfortunate given the growing issue of forest fires.
 
I wonder if there are/were any attempts to create an unmanned system of aerial firefighting.
It should be doable with modern tech and plenty of experience gained in recent years.
This looks interesting. At this small scale the Flyox can carry only 1,560 L of water and it cannot scoop water from the surface. But make it bigger with a scooper and we might have something. Imagine a fleet of these on a continuous circuit over a fire zone, limited only by fuel, water and coffee for the operators.


This Canadian-French project looks interesting. In February 2025 Airbus Defence and Space joined the program, and the prototype is expected to fly in 2029. The Fregate F100 looks to be the competitor DHC should watch.

 
Last edited:
Catalina Aircraft Trust are reporting queries about buying their Catalina II aircraft for fire fighting purposes also, with serious inquiries beginning earlier this year.
 
Catalina Aircraft Trust are reporting queries about buying their Catalina II aircraft for fire fighting purposes also, with serious inquiries beginning earlier this year.
As much as I like their dressing, I think Catalina Aircraft is more some VC's vaporware than anything else. They were supposed to begin flight testing in 2025, and as of now there is no flying Catalina II prototype. But I'd love to be proven wrong, as it would be great to see a new Cat flying. Here in Toronto we sometimes see the Consolidated PBY-5A Canso flying out of the CWPHM.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back