W5 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 KUSI photojournalist Taylor Schuss filmed the DC10 Air Tanker (unofficially dubbed “Supertanker”) fighting the Cocos Fire in San Marcos, California, from the receiving end of a load of fire retardant on May 14.Note the King Air flying as a pathfinder ahead of the DC-10 to point the drop zone for the tanker.The DC-10 Air Tanker is a standard McDonnell Douglas DC-10 airliner that was converted to carry up to 12,000 US gallons (45,000 liters) of water or fire retardant in an exterior belly-mounted tank.Two such kind of air tankers, operated by the 10 Tanker Air Carrier, are currently flying under callsign Tanker 910 and 911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 When will the Americans ever learn? If the money California spends on the aftermarket solutions were diverted to Bombardier as a joint development program, I'm sure bombardier would happily develop a dedicated Amphibious boat capable of at least 15000 litres per drop. The costs associated with the 747 and dc10 drops are staggering on a per drop basis( landing fees, ground support, ATC costs, travel to and from fires etc) (roughly $50000 per drop)Martin Mars -27276 litres every 7 minutes with close lake=218,208 litres per hour.CL415 -6140 litres every 6 minutes with close lake=61400 litres per hourDC10. -45000 litres per drop once per hour if airport facilities less than 10 minutes away =45000 liters per hour. (30 minutes ground turn time plus travel to and from fire.)747-100. -77600 liters per drop every 11/2 hours minimum(requires 8000 ft runway)=51,733 liters per hourThe real problem is that in the US firefighting is a business and putting fires out quickly doesn't generate the same kind revenue, so the steady parade of Grumman trackers, b25 bombers, and now even converted dash 8-400s continue their inefficient, money generating business while the US burns.Still fun to watch the video though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Must be cool skimming the lake to pick up the water,(which is then mixed with the retardant), driving a DC-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest longtimer Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Kip,that would be neat but..... the article quoted below gives the impress that all fixed wing aircraft do the ramp reloading..... DC-10 has been cleared for operational work and will be available until March 2010. The aircraft has completed the necessary Civil Aviation Safety Authority compliance checks. • The DC10 can hold approximately 42,000 litres of retardant or approximately 45,000 litres of water, more than four times as much as some of the helicopters currently used for fire suppression. It complements the existing fleet by providing Victoria with additional capability to build retardant lines in remote areas and to provide fire suppression on the flanks of bushfires. • Victoria has engaged a supplier to provide the aircraft, pilots and engineers. • The aircraft and the personnel are usually based in Victorville, California. • The fire agencies have engaged the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre to evaluate the operational trial. A series of reports will be prepared during the trial and a total evaluation will be complete by the middle of 2010. • The DC-10 will be based at Avalon Airport. • The DC-10 has the capacity to drop water, foam and retardant. It cannot use sea water. Reclaimed water will be used whenever possible. • The aircraft is filled by a hose while on the ground in the same way that other fixed-wing firefighting aircraft are filled. The plane can land, refuel, reload and be ready to take-off again in approximately 30 minutes, depending on circumstances. • It is likely to have a minimum flying altitude of 300ft. Its minimum speed is approximately150 knots. • It can be anywhere in the state within one hour. • Some clearances around the aircraft while it is flying will be necessary, but it will not be necessary to stop all firefighting air traffic in the area. • The DC-10 complements 34 other aircraft that are contracted for the season in Victoria. This includes two Erikson Aircranes and two Sikorsky S61s that are ready for use if needed. • Normal operating procedures will apply. Firefighers will be cleared from the drop zone.http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1416:&Itemid=42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Thx.....You saw the similes...right ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest longtimer Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Thx.....You saw the similes...right ???? Yes, I did,,,, but the aircraft and the 747 performing those missions are sad immitations of "real water bombers" You saw my point re how they try to portray all fixed wing water bombers as having the need to water up on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 ^^ I'm not sure what all the similes meant? Happy as a clam maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 ^^ I'm not sure what all the similes meant? Happy as a clam maybe? No...not really. The smiles were meant to indicate that "you know and I know" but how many others, (non-airplane-people), do not realize that a DC-10 can not pick up water like a Martin Mars water bomber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I have never understood the american reluctance to purchase the CL-215/415 water bombers. Many other countries use them and they are a great machine and the single best aircraft for the task. Stupid is as stupid does I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 According to Wikipedia, there are 5 CL-415s in use in the US in the fall, during the primary California fire season. Doesn't sound like many, but Quebec only operates 8 in a much larger area. I would assume that, if the fire season starts to extend on a regular basis, they will lease more and for a longer period.But, my impression from other reading and viewing is that the DC-10 is used as a fire-break creator for the most part by laying down a continuous long and wide path of retardant, as opposed to a spot extinguisher. So speed and multiple iterations is not the intent... volume and path continuity/width is; and that is best done in one pass, rather than 8 or 10 little ones. Unless it lands, the CL-215/415 doesn't carry retardant, so the scooping advantages are lost from a retardant/ fire-break perspective.The DC-10 is simply a specific tool that is used in the fire agency's toolbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I think the reason that they always buy ground based firefighting airplanes instead of amphibs is that in the regions where there are fires in the US, there are no lakes suitable for amphibious water pickup. Unlike Canada where there are lakes everywhere in fire country. At least I always thought that was the reason, because amphibs are obviously ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Thx.....You saw the similes...right ???? No...not really. The smiles were meant to indicate that "you know and I know" but how many others, (non-airplane-people), do not realize that a DC-10 can not pick up water like a Martin Mars water bomber I know what the smiles indicate, it was the similies I was having trouble with, hence my suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I know what the smiles indicate, it was the similies I was having trouble with, hence my suggestion. Would have saved a lot of confusion if you just said "Spelling Error" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 ^Where's the fun in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.