Using a 747 to Fight Wildfires

RotJ writes "It's fire season again. And the government just grounded 33 aging air tankers on Monday due to safety issues. Looking for a modern solution, Evergreen Aviation has come up with a 747 supertanker with 24,000 gallons of tank space onboard, which allows it to cover seven times the area of today's largest existing airtanker. In addition to fighting fires, it will be able to contain oil spills and 'perform challenging homeland security missions' like neutralizing chemical or biological attacks. And think of how many John Goodmans you could cover with fire retardant. Be sure to watch the videos."

Comments

A few Problems....

[Graemee]

Cost - even the smaller water bomber's are expensive. Operating cost of a 747 would be even higher again.

Accessability - a 747 doesn't operate from small dirt airfields or remote areas. I can see one of these trying to fly from a larger area to a remote area to drop water. (See costs)

Speed - they'd be running a lot faster than most water bombers. I can here the STALL STALL warnings now.

Accuracy - See Speed.

They might be good for fast burning "California or OZ" fires but I not sure they would be much use for most medium size forest fires. IMHO

Re:Refills?

[confused one]

The plane has no problems staying in the air with one engine out. Even if they lost two, it would be a simple matter to dump their payload: It's only water.

Some people might get a little wet... and appropriately ticked off; but, it's better to get suddenly drenched than to have a 747 crash land on your head.

Re:Speed

[Jesrad]

Exactly, and I would rather have a C130 do that work instead of a 747. Hercules can fly half as fast as those big commercial jets when needed. One even landed on a carrier.