Best Aircraft Type for Bird Dogging?

[Flying_Fish]

I'm looking for bird dog pilots, air attack officers or anyone else with bird dogging/forest fire experience to share their opinions on modern aircraft types suitable for bird dogging. Of course there are some key factors to consider when making your suggestions such as: Crew Visibility, crew comfort, aircraft/engine reliability, performance at low level, maintenance requirements etc...

I've been flying around in an AeroCommander 500 for the last few years and it's time to start looking at turbine aircraft that are younger than I am...

[Driving Rain]

King Air C90GTx. It's still being manufactured, has PT6a135's power-plants cruise is up to 270 knots. Has a fully integrated Collins Pro Line 21™ avionics system and most important with full fuel it can carry 700 pounds for those outrageously bagged up Ontario CL-415 pilots during base changes.
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/beechcr ... tions.aspx

[xsbank]

Bronco! Or an AC 690.

[Flybabe]

USFS runs 90s and they work great.

[Driving Rain]

Bronco! Or an AC 690.

The original poster asked for an airframe younger than him. The Bronco was developed in the early 60's. Also the B.L.M. or Bureau of Land (mis)-Management in the US retired all their Bronco's in 1999 due to the fact they couldn't get spares anymore. I know Cal Fire is one of the few operators of the type now. While the Bronco is a stellar performer and is ideal for Bird Dogging it is useless for any other work because it has only two seats and could never be used to train ATGS or Bird Dog Officers because of that limitation. Further to that is would never meet Canadian civilian certification criteria.
The AC690 is a good aircraft like the 500 from which it was developed it has a high wing and can do more than one job. It isn't being manufactured and so it has no factory support. Further to that you have to be careful which model 690 you purchase. There was basically 5 different 690's 690, 690A,B,C,D. The electrical systems are a nightmare and if you purchased different variants it could be a stores nightmare.
Cheers DR

[xsbank]

First of all, he doesn't say how old he is - the only airframes I've flown older than me were a DC3 and a PT21

Second, if he is buying a bird-dog that is new or relatively new he must be a government agency in which case he won't listen to us anyway!

Conair has a flock of 690s which they are pleased with. AirSpray has a Citation - lots of those about.

[North Shore]

It's an interesting conundrum - pistons are more efficient lower down, but turbines are faster and more reliable.. What's the fuel burn on a -90? At my place, we use C-310's - great visibility, and decent handling, but with the 415s coming online, I fear that they may be a little slow... The Bronco is every 'doggers wet dream, I think! At Gimli a few years back, the AF came in with their PC6's only single engined, sadly, and poor range, but great vis and handling also..

[Driving Rain]

Sorry xsbank. I have the benefit of knowing the original poster. I should have taken that into account with my reply.
Your right North Shore the Bronco is every "doggers" wet dream. A wet dream it'll have to stay unless they can move to California and get hired by CAL FIRE as an ATGS. My wet dreams don't have anything to do with aircraft.
Your right with 415's coming online the 310 is getting pretty long in the tooth. The availability of 100LL is the main concern and that's enough to trump low operating cost or any other concern.
If the 690 becomes the choice in Manitoba an effort should be made to insure they are all the same model.

xsbank.

Second, if he is buying a bird-dog that is new or relatively new he must be a government agency in which case he won't listen to us anyway!

Well I think all bird dog officers no matter what province work for Government agencies. Are you suggesting what I think you are?
Cheers
DR

[North Shore]

DR, I think that we pretty much emptied the wallet on the 415 deal - I'd suspect that we are going to have the 310's for a while yet.
Sorry, Fish, I'm hijacking your thread!

What's wrong with the AC500?


MAybe if I mention bombing in this thread, I'll get an visit from the RCMP!

[xsbank]

The BCFS pretty much trashed the King Air because it has a low wing and therefore has limited visibility in the mountains. I kinda get that this aircraft will not be used in the mountains so the low wing and the PT6 are not a disadvantage. A 690 will fly downhill VERY nicely with the Garretts. The problem with King Airs were also their expense as they are popular with charter outfits whereas the 690 appeals to a niche market (drug runners like 'em cause they are fast and disposable). The 690 is higher maintenance but with talented maintenance (the only kind I know!) they can make money. Are you limited in negative G's with a K.A?

Actually, Bronco or T-28 (1/2 Tracker), both make me walk silly when I think of them...

[Flybabe]

All I can say is that the -90 performs admirably well in the fire environment, but I've not flown one, just followed.

The 90 drivers certainly put them through their paces, largely in mountainous areas. The low wing doesn't seem to hinder anything.

I can get specific info from several drivers if requested.

[Just Duckie]

FB, unless they have gone to pure 90's, those are the U-21's [(U-boats) Queen Airs + PT6] for the "Leads" with no pressurization. Other branches were using the 200 too.
The Aerostar was pure FUN & fast, but a little cramped with 2 wide bodies in it. But the "hot & high" days of summer could be a little less comfortable than buzzing around the foothills of Stave Lake in April with zero thrust.

JD

[xsbank]

Oh yes, Aerostar at 6000 feet - make lots of room. Plus, no air conditioning for those lovely days high summer in Kamloops.

[CLguy]

Xsbank wrote:

The BCFS pretty much trashed the King Air because it has a low wing and therefore has limited visibility in the mountains.

You have to remember the BCFS has pretty much trashed the idea that water can actually put out fires as well. People have been convinced that water won't put out fire only retardent will. That is why we see video on the National News of old DC-6's dropping retardent along the shores of Lake Okanogan while peoples homes are burning. It is also why you see fleets of CL-415's and 215's sitting parked while people in BC lose everything they own.

I have worked with the King Air numerous times and from my perspective it does a good job. Also worked with the PC-6 in Alaska and it also did a great job especially with the smoke system for laying down a show me line.

The AC-690 is way too much aircraft for birddogging a fleet of 415's.

[Brewhouse]

I would like to try a Cheyenne II, flew them a bit years ago and they performed very well. Actually out performed the 200 up to about 14000 feet. Fuel would be the only concern but you have something like four and a half hours. Down low at reduced power settings would be something you would have to experiment with.

[xsbank]

The Ducks work great when they are near a body of water and so is the fire but when the reload times start to be past 20 minutes or so, they are useless. Park a Duck or two in Penticton or in YBL (except there are few fires there now) and you have a good resource. Have a fire at the top of the Pemberton Valley and they are useless.

They would be used in BC if they worked but years ago a bunch were leased to try them out (that 2 for one deal the government was touting) and they were only affective on close-to-the-water fires. Plus they are also too slow for long hauls. Using retardant was a waste of time because the pilots dropped it in the middle of the fire - couldn't quite get the concept. The tanks are not made for building line anyway.

Also, they got in sh*t from the environment guys because they would go to Comox Lake to do a touch and go to wash off the retardant to save their mechanics from doing it.

Years ago at a fire on the water in Port Hardy, a DC6 managed to put numerous loads around the fire before the Ducks could make it up there, but the Ducks proceeded to dump a load on it every 2-3 minute (these were 215s) and they put it out, saving the ground crews hours or days of work. Course, they found a load of clams and a scuba diver in the fire....

Forestry was impressed by that one, but a fire near Boston Bar was hopeless and they were rejected. Too expensive and not versatile enough.

Presumably the 415s have solved the lousy climb performance the 215s had?

CLguy, have you ever worked a fire in the mountains of BC? The Trench? Fraser Canyon? Revelstoke? Elaho Valley? Kootenays? There is a reason that BC does it differently.

[Tiny Voices]

You could try getting a hold of Hicks, or the Walsten Air division there of. They seem to have had success using the C-90 as a birddog.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Having Birddogged myself unobstructed cockpit visibilty is IMO a vital factor in efficent operations. The KingAir's high dash and long projecting cowls restrict visibility. This does not make it unsafe but it will mean more unprodutive manoevering time, especially in the rocks. A maintainance nightmare, but it is hard to beat the Turbo Commanders combination of speed, big wing, lots of power and great visibility.

As for scoopers in BC, I think todays BCFS has a very pragmatic approach and is very willing to use scoopers when and where it makes sense (the use of the POS Mars
excepted, but that was political). Imported scoopers were exensively used in the last 2 fire seasons and did good work. BC will never waste money on 30 Million dollar CL415's when they can import them whenever they need them at very reasonable export daily rates.

[CLguy]

Xsbank, I have fought fires many times in BC, as well as Alaska and also in the Andes Mountains in South America so I have stared at my fare share of granite. The info you posted is not all accurate. The BCFS never ever contracted a bunch of 215's to try out and I would be careful putting down the climb performance of a 215 while touting a DC-6. Anyway don't want to steal this thread but one has to wonder how Alaska could come to the exact opposite conclusion regarding the use of scoopers as the BCFS did. Since 2003 when Alaska brought in some large scoopers to try out they have never had a year since without them on contract.

We won't even get into what happened on the Williams Lk fire last summer after the request for scoopers from an Ontario Fire Team was turned down by the BCFS.

Anyway I still think the King Air 90 is a good platform for a birddog. It does a good job at that and can also be utilized for charter work as well.

[xsbank]

CL, the scoopers were from Quebec, they were having a wet year and BC contracted them with a view of participating in the 2-for-one scheme. I was there.

[xsbank]

Hey CL, this is almost like the 'old days' of Avcanada. I'm sure this could be close? Such fun!

[bigredone]

Couldn't agree more with the comment on visibility. Speed and performance don't mean jack if the AAO can't see whats going on. Maybe "out east" where orbiting above and watching the action seems the norm you could get away with engines and wings getting in the way(the Be-90 being only slightly better than a PA31-310 as far as engines blocking the view). AC690 are the best combo going, just ask BC, AB and SK. The Aerostar is far cheaper and for less than half the cost you get 90% of the airplane but as tanker performance gets better the old work horse is fading into the sunset.

[Flying_Fish]

First off, thanks for all the opinions and experience posted so far. For those of you worried about hijacking my thread, rest assured I am enthralled by the BC/CL415 discussion and would love to see the conversation continue…

Those who assumed that this bird dog debate only applies to aircraft working in the eastern provinces are only partly correct. As resource sharing between agencies continues to grow, eastern based aircraft have been, and can expect to be exported to mountainous terrain.

Our AC500’s are getting old. 100LL is becoming harder to find at smaller airports, the airframes are aging and we’re looking at modernizing our bird dog fleet. Currently we have a couple 90’s new to the fleet this season. Great climb, cruise speed & roomy, but the viz is poor compared to the AC500.

There isn’t an AAO out there that doesn’t get all warm & fuzzy when thinking about dogging in a Bronco. I’ve heard recently that the Bronco is going into production again, but so far it’s just a rumor as far as I know. “Driving Rain” makes a good points concerning the tandem seating which would pose a problem for trainees.

Keep the suggestions coming. My air attack brethren here in Ontario appreciate your input as we consider a replacement aircraft for the AC500.

[fish4life]

how are the Cessna 310's with Manitoba uses? getting old and hard to find the 100LL?
Turbine baron conversions probably wouldn't have the endurance ?

still in the production stages but how about something like the Dornier Seastar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Seawings_Seastar
http://www.dornierseaplane.com/content/seastar

It seems like it would be a good all around bird dogger to compliment the CL-215/415's since they are also amfibs and could dock up and get gas when there isn't runways around. It says it has a 9 hour endurance as well.

I'm not a water bomber pilot or bird dogger but have always seem them and thought it would be a wicked job although I never did get the float time that I'd need to be able to do it.

[Flying_Fish]

Hey I am all over that seaplane mate! With an amphib bird dog we could land on the lake for a pee break just like the big boys do! Maybe they'd even let me do alerts from my dock in front of the house!