Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A DC-10 Passenger Plane Is Perfect At Fighting Wildfires

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-a-barrel-roll dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes: Friday night in Southern California's Silverado Valley, relief flew in on an old airliner. In this summer of drought and fire, the DC-10, an airplane phased out of passenger service in February, has been spotted from Idaho to Arizona delivering up to 12,000 gallons of fire retardant in a single acrobatic swoop.

The three-engine DC-10 entered service in 1970 as a passenger jet, and the last airplane working in that capacity, operated by Biman Bangladesh Airlines, made its final flight on February 24. But some designs defy obsolescence. The DC-10 had already been converted to function as a mid-air refueling airplane for the Air Force, and in 2006, the first fire-fighting DC-10 was unleashed on the Sawtooth fire in San Bernardino County, California.

8 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    The three-engine DC-10 entered service in 1970 as a passenger jet, and the last airplane working in that capacity, operated by Biman Bangladesh Airlines, made its final flight on February 24.

    There's a reason why the DC-10 isn't used anymore.

    Explosive Decompression sucks in an airplane:

    The DC-10 was designed with cargo doors that opened outward instead of conventional inward-opening "plug-type" doors. Using outward-opening doors allowed the DC-10's cargo area to be completely filled since the door was not occupying usable space. To secure the door against the outward force from the pressurization of the fuselage at high altitudes, outward-opening doors must use heavy locking mechanisms. In the event of a door lock malfunction, there is great potential for explosive decompression.

    Now, when you're using it as a water bomber, you're never going to pressurize the cabin, and you've likely made some other major changes.

    I'm glad they've managed to take these old DC-10's and make them do something useful .. they're a pretty cool plane and a piece of aviation history, but that unfortunate defect in the cargo doors made them not really safe to fly in.

    But it sounds like it's getting a new lease on life. I wonder just how many of them they'll be able to cobble together .. it's not like they make spare parts for them.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      one incident occured because it was possible to close the door and make it appear fully seated and locked without it actually being so. after it was redesigned it was no longer possible to do so. they also added vents between the cargo and passenger holds, to allow the air pressure to equalize (you see them on almost all airliners now). they fixed that problem. engineering wise, the problem was fixed and it was deemed safe*. what they couldnt fix was ground personel. who would ignore the safety indicator indicating that the door wasnt fully seated and properly locked. i know we talk about idiot proofing, but ground personel are responsible for several things that can crash a bird if done improperly. we trust them everyday.

      but generally, once it was fixed, the DC-10 was considered safe and airworthy, even if the public perception wasnt so trusting of it.

      and if you really want to feel safe, dont think about how they work long high tempo hours outdoors for an average of 9 bucks an hour (typical low wage physical labor job).

      __
      (*if you really want to get into it, explosive decompression is generally not even a concern on aircraft, partly because of the DC-10 (if it hadnt beent eh DC-10, another plane would have eventually taught engineers the same lessons), being more of a hollywood thing (people getting sucked out windows, planes dinintergrating, etc.....).

      I dont know when air vents between the two halves of the pressure vessel became common (they are now though, because of this...), but at the time the DC-10 did not have them. so if one half decompressed, and the other is still airtight, but the floor/ceiling seperating them isnt designed to contain the prssure...it buckles. because of how the DC-10 was structurally designed, what would happen is, if the cargo hold decompresses it was possible for the floor seperating the hold from the passenger cabin to buckle, because the floor acted as an air tight membrane. this buckling would cause damage to the control system running the length of the fuseleage, because of where the control system component were located as they traveled the length of the plane. the end result was a loss of control, that would cause the crash. this problem was a potential problem on many aircraft, if they ever experienced decompression in either half of the pressure vessel.

      any of several things could have improved this: relocate the control components, improve/redesign the floor structural supports, and so on. Those options are really expensive, add weight, reduce capacity, etc.

      So on a large plane that needs two usable cargo holds to be profitable......air vents.
      Air vents allow the pressure to equalize between the two halves, so that if either half should lose pressure (for any reason...not just a door malfunction), the pressure can equalize, the floor doesnt buckle, the control system isnt impaired, and the plane remains flyable.)

    2. Re:Hmmm .... by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

      That problem was fixed and is not the reason why the DC-10 isn't used any more. The DC-10 (and MD-11 followon, which is still in service) went on to fly millions of safe, reliable hours once the issue with the overcentre locks were fixed with the cargo doors.

      The DC-10 is out of (passenger) service now just because it's old and burns too much fuel. (It remains in cargo service, where it will be pressurized).

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    3. Re:Hmmm .... by devman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The guardian pod defends against shoulder launched rockets (MANPADS), they are usually guided by infrared targeting and pods defense mechanism jams this guidance system. The system is mainly designed to protect the plain during take-off and landing when the plane is most vulnerable to easily obtainable shoulder launched missiles. The missile that allegedly shot down MH17 was from a mobile SAM truck and would have been radar guided. A guardian pod would not have saved them.

    4. Re:Hmmm .... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a reason why the DC-10 isn't used anymore.

      Explosive Decompression

      Incorrect. DC-10s were perfectly safe aircraft that flew millions of miles. They weren't explosively decompressing left right and center.

      DC-10s aren't flying passengers any more because they don't have the efficiency of modern airliners like the 787. They're heavier, have more drag, and burn more fuel - Particularly due to the their three engines.

      FedEx still operates a whack of 'em hauling cargo.

  2. The DC-10 was killed by poor management. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Informative
    Fundamental problem with DC-10 was the poor management. They made a stupid decision to make the cargo door open outward. Designed a complex locking arrangment using pins to be done by the cargo handlers. If not properly locked, the door flies off. The passenger door floor buckled when that happened. Very first time it happened the engineering team gave a very clean way to fix the issue. Pressure relief holes between passenger and cargo compartment, better locking pins.

    But the management persuaded FAA not to issue a "must fix it" notice to avoid bad publicity. Gentleman's agreement between McDonnel-Douglas chief and chief of FAA. Never followed through. Happened again, law suits followed, all the dirty laundry got aired and they never recovered from that.

    Added to that the airlines were using some home grown procedure to dismount and remount engines. Recommended process called for removing some 198 bolts. Airliners detached three loading pins on the pylon. In the process damaged the pylon. They had the engine on a fork lift truck while someone shouted directions trying to slide in the loading pin. The mistake was by the airlines. DC-10 paid the price for it. It got a reputation for being a badly designed unsafe aircraft. Only third world airlines like Biman Bangladesh would even touch them.

    Good plane, killed by the same stupid management that killed US Auto industry too. At least in the case of US auto they were actively aided and abetted by the unions. But McDonnel-Douglas was just self inflicted wounds. The third player Lockheed (L-1011 tristar) survived on military cargo plane contracts.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  3. Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I see at least 50 a night here in Memphis. DC-10s and their big brother MD-11s are one of the backbones of FedEx.

  4. Re:strongly doubting it by rwise2112 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and the DC-10 can deliver as much water as five of the largest water scoopers.

    Also bear in mind that a water scooper has to "land and refill" too...it just does that on a body of water instead of an airport. That could be closer than the nearest airport, or it could be farther.

    I looked them up: the scooper scoops 6,137 litres of water during a 12-second 410 metres (1,350 ft) long run on the water at 70 knots. 12 seconds to refill sounds pretty amazing, but apparently the DC-10 can be filled (45000 L) in 15-20 minutes, which is not too bad.

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"