"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
You notice one thing in common between all of those aircraft and most of
the other successful water bombers? They were all built for the military.

Ok, only 1/4 of the DC-6s built were built for the military, but I bet
they could take more Gs than the DC-10.

Could very well be. If I've read Part 25 correctly, the load limits
mandated for transport aircraft are not even as strict as those for Part 23
aircraft.

But it's not the "bomber" aspect that necessarily makes a good water bomber,
nor does a "passenger" design necessarily make a bad water bomber. In fact,
most large passenger aircraft (airliners) were derived to at least some
degree from existing military designs, just due to the coincidence of how
aviation developed, so it's not like one can simply say "passenger aircraft
make lousy water bombers".

In any case, I expect someone making a claim like that to at least be able
to provide *some* kind of guess as to why they think the claim is true.
That's obviously not the case here.

Pete