Slashdot Mirror
A DC-10 Passenger Plane Is Perfect At Fighting Wildfires
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.
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.
They can carry jet fuel, too.
Did you read the rest of that wikipedia article.
Explosive decompression does suck but losing cargo space to inward opening doors also sucks. Afaict outward opening cargo doors are the norm on airliners*. Yes the DC-10 initially had a flawed locking design on the cargo doors and also had inadequate protection from hydralic failure of it's flight control systems and yes a couple of planeloads of people had to die before these issues were taken seriously but the overall safety record of the plane has been pretty normal compared to other planes of it's age.
The 747 also had a cargo door failure incident, fortunately it only killed a handful of people.
Afaict the main reason for retiring old airliners is not safety but economics, more modern planes tend to use less fuel per ton-mile and are also queiter (when airports are under noise restrictions quieter planes means more flights fit within the noise quota) and are easier to get spare parts for.
* At least doing a google image search for various common airliners shows outward opening doors.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
But some designs defy obsolescence
This isn't about obsolescence or a design that stands the test of time. This is about simple economics. The main reason airliners phase out old airplanes is that their operating costs are too high - their older engines are too fuel consuming compared to newer designs, and may not meet newer noise regulations for most commercial airports. Maintenance also becomes difficult to source with no new spare parts being produced.
Fire fighting aircraft fly under a different set of economics. They fly short flights, and only seasonally, so their fuel expenses are a smaller proportion of their expenses. They don't have to worry about noise regulations, because they don't fly out of commercial airports. And an older model that was produced in large volumes like the DC-10 means there is a large source of cheap junkyard parts to maintain these aircraft.
This isn't about the DC-10 being a good or bad design - it's just simple economics. What's expensive for a commercial airliner can be economical for a fire-fighting operation.