User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:09:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like somebody just lost a C-130 Tanker. 
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/2012/07/02/breaking-news-air-force-tanker-goes-down-in-fall-river-county 2 transported, 4 mia. Link? Nothing on Google, even the link the OP provided does not work. Report says its a c-130 with 3 transported to the hospital. www.argusleader.com/article/20120701/ARGUS911/120701005/Update-3-people-from-C-130-crash-taken-hospital?odyssey=mod|lateststories&nclick_check=1 Those legacy model 130's normally fly with a crew of 5, not sure about the crew for a FF mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:11:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
$$$$$$ and those can only paint a long line. The other tankers are way more maneuverable. I think it's actually cheaper, but I'm not sure. And I think it can do multiple lines before having to reload. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:12:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like somebody just lost a C-130 Tanker.
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/2012/07/02/breaking-news-air-force-tanker-goes-down-in-fall-river-county 2 transported, 4 mia. Link? Nothing on Google, even the link the OP provided does not work. Report says its a c-130 with 3 transported to the hospital. www.argusleader.com/article/20120701/ARGUS911/120701005/Update-3-people-from-C-130-crash-taken-hospital?odyssey=mod|lateststories&nclick_check=1 Those legacy model 130's normally fly with a crew of 5, not sure about the crew for a FF mission. Looking at the AF C-130 video posted earlier there looks to be 5 crew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:12:29 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: $$$$$$ and those can only paint a long line. The other tankers are way more maneuverable. nope. it is set up to do multiple drops |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:13:53 PM EDT
[#5]
I'm not going to 2nd guess what they chose to use. If they can get a number of smaller tankers for the same amount of money, I could see it being more useful to use more small tankers then the one large one. But of course if the one large one would be a better choice, then sure, they should use it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:17:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
That's because the forest circus is fucking inept. They probably can't afford to fuel it because they are too busy spending millions on diesel fuel, large rocks, bulldozers, and flat bed trucks so they can construct barriers to close down old service roads that are hours from civilization. You know places that people grew up camping at, and have 40 years of fond memories of. Ahh yes, the "Roadless initiative". Can't have the serfs having fun on the kings land, now can we. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:21:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
$$$$$$ and those can only paint a long line. The other tankers are way more maneuverable. I think it's actually cheaper, but I'm not sure. And I think it can do multiple lines before having to reload. I am not sure about total cost ( can find out in a few days) but I know its expensive. Most heavy air tankers have the ability to split their loads but the 747 is so large it is hard to maneuver. The smaller heavies can work their way into tighter spots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2012 7:22:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
$$$$$$ and those can only paint a long line. The other tankers are way more maneuverable. nope. it is set up to do multiple drops Read my other post. Yes they can split their loads but they are just not as precise as the other planes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 1:42:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: I'm not going to 2nd guess what they chose to use. If they can get a number of smaller tankers for the same amount of money, I could see it being more useful to use more small tankers then the one large one. But of course if the one large one would be a better choice, then sure, they should use it. The question is, why not use both large and small. We're talking about saving a city. I just can't get someone saying "no, that ones to expensive". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 3:55:21 PM EDT
[#10]
The problem with the 747 is that it isn't as effective in the types of terrain in colorado's rocky mountain towns/cities. Its great in large flat terrain like a high desert or the like. But in the mountains and foothills the smaller heavy air tankers are more effective. Plus it's crazy expensive to use. I am a firefighter with the forest service and we were told at the beginning of the fire season that the forest service had been allocated just under a billion dollars to use on fire fighting nationwide. Last year the forest service spent almost double that amount on fire suppression. And this year is already shaping up to be just as big of a fire season if not bigger. Basically the forest service budget has been getting cut every year for the last several years, because the federal govt is broke. So fire suppression is having to be accomplished with less money to do the same job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 10:42:16 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: Was told by some experienced AF wildland firefighting aircraft weenie that the Evergreen aircraft cannot go as low as other lower aircraft AND consumes too much airspace when operating (he basically explained that it needs a much bigger buffer around it vs. other aircraft). Also, due to it dropping water/retardant from much higher, the water is not as dense or too fine or some crap to be effective? It has been a few months since we talked about it. May remember to ask him on monday........TT On the big fires out west, a fire will evaporate thousands upon thousands of gallons of air dropped water if it's dropped from too high up. Borate slurry doesn't evaporate like water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 11:28:28 AM EDT
[#12]
A couple of good passes with that 747 would have made a big difference here (Colorado Springs) last Tuesday. When the fire was at it's worst and approaching the homes, the only air assets up (around 1630L) were rotary wing. A Kaman with a Bambi bucket and a Skycrane from Erickson sucking water from the Kissing Camels golf course. they could do little to stop the advance of the flames down the valleys and eventually had to retreat. The 747 if available, could have paralleled the Rampart Range and laid retardant between the advancing fire and the homes that were soon to be fuel. Interestingly, the MAFFS C-130s that were here were not used in this same proposed manner. I think the fire got ahead of the thinking on this one.
The .Gov has the most buffoonery imaginable when considering contractual purchases. minority status and personal connections count, capabilities do not. G |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 11:35:39 AM EDT
[#13]
Can someone tell me why they don't use tankers as soon as a fire breaks out and is only a few acres in size? Why do they wait untill a fire grows to call in tankers...is it limited resources?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 11:42:08 AM EDT
[#14]
So they say they are not willing to support a CWN contract with the US taxpayers, but did so with Mexico and Isreal? What do they expect... the ability to gorge at the taxpayer trough in the USA?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 11:43:53 AM EDT
[#15]
I watched the Flagstaff fire through binoculars and know the specific terrain well. There's no way a 747 could have maneuvered among the peaks and ridgelines the way the planes used did. But for a big-ass fire in the plains? If I had a house in danger, I'd want them throwing every resource they could dig up on the fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 3:34:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was told by some experienced AF wildland firefighting aircraft weenie that the Evergreen aircraft cannot go as low as other lower aircraft AND consumes too much airspace when operating (he basically explained that it needs a much bigger buffer around it vs. other aircraft). Also, due to it dropping water/retardant from much higher, the water is not as dense or too fine or some crap to be effective? It has been a few months since we talked about it. May remember to ask him on monday........TT On the big fires out west, a fire will evaporate thousands upon thousands of gallons of air dropped water if it's dropped from too high up. Borate slurry doesn't evaporate like water. Slashed budgets are likely meaning pure a few more water drops. I got hit by one Saturday. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 3:51:13 PM EDT
[#17]
I blame all this on Smokey the Bear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 3:55:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Can someone tell me why they don't use tankers as soon as a fire breaks out and is only a few acres in size? Why do they wait untill a fire grows to call in tankers...is it limited resources? $$$ and Govt Bureaucracy. We used to have a PBY Firebomber on stand buy until they banned the use of WW2 vintage airplanes for firefighting. That thing was awesome, with all the local lakes to scoop water it could kick a fires ass before it got out of hand with multiple drops in a short time period. Now all we have is a dinky Airtractor that can spit a little water and than have to fly miles to a base to fill back up . 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 4:01:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
I was thinking the other day that a B-52 might make an interesting firefighting plane. But this might have it beat. I wonder why they couldn't drop plastic water barrels from them? Either make them from thin plastic or rig explosives on the seams to break them apart after release. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2012 4:16:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Can someone tell me why they don't use tankers as soon as a fire breaks out and is only a few acres in size? Why do they wait untill a fire grows to call in tankers...is it limited resources? Out here in CA they do use the CalFire tankers ASAP. Not unusual in remote areas for the air assets to be the first on scene. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
