Slashdot Mirror
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."
How much can you slow down a 747.... would it no make it hard to hit the target at 600mph
Cruise TT
Somehow I can't envisage this with a 747, and how many 747 sized airstrips do you find near forestry areas?
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
How will it protect us from a biological attack? By drowning us in more harmful anti-bodies instead?
do you need to go if you want to water a forest, which is not large compared to the flight range of a 747?
Then again, in a flight simulator I've flown the 747 straight up so you could approach the burn and then climb hard while dropping the water.
What effect does this kind of dump do to the aerodynamics?
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
This "11,000-gallon tanker plane pours 'too much water,'". I guess 24,000 gallons (90000L) is not too much though...
Oh, don't worry about bandwidth.
They deliver the videos to your doorstep!
After watching a programme last night on a (mockup) terrorist attack on london (about 2000 people died when a chlorine tanker was blown up) i want one of these for stopping chemical attacks! apparently we have 1 air-ambulance for the whole city and a fraction of the police have chemical/biological training and equipment and the tube staff have nothing except some training that said "get everyone out of the nearest exit as fast as you can" wow i think i might become an emergency training consultant, i could make millions!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The 747 with a gross weight of the 747 of roughly 800,000 pounds is more than that of almost any other aircraft built. The 747 can carry a maximum payload of approximately 144,000 pounds for a distance of 6854 miles and has a cost-economical cruising speed of 564 miles per hour. That's a lot of water in with a short flight time (even if local). And for an airplane that's been around since the 1960's -- not bad either.
Didn't early brochures for the 747 show a small swimming pool in first class?
One of the latest Popular Science articles talked about a new(?) type of plane which is a combination of a helicopter and a jet (so it has rotors and jet engines), so it can take off almost anywhere, but get up to almost mach 1 if I remember correctly. The hauling capacity is enormous, one of the scenarios they showed was for fire fighting. Unfortunately, I was unable to remember the url of the manufacture, or find the article on popsci.com, I am sure someone else here knows the model name.
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
Interesting is that it covers "7 times" of what a normal air tank covers. As amateur I would assume that it takes similar time to cover the burning area, it just takes makes re-fitting faster. It is probably harder to fly as whell.
Beside that the chemical and biological "homeland" security aspect is ridiculous. You dont have such planes equipped in time fight such attacks.
There is old testimony relating CIA / Pacificorp with selling off Aircraft to the private sector to combat firefighting. Wonder if this is a cleanup operation to retire the "suspicious" planes
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/f
And here's the thing, once a fire gets to the size that you start thinking about dropping 24,000 gallons of water on it, YOU'VE ALREADY LOST! Water sure as hell ain't stopping it, unless it happens to be in the form of a severe rainstorm, and even then fires can burn underground for months. There were fires in Yellowstone that started in late fall, got snowed on, smolderd the entire winter underground and then reemerged the next spring.
What the Forest Service needs to do, and to their credit seem to at least be aware of on the ground (at least from my personal experience), is have quick response helicopters that can get to fires before they have blown up (read, still under 100 acres, give or take). Once a fire gets much bigger than say 1000 acres, it starts to create its own weather - at this point, the effort becomes more one of 'figure out where the wind will push the fire and get the hell out of the way!'
The only possible use I see for this plane, and one in which it is probably well-suited for, is in protecting man made structures from large, fast moving fires. Let's say there was a fire bearing down on Denver and threatening a rather pricey subdivision. This plane would be perfect for that job - they could load it up with fire retardant and create a huge 'wet line' in front of the subdivision. Maybe make a couple drops and you would be golden. My guess is that's what they have in mind, but I could be wrong.
One thing the Russians are good at is making things tough. Their design philosophy on military aircraft (including their fighters) is to make them robust to hostile environments including unimproved runways etc. On the surface this looks like a far more economical model using either the Russian or Canadian equipment than to retrofit some used up aircraft not designed for anything like this mission.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Jeff, you moron ! That was not the water release button !! That was the emergency fuel dump button !
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Hi Tom. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that the 747 won't be completely full of water. I know what you're thinking -- that's crazy talk! But I have this funny feeling that just won't go away: maybe the people who think of this stuff have better things to do than make up stupid shit that doesn't work.
I'm just guessing, of course. It's quite possible that the plan involves filling a 747 up with water and watch it sit on the tarmac. That could also be fun.
Bombardier CL415
Check the description and FAQ here.
Retrofitting a 747 for firefighting? Why not buy a plane designed from the ground off for firefighting purposes? It can drop 32000 to 65000 gallons of water between refueling. In real life situation it has proven to be able to deliver up to 30 000 gallons per hour.
Ever since I was a kid I'd seen videos of CL215 (the predecessor) fighting the big forest fires, and I was always wondering why the US used small choppers carrying minuscule payloads of water to fight the fires. Can anyone clear this up?
All tanker delivery systems in use today, except the MAFFs systems (modular airborne firefighting system; military) are capable of multiple drops, split loads, and variable coverage level on every drop. It's part of the basic requirement to field a tank system for use over the fire.
The Evergreen project is being tested at Marana (AZ) now through the middle of next month.
I believe it holds a certain amount of promise, but also some challenges. Like every asset over the fire, it has advantages and drawbacks.
The delivery system is reported to use water injection ahead of the retardant stream to break up the airflow; a fairly complex and weighty soloution to an otherwise simple problem.
The aircraft is swept wing, which presents certain difficulties at low speeds in the fire environment. The concept is of a tanker that makes high retardant or water drops, rather than using it for directly fighting fire. The aircraft will be very limited in the fields from which it can operate, restricting it from being useable at most tanker bases. It also means the airplane will have to make longer ferry's to get to fires, which will give it longer turn around times, greater costs, and may negate any advantages to carrying a greater retardant payload.
Large burning objects fly around over a fire, including trees or parts of trees. A turbofan engine is subject fo FOD contamination by smoke on the compressor blades, but also to direct strike damage from objects over the fire. It is also subject to flame-out, a greater liklihood than a piston engine that has continuous ignition
Drops are typically best done slow; the faster the tanker is moving, the higher the drop needs to be in order to allow the retardant to stop it's forward motion and fall straight down. Retardant moving forward on contact with the fuels only coats one side, an effect known as 'shadowing.' This leaves one side of the fuel unprotected, and negates the value of dropping the retardant.
A fast tanker may need to drop so high that the benifits of the retardant drop are muted. The higher the drop, the greater the drift isue, meaning reduced accuracy, and consequently reduced usefulness.
A DC-4 can be supported by the flight crew; often mechanics who can work on the aircraft as well as fly it. Often a single additional mechanic is a luxury, or all that is necessary to keep the airplane flying. Not the case with a B747.
Maneuverability close to the fire, in terrain with severe or extreme turbulence and reduced visibility may present a number of unique problems for the B747.
If it's viable, the B747 concept (and the DC-10 being fielded by Omni) will present a useful and valueable tool over the fire. It's just one tool, however, and not a soloution of a panacea for other problems plaguing the industry right now. Each aircraft over the fire, heavy fixed wing, single engine fixed wing, light helicopters, heavy helicopters, lead aircraft, air attacks, jump ships, etc, all have important roles. No one aircraft can or should perform them all. Additional available resources such as a B747 only mean that additional tools are available from which to choose when deciding how to most effectively fight a fire.
I fully support any developmental effort to enhance the industry. I tend to take a wait-and-see attitude; these aircraft were never intended to enter or operate in an environment such as the fire ground. Only time will tell what the success of these projects will be.
Back in the 80's, I worked 3 summers as a Smokejumper for the BLM out of Fairbanks, Alaska, and was detailed to the lower 48 on 2 occasions. Smokejumpers and air tanker are considered initial attack resources, so, getting to the fire while it was small and containable was the primary mission. Personally, I find that the aging A-10 aircraft would be more practical than the 747, as it can be forward positioned to the existing air tanker support facilities (Minden, NV being nearest to my neck of the woods/desert), and is fast and exceptionally maneuverable, a requirement for the mountainous terrain of much of the west.
1. The NIH, Not Invented Here-syndrome and
2. Money.
Am I the only one that can see a clear conflict of interest situation in this case? The same guy in both a "criteria role" and as representative for contractors (both private and federal)...
Ten bucks that The Forest Service will abandon it's "too much water" policy when a US-company comes up with a US-built plane doing the exact same thing as these Ilyushins. And that despite the advantages of the Ilyushins like better maneuverability, reduced cost and shorter takeoff.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
AVWeb ran an article about "heavy airtankers" - used ex-Airforce/Navy C-130 and P-3s pressed into service as tankers. From this, we get a weight of 9.3lb/gallon for retardant, for those interested. For our 747, this would be 223,200lb, or 111.6 tons. The most interesting part of this paper is where they talk about the fatigue resulting from the rapid unloading of the aircraft. Apparently, this is the main cause of catastrophic wing failure. When you suddenly change the aircraft load by 15-20%, you get a definite bending action in the wings. Just like bending a paperclip, eventually this leads to failure.
The paper also briefly mentions the super-tanker idea (747 or DC10 based).
The other big concern is that the economic payback for larger aircraft is longer than for smaller aircraft. They were talking about the proposition being questionable with an $8 million acquistion cost. I don't think you could get an operation 747 for anything close to that...
I've heard of proposals like this before. For a while there, the FUSSR was trying to get interest up in Western countries to buy/lease IL-76's for similar duty. FUSSR aircraft might make more sense, they are notoriously inexpensive.
What happened in that 2002 crash was, one of the wings of the plane just sheared off in flight as it came out of a turn. It was structural fatigue, as this article says. The plane involved was just under 60 years old, IIRC.
The pilots got profiled in the papers. Impressive people. Most pilots are flying for the love of it, they get paid next-to-nothing even for the airlines until they have tons of seniority, but these guys were what you'd call heroic characters.
They're truly old planes; it was like seeing a B-24 Liberator at an airshow, only instead of being carefully eased along in their dotage they were still hauling massive loads of water at low altitudes and speed, flying risky in the mountains in this case, for decades after the war. Pretty hard use.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Why hasn't it been done in Australia?
Distance, expense, distance, lack of water, distance, lack of airfields that can take 747s, and distance.
We use Chipmunks and news helicopters in Western Australia, they cover a tiny area of the 990,000 square miles of WA, one of six states of Australia.
As I said, distance. Fires close to humans get fought, others just burn.
During a fire a few years back, the pilots were using are road as ref. point for heading back to the fire after scooping up a new load of water. These things were passing over our house not more then 100 ft from the top of our roof. With a full load of water then engines make one hell of a noise.
Vancouver Island is home to two other interesting fire fighting planes: The Mars Water Bombers.
The Mars planes fight fires in the US all the time since they are privetly owned.
Besides all the discussions about flying a 747 at very low speed and about the manouvrability at low altitude, what happens to the plane when in a few seconds it becomes 100 tons lighter? Don't know the ratio between the empty and full weight of the plane, but loosing weight that fast doesn't seem to be a situation when I would like to be a pilot. And definitely not one when you are low speed, low altitude.
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
Very doubtfull, dont forget those engines were built to operate at some 30k ft, at a higher speed granted, but check the partial pressure of o2 at that altitude and youll see its still lower than what would generally be encountered at near ground level even during a fire.
Why does it seem like I'm the only one getting a taxidermy site when I click the link for Evergreen Aviation?
... an entire flock of radio controlled, stuffed birds converted to "tanker" use, able to carry 1 cup of water in a single drop.
Maybe they've gone to the other end of the spectrum
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
It's the turbulence that causes fatigue, not the action of unloading a lot of water at once. If you think about it, when you go flying in an airliner and you hit a bumpy patch of air, it's usually around clouds. The reason clouds usually form is that air (moist air) is rising, and carrying the water vapor up to a height where the temperature drops enough for the water to condense. The point is, the air is RISING. As the plane flies thru this rising air, the direction the wing is encountering the airflow suddenly changes slightly. Not a lot, but enough that the lift on the wings suddenly increases. The lift (the force that holds the plane up) is a function of angle of the airflow to the wing, as well as airspeed squared. So when you increase the angle of airflow, the lift increases. Now you have more lift than weight, so the plane bumps upwards. But the area of rising air is relatively small, so you get a short transient bump.
Over a fire, you've got LOTS of bumpy air - the fire is superheating patches of air, and it's all bumpy and roiling around. All that mess is rising rapidly into the sky, and fresh cold air is rushing in around the edges (remember Backdraft, the movie?), moving downward.
To be an effective air drop platform, you need to fly very low, so that the water doesn't disperse too much before it hits the target zone. So you're deliberately flying an airplane thru extremely unstable (rapidly rising and falling) patches of air, with very large vertical speeds (which means, larger changes in airflow direction, which means more severe turbulence).
As any materials engineer knows, and as most of us geeks know, if you bend something often enough, it breaks. And the further you bend it each time, the faster it breaks. An airplane wing is designed for a certain "fatigue life" - a certain number of cycles of bending. With the above primer on turbulence, you can imagine how drastically different from the design you will be using the airplane when you fly it 500 ft over a forest fire, compared to relatively smooth air at 38,000 ft.
So watch the amazing video from last year of a C130 losing its wings over a fire - it's a natural but hopefully rare consequence of abusing an airplane this way. The way the airplane owner SHOULD handle this is frequent and intensive inspections. That C130, as I recall, was NOT properly inspected and was well past its service life. You can read the NTSB report on that accident at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A04_29_33.pd f (PDF file). A particularly telling quote: "The rate that maneuver load factors between 2.0 and 2.4 were experienced by firefighting aircraft was almost 1,000 times that for aircraft flown as commercial transports." (Load factor is engineer-speak for "g-force" - 1g is normal gravity; most transports never exceed 1.4g except in severe turbulence.)
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
I couldn't agree with you more, however, the US seems to suffer from a major case of Not Invented Here Syndrome. At one point in time, the Alaskan legislature appropriated funds to purchase two Canadair fire bombers, and the state's top fire fighting official wouldn't let the purchase go through, claiming they would do no good in Alaska. Some progress is being made, Hawkins and Powers, one of the major contractors is in negotiations to buy several of the Russian Be-200's. The problem is, the US Forest Service has stated they won't contract Be-200's because they don't have a US Type Certificate. Oh, BTW, I'm from Minnesota, one of the two states that has realized the value of a purpose-built fire bomber(North Carolina being the other has a single Canadair CL-215), we have 2 Canadair CL-215's protecting our property and forests.
Forest fires typically occur in mountains. Mountains are usually between 1,000 feet and 13,000 feet tall (300 - 4000 meters). Forest fires usually occur in the summertime. Forest fires make a lot of hot, dry air. The net result of this is a substantial increase in the density altitude in the region around a forest fire.
The density altitude is the altitude the airplane "sees" - taking into account air density, temperature, humidity, etc. Above a 5,000ft density altitude (~1,500m), most airplanes have a hard time just taking off with a full fuel load, much less performing high-g maneuvers close to the ground. At Las Cruces, New Mexico, the airport here is at about 4,500ft (1,370m) mean airfield elevation. Density altitudes above 7,000 feet (2,130m) are not uncommon - even early in the morning.
To operate under these conditions, pilots simply reduce their passenger and fuel loads. I haven't done the math, but I suspect that to make a 747 light enough to operate safely "down low" at a high density altitude, it wouldn't be able to carry much more water than the C-130 tankers we already use. Plus, a loaded 747 would tend to perform like an elephant on ice skates - a consequence of its swept wing and turbine engines - which don't "spool up" as fast as props. There would be zero margin for error.
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
Um...after the /. crowd comes a knockin'....
All their server will be good for *IS* a doorstep!
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Rather than cutting them up, why not cut a deal with the Russians and keep a few B52H bombers in water tanker service? With the appropriate firefighting gear in the bomb bay, it would be difficult if not impossible to revert back to a bomber; heck, give the Russians the contract for the firefighting mods.
After all, the BUFF has a proven track record of being stressed properly for low-altitude flight; there are plenty of retired USAF pilots and navigators out there who have 1000+ Time-in-Type, as well as mechanics, spare parts, etc.
...-.-
Imagine a beowulf cluster...
Kevin Fox
A B-52 would be better. It is already low level qualified for years ( low level bombing with high drag dumb iron, ) and has a modern enough bombing system to have the ballistics for the water / chem package slewed into the computer, so as to hit any location a forward air controler calls in. Plus the crews out of Barksdale and Minot ( the 2 B-52 bases ) could still get decent training hours.
Why try and reinvent the wheel?
After: The three most dangerous things you can hear at Evergreen...
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
There are actually a lot of pros that I didn't think about initially. Besides the safety problem with diving into fire zones, there's also a fuel problem, since each climb out consumes almost as much as taking off. This constraint reduces the weight capacity of each mission -- many tankers seem to fly with only a fraction of their rated weight.
The ability to load a plane up to its full capacity with retardant, fly to a fire area, and make repeated, accurate drops from high altitude, without running out of gas, seems like a major plus to me. There are also benefits in being able to make "quick response" drops, eg from Smoke Jumper aircraft, with less risk.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Try this gedanken experiment: Fill a bucket about half full of water. Now grab the bucket with both hands and run down the street. Once you get up to speed, try to stop or turn quickly without spilling any water. In fact, try to do it without letting the weight shift inside the bucket.
You see, as soon as you try to quickly change speed or direction, the weight shifts. When 24,000 gallons of water shifts, you have a lead sinker on your hands.
Watch the videos of those planes crashing. That is exactly what it looks like happened. The pilot tried to pull up, but the water shifted, and the plane lost it's wings under the intense weight shift.
This reminds me of a friend in highschool who's dream car was a hearse with a waterbed in the back. Sounds like a good idea untill you try to turn a corner at any speed greather than 5 mph!
By the way, Shane, if you are reading this, contact me.
Just use daisy cutters........blow the fire out and level any of that pesky underbrush...
At least a military aircraft would be designed for the maneuvers required to fight forest fires.
But really, these machines are VAST, and are turbojets the right engines for low-altitude use? I don't think so. You want an engine optimized for close-to-the-ground operation, that will spool up quickly so you have power when you need it.
Fun image
They deliver the videos to your doorstep!
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 loaded with videotape.
Divide the bucket into two sealed compartments. Fill one compartment fully with water, while leaving the other one empty...
Given that planes have been used in fighting fires for rather some time now, I'm guessing they have considered the problems.
Actually, who bother with a Boeing 747 is may not be structurally sound for low-altitude firebombing missions?
Recently, Boeing proposed an idea of using C-17A Globemaster III transports dropping 2,800 beachball-sized containers filled with water or fire retardant in a wide pattern some 2,000 feet above the fire. This means you could deliver up 144,000 pounds of fire surpressant in a wide pattern, which means more of a fire can be quench with such a plane. And because it is dropped around 2,000 feet in the air, that means the plane will fly in far less hazard conditions than firebomber planes do now.
If you check out the Popular Mechanics web site, the proposal is mentioned here: http://tinyurl.com/2otpd
Another interesting proposal is to bombard a fire with artillery sheels filled with liquid nitrogen. Why liquid nitrogen? Because it has these advantages: 1) the extreme cold of liquid nitrogen will quickly slow down a fire, 2) the presence of that much nitrogen gas expansion will snuff out the oxygen needed to feed and fire and 3) liquid nitrogen quickly boils away, so you don't have an enviromental hazard like you do with some chemcial fire retardants.