"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:b4yrb.11482$7B2.3468@fed1read04...
Pretty sure it was designed as a bomber nad bombers do make a good
platform,
generally, for fire tankers.

It was not. I already told you, it was originally designed as a military
troop transport. You don't need to take my word for it. Just read up on
the history of the Martin Mars.

and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds

But I don't think it was designed to carry passengers.

Of course it was. It was specifically designed for a combined
cargo/passenger transport role. It certainly was not designed to be a
bomber.

(apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers,
as
have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).

They were suitable, but saying that they were a great success is
stretching
it a bit.

I don't know what else you could call it. They have been putting out fires
for decades.

Don't have all the specifics but apparently it's the
differences in the "cargo" that makes them poor for fire duty.

How can you "know" what you claim to know, and yet not have the
specifics?
You seem to have a pretty low threshold for "knowing" something.

Geez man, take it easy.

Not sure what you mean. You claimed to know something. You failed (twice)
to provide any basis for that claim. I'm just pointing out that your
"knowledge" is not in agreement with reality. Not sure how much easier that
could be, actually.

Why say it then?

You tell me. You're the one who said it.

Capable of is not the same as prefectly suited for and most passenger
aircraft
are used because it's economical and that's where the imperfect world
comes in.

Practically no water bomber is "prefectly [sic] suited for" water bombing,
nearly all of them being converted from some other use. I'm not saying any
ARE perfectly suited (other than those few specially built for the purpose).
I'm saying your claim that aircraft originally designed to carry passengers
make terrible water bombers is ludicrous.

Pete