DC 10 water bomber

PITA · Post by **PITA** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:07 pm

Hey check out Discovery Channel programme Daily Planet tonite

http://www.atsengineering.com/

PITA

Big Pratt · Post by **Big Pratt** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:29 pm

Cool stuff,

but so is this:
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.html

Wonder what is more effective though, a couple CL415 that can scoop locally and have more drops per hour with less water per drop or a big dump less frequently.

Any forest fire fighters experts out there? Whacha thinkin boyz??

PS They should get into a marketing agreement with the makers of SuperSoaker water guns

A huge "SuperSoaker 1,000,000" decal would look spiffy on the side he he

Big Pratt · Post by **Big Pratt** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:31 pm

Sorry,

forgot to mention to check out the promo video on the abovementioned page.

Talk about being wet'n'wild!!

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:50 pm

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=15007

Some great info on this thread about some of the bombers. Very cool stuff indeed.

bater · Post by **bater** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:42 pm

Little conspiracy theory here...
I knew a guy who worked on that 747, and apparently Evergreen aviation is actually a CIA shell company.
Makes you wonder if they truely want it for fire fighting??

overrun · Post by **overrun** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:12 pm

How practical will that bomber be flying in the BC or California hills. Have to agree with BIG PRATT about the 415's scooping multiple loads and hitting the fire repetitively. .

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:18 pm

and apparently Evergreen aviation is actually a CIA shell company.

Yes you are partially correct, However Evergreen Roots are mostly tied to the US forestry serivce and have had extensive contracts with them dating back to the 60's, these roots would compell them into the tanker markets. Aswell thats 747 that hauls around the Space Shuttle ....yup its Evergreens. in fact about 60 % of there business comes from government contracts these range from Postal contracts to Hauling military supplies.

As for the CIA connection it probly started back in 1975, They bought a CIA airfield in Marana, Ariz., now the Evergreen Air Center, and a company called the Johnson Flying Service. hmm Johnson flying service eh? wonder who that was named for could it be Mr Air America no troops are in Laos or Cambodia President Johnson. They somehow got the job to fly the Shah of Iran out of Iran in 1980.

Here's some food for thought how does one obtain money to finace covert activity? Who has acces to bringing illegal stuff into a country? Ya still with me ........... how about make a ton of money off drugs!! and who can bring large shipments into the country undetected how about use the postal service and who has those planes that fly the mail for the Postal Service, Evergreen.

Oh and were do I send my resume

AirCon · Post by **AirCon** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:05 am

Well, to put it into perspective, at our ATB base, I believe it takes about 8 minutes to fill up a Convair or 580....so I'm sure the bigger gut on the jets would take maybe twice the time?.......kinda nice when when the prop pullers can loiter around and scoop 'n shoot for a few hours before they have to go back and gas up.

A

ninjacrumb · Post by **ninjacrumb** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:57 am

415's only work if there are lakes nearby. Southern California isn't renowned for its vast spance of lakes. Same with western Europe. Not many places tp pick up water in Spain. Kind of nice to see an old bird like a DC10 get a new lease on life. Plus I bet the owner of the FBO in Kelowna would shoot in his pants if he saw that thing show up for a fire season.

CLguy · Post by **CLguy** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:17 am

Don't hold your breath waiting to see one at an airport near you anytime in the future. The speed and height that this thing has to drop from will render it pretty much useless. Most of the load will evaporate before it gets near the ground. If they could drop the entire load all at once, I could see it having limited success but they cannot and therefore have to take about 5 miles to unload it. They then have to return to one of the half dozen bases throughout the US that can handle it for a reload.

We are already hearing that the 747 project is going the way of the Dodo bird.

winston · Post by **winston** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:35 am

I have flown past the Marana airfield - looks innocent enough except for the fact there is lots of big equipment parked at an airfield pretty much in the middle of nowhere. (it's about half way between Phoenix and Tucson in the desert)

Never landed there, but apparently there would be someone at your door to ask what you were doing before you had even shut down.

Apollo · Post by **Apollo** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:37 am

I saw it on daily planet - pretty cool, I don't see why they can't add more water storage into the main fuselage, and take one of two solutions:

a) Be able to mass-dump all the water, solving pressurization problems by only pressurizing the cockpit.

or

b) use the fuselage stored water replenish the belly tank, allowing for multiple drops.

The turnaround to fill the tanks was quoted at 8 minutes, and the belly tank empties in about 5000' at the slowest rate iirc.

CLguy · Post by **CLguy** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:28 pm

What is quoted and what is reality are 2 very different things. It takes longer than 8 minutes to fill a Convair or DC-6. Also what airport water system can sustain that kind of draw? After about 2 loads the system would be empty.

Raydar · Post by **Raydar** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:36 pm

Apollo:

Structural Integrity of Boeing a/c come from being pressurized while in the air. I am sure that is the case with most other a/c as well.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:05 pm

Raydar wrote:Apollo:

Structural Integrity of Boeing a/c come from being pressurized while in the air. I am sure that is the case with most other a/c as well.

Raydar, Not sure I understood you correctly, but I don't believe structural integrity is at all dependant on pressurization.... You can go ahead and fly them unpressurized if you like... but the human occupants would no doubt prefer to keep to low levels.... Can you clarify your meaning?
However... pressurizing the cockpit only (as was suggested by someone else) would require the addition of a new aft pressure bulkhead just aft of the cockpit... no doubt a costly mod!... and I'm not at all sure why one would want to?

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:07 pm

If the structural integrity of Boeing aircraft is dependant on being pressurized, does that mean that they don't have any structural integrity below 10,000 feet?

What happens if they lose cabin pressurization at altitude? Should they take out all the oxygen systems, since the aircraft will immediately lose it's structural integrity and fall out of the sky?

Most importantly, what does the structural integrity of Boeing aircraft have to do with a DC-10? Last time I checked, it was a McDonnell Douglas design, wasn't it?

I saw the blurb on "Daily Planet" as well. From my understanding, mouting the tanks underneath simplifies the delivery system. If they were to store their load in the fuselage, they'd need to cut some pretty big holes in the floor in order to deliver it...thus raising the issue of structural integrity.

From what they said, the DC-10 was a good candidate not only because of availability, but also because of the length of the landing gear, and the relatively wide space between the mains.

External tanks will make it easier to fill, and can be engineered as an "add-on" as opposed to needing to re-engineer the entire aircraft.

LH · Post by LH » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:49 am

Bater ----your information is far, far "out-of-date and ambiguous. The CIA did indeed buy many companies in the 50's and one of them was HQ'd in Arizona. That company was Evergreen Aviation, BUT was NOT the Evergreen of McMinnville, OR.

However, Evergreen of Oregon WAS one of many recruitment companies worldwide for the CIA. They were not paid for same and did none of the training of any sort, but made the positions that were available known to all interested. Many pilotys flew for Air America and saw no "action' of any sort other than normal flying duties. Canada had three of their own and my father was recruited by one of them and trained out of the main Air America Base in Japan and then Udorn, Thailand. Air America was a functioning airline and did all the things a normal airline would do, BUT they also had a contract for "other duties" with the CIA. NOT ONE of their staff was military of any sort or description. Air America ceased to exist in ANY form as of July 1976 and ALL connections with the recruiting companies mentioned had ceased over a decade before At the point of their demise, they were the largest airline in the world with over 4000 a/c . Air America was just one of SEVEN airlines that also had contracts with the CIA. One still remains, although they've ceased doing anything along those lines a long time ago .......and that airline was/is Air Malaysia.

Lastly, the movie "Air America", starring Mel Gibson was 100% pure fantasy and bullshit from start to finish and has been "panned' as such from my dadtoand all the veterans of Air America.........and there are "scads" either retired or still flying at present..

oldncold · Post by **oldncold** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:55 am

there is only 2 water bomber aircraft in the history that can
1/ drop huge loads
a) martin mars bless those who keep um flyin' and
b) dc 6b

with due respect to the L188 its track record for wing failure is a concern
to all those who strap the -kester mister- in on a hot an loaded day.

some may rightfully argue HOWEVER that depends on where the beast is operated lowlands (relatively flat terrain) or the rocks in a canyon at 85 c

the 215 and 415 are awesome were water abounds but not effective in dry scrub country.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:28 am

It would be interesting to know the drop speed with the DC 10 because of water atomization problems at high speed.

TG · Post by TG » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:20 am

oldncold,

L188 wing failures were due to a design flaw. I can't recall if it was engine and wing/spar structure or just due to too "soft" engine mounts.

Basically, propellor would go in oscillation known as "whirl mode" in which the engine porpoises until it...gives way... Lockheed rebuilt the engine mounts and wing structure to make it considerably stronger.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:51 am

TC-10 will drop retardant, not water. Just as the 415s were excellent in the Okanagan and useless in the mountains, the DC-10 would be very good on the flats, low hills or grass fires. And campaign fires? Laying lines?

Might have to shut one down lest you ingest the goopers.

How hot would an empty -10 be?

Sign me up.

cedar tree · Post by **cedar tree** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:39 pm

And I thought an empty Convair 580 is hot! Sounds like Minden Air has tanked the BAe146. What's next?

cedar tree · Post by **cedar tree** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:43 pm

Drop speed on the 747 was tested at 140 knots, rumour is Evergreen has scrapped the project and put that 747 to practical use. In reality, what agency would pick up the fuel tab for these thirsty boys?

DC 10 water bomber

DC 10 water bomber

bambi buckets?