Pete (I think it's your post?)


Need to add a few pennies.


On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:53:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:gUsrb.10899$7B2.8992@fed1read04...
I don't know anything about that plane but I do know that any plane that
was designed for passenger carrying doesn't make a great platform for
delivering fire retardants.

You "know" that? How do you "know" that? Maybe you should share your
expertise with those operating such airplanes as the Martin Mars (originally
designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire fighting)
and the C-130 (commonly used to carry passengers). Against all odds
(apparently) those airplanes have seen great success as water bombers, as
have other "passenger" aircraft (the DC-6 comes to mind).


C-130 is a cargo plane and so structurally designed by Lockheed. To
haul passengers they have canvas seats that fold down from walls of
cargo area. The floor is strong enough (they carry fighting vehicles
in the cargo area) they can just build a tank and tie in the cargo
area with the ramp open and nozzles on the tank(s) they can air drop
the 'water'. Easy, cheap conversion. Think I have also seen some
commercial conversions with the nozzles built into the fuselage and
they can drop with the ramp closed.

There are some ANG and AFR C-130's that have the ability to fight
fires. There are six MAFFS (Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System)
systems (in the whole US) that can be used to configure birds in two
Squadrons (one ANG and one AFR) for fire fighting. System holds 3000
gallons and dumps over the open ramp. They are not used very often
(for political reasons) as the laws say that Fire Fighting Companies
must be hired first before any Military birds are used. That's so the
Military don't take any jobs away from civilians.

Since you didn't know this from your post apparently, you now do. All
can be validated on the Internet with a little searching.

Regarding the Mars, read the following extracted from Mars history.

Quote
Martin continued test flights on the aircraft until November 1942,
when the Old Lady was passed on to the Navy. By this time the Navy had
decided that big lumbering easy-target patrol bombers were not such a
good idea after all, and the flying boat was converted to a cargo
aircraft before it was handed over. All the turrets and guns, bomb
bays, and armor plate were removed, cargo-loading hatches and
cargo-loading equipment were installed, and the DECKING WAS
REINFORCED. The modified aircraft was designated XPB2M-1R.
Unquote

You can see that these aircraft were converted to a cargo
configuration by Martin before delivering to the Navy. Further
conversion to a fire fighting airplane would be easy (cheap) since
they are structurally cargo aircraft.

Passenger aircraft can be converted to haul 'water' but doing so is
not very cost effective due to the major remanufacturing required.

Ask Fedex what it costs them to convert a passenger aircraft taken out
of service by the airlines to a cargo configuration so they can load
the pallets to haul their packages. Have seen some figures in AW & ST
of several million dollars per airframe to remanufacture..

Maybe this info will stop the finger pointing and cat and dog fight
on this thread?

Bottom line is to work to get equipment to drop water/retardent to
control/ put out forest fires. Dirty, dangerous work.

Local well know duster was killed working on a fire out west a couple
of years ago when he hit a wire in a canyon. Looked back in the smoke
to check his drop and zap. His partner (friend of mine) quit dusting
and shut down their operation here. He died less that a year later of
cancer ( Guess when your times up it's up.


Big John


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.

There has been some debate recently on this topic and in a perfect world the planes
should be designed as retardant delivery platforms from the ground up.

Sure, in a perfect world EVERY airplane would be designed from the ground up
for the specific purpose for which it will eventually be used. That goes
without saying.

But we don't live in a perfect world. It turns out that passenger aircraft
ARE quite capable of being converted to water bombers, they perform just
fine as such, and it's often more economical to operate such an airplane
rather than a purpose-built water bomber (I can only think of two
purpose-built water bombers off the top of my head, and you can bet they are
expensive).

(no pun intended)

I didn't see anything even resembling a pun. I guess you're off the hook on
that one.

Pete