If anyone knows of any CL 415s for sale (not 215 or 415MT), would you please PM me.

Thank you

Bombardier Amphibious Aircraft would love to sell you some...
Perhaps Ontario might be persuaded to part with some of theirs as a fleet renewal program?

Thank you. I will contact Ontario people tomorrow to ask.
I did not get the same impression from Bombardier that they are eager to sell these aircraft, but I am still waiting for them to respond with some information.

We could only source 77 in the whole world that were operational right now, and none for sale in that group.

Don't bother calling Ontario. They have nothing for sale and in fact are trying to figure out how to get more.

To late.

But thank you anyway.

we are looking at comparables now.

Comparable? Try AT-802's?

With the price of a single CL415 in the range of a dozen Air Tractor 802F with the Wipline float, and nearly four times the power of the 802 to haul only twice the water load. Operating cost approx. 1/5th per unit.

Or for twice the water capacity of a CL-415

http://fireaviation.com/2014/09/28/new- ... ir-tanker/

They are rumored to go for 40 to 50 million.....

Jean-Pierre wrote:802 to haul only twice the water load.

c'mon now, the 415 is supreme leader of waterbombing, the 802 is a porpoisey piece of garbage better left in the prairies for cropdusting.

Heliian wrote:
c'mon now, the 415 is supreme leader of waterbombing, the 802 is a porpoisey piece of garbage better left in the prairies for cropdusting.

If you leave costs aside, the 415 is hard to beat. But, as pointed out above, you could buy and operate 11 brand new FireBoss aircraft with the 1600hp engine for the price of a single 415. The increase in fleet versatility, flexibility, access to water sources and product delivered makes it a simple equation. And this is why BC, Alberta, NWT, Australia, Spain and several US states operate so many of them.

The USFS hires a 415 on a federal contract (Aeroflite/Conair machine). I wonder if Bombardier would produce any new frames?

You'd think any pencil pusher doing a risk/safety assessment would place some value in a twin engine aircraft, would they not?

I like remaining in the air after an engine failure, especially if the ground itself is burning, but that's just me that I speak for.

Changes in Latitudes wrote:You'd think any pencil pusher doing a risk/safety assessment would place some value in a twin engine aircraft, would they not?

I like remaining in the air after an engine failure, especially if the ground itself is burning, but that's just me that I speak for.

The "pencil pushers" at the companies that fly the FireBoss aircraft have done their research. With the reliability of today's P&W engines and the evident support of the insurance underwriters, they seem to accept the risk that they see in modern single-engine aircraft. And there's no shortage of experienced pilots perfectly happy to fly them.

threepoint wrote:If you leave costs aside, the 415 is hard to beat. But, as pointed out above, you could buy and operate 11 brand new FireBoss aircraft with the 1600hp engine for the price of a single 415. The increase in fleet versatility, flexibility, access to water sources and product delivered makes it a simple equation. And this is why BC, Alberta, NWT, Australia, Spain and several US states operate so many of them.

You could PURCHASE that many but I think the operating costs would put you over. The CL series is still the leader for people who actually want to extinguish a fire(project killers, that's why they hide them when ontario goes to bc).

Heliian wrote:You could PURCHASE that many but I think the operating costs would put you over. The CL series is still the leader for people who actually want to extinguish a fire(project killers, that's why they hide them when ontario goes to bc).

I think you might be surprised at the cost of maintenance required for a CL-415. Never mind the fact that they require specialised equipment wherever they go (scissor lifts for example) and can't just operate out of small airports that might be closer to the working area. Ask any agency (that didn't invest tens of millions into their waterscooping fleets prior to the advent of the FireBoss) what they would prefer: a pair of CL-415s, or 22 FireBoss aircraft for the equivalent capital cost.

Three Fireboss will deliver the same volume as a single 415, and often their turn times will beat the Canadair (due to closer suitable water sources, not higher speed). If you suffer a mechanical issue on a 415, you have no airplanes left. If you suffer a mechanical on a FireBoss, you have two remaining.

The CL-415 (and 215T) is an exceptional airplane. However, it can't beat the operating economics of a handful of FireBoss. ON, QC, NL prefer the Canadairs. BC, NWT prefer the FireBoss. AB operates both. There is no right or wrong approach. Although, it is telling that so many agencies in countries around the world are investing in FireBoss rather than new 415s.

threepoint wrote: I think you might be surprised at the cost of maintenance required for a CL-415. Never mind the fact that they require specialised equipment wherever they go (scissor lifts for example) and can't just operate out of small airports that might be closer to the working area. Ask any agency (that didn't invest tens of millions into their waterscooping fleets prior to the advent of the FireBoss) what they would prefer: a pair of CL-415s, or 22 FireBoss aircraft for the equivalent capital cost.

Three Fireboss will deliver the same volume as a single 415, and often their turn times will beat the Canadair (due to closer suitable water sources, not higher speed). If you suffer a mechanical issue on a 415, you have no airplanes left. If you suffer a mechanical on a FireBoss, you have two remaining.

The CL-415 (and 215T) is an exceptional airplane. However, it can't beat the operating economics of a handful of FireBoss. ON, QC, NL prefer the Canadairs. BC, NWT prefer the FireBoss. AB operates both. There is no right or wrong approach. Although, it is telling that so many agencies in countries around the world are investing in FireBoss rather than new 415s.

I'm not going to get into which one is best.. they're both awesome. And I can't speak from experience how well the Fireboss does in terms of performance, but I find it hard to believe that the 802 has significantly better turn around times than the 415. I'd say that it could scoop from almost any lake that an 802 could.. and it's performance is amazing. Lose a can off the scoop, at full gross, and its a non-issue if the auto-fx works..and it auto-fx doesn't it STILL isn't a big deal, you're still going to climb. Lose a can on a FBoss and things will be different. But I'm not going to argue single vs. multi.. I'd fly an FBoss with no worries. The 415 is fast (for a big boat), manuverable both in the air and on the water, and takes 12 sec to fill the tanks from touch-down. I think I was told that the FBoss takes longer on the water to fill it's tanks but I've never confirmed that.

Either way, it'd be cool to see them back-to-back.. same fire, same lake, same time and place. Let's say Manitoba this summer around July?

I think we can all agree you guys are all wrong, the A-10 firehog is clearly the best fire fighting aircraft out there from a pilot point of view. The big gun up front can be loaded with incendiary rounds to start fire breaks and also as an anti ISIS / Russian invasion round. Combine that with the 2000 gallons of air to air refilled retardant and we have a winner than can hit any fire regardless of water availability.

http://www.aviationtrivia.org/A-10-Fire-Hog.php