DC-10s as Water Bombers?

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:e7yrb.11486
Not familiar with that plane, will have to look into it. Are there many left?
Where do they fly from?


Take a look at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/FireEmergency...n/Aviation.asp

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
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).

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.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"This also tells they understand our language. They are just not willing to
speak to us using it." "Who knew they were French?" - Babylon 5

"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

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:38:47 -0800
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"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.

Somtimes the facts don't agree. I guess we can all believe what we want to.


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.

Saying it was designed to carry passengers is like saying a pickup
truck bed was designed for carrying passengers. It's primarily role
is for cargo, large cargo. Yes people can also board it and fly along.
But you won't hear a lot of rave reviews of the travel experience
from the passengers.


(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.


I call it making do with what's feasible.


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.

That's just untrue, they are used as water bombers because they make sense
to use since they are available.

You're looking for a fight which is trange to me. You won't find one here.




Pete

"R. Hubbell" wrote:

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 this how? The miltary has been using that plane as a tanker for
decades. It should make a fine fire bomber.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

Wind the clock back a bit...

1988...

The '49er fire burned down half my county. It was the first of the forest-urban
fires that we've seen over the last 20 years. Half of my neighbors had their
homes in ashes that week. The firebombers flew from sunup to sundown, load
after load, in an attempt to put out that fire.

We had a party the day that the fire was over at the county fairgrounds for the
firemen that helped with that effort. Most of us still had soot in our hair and
ashes in our shoes.

Halfway through the party, CDF launched the firebombers on a "practice mission".
They came over the fairgrounds about 200' off the deck and at full engine power.

Y'all ever seen ten thousand people hard-crying at once?

Jim
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:38:47 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"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.

"Firefighting certainly wasn't what Glenn L. Martin had in mind for
the design of the Martin Mars. Originally conceived as a bomber for
long range missions and patrols, the production aircraft were
redesigned and classified for long-range general transport because of
the demonstrated heavy-lift capability of the prototype."
http://www.martinmars.com/mars.html

"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."
http://www.jimmyhoward.com/Martin-Mars-history.shtml

"Design work for the Martin "Mars", the largest active-duty flying
boat the world would ever see, started in 1935. After reviewing
proposals submitted by Consolidated, Boeing, Vought-Sikorsky and
Martin, Martin received a contract for a long-range patrol bomber
designated the XPB2M-1 "Mars" on 23 August 1938. The patrol bomber's
keel was laid on 22 August 1940, and the aircraft, known
affectionately as the "Old Lady" was rolled from its hangar on 27
September 1941..." (Steve Ginter, author of MARTIN MARS XPB2M-1R &JRM
FLYING BOATS).
http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF29.htm

My Dad sent me a postcard of a Martin Marlin when he was
in the Philipines. Someday I hope to build an RC model of
it.

Marty

"B25flyer" wrote in message
...
...... Seems that a certain
company, with some older 747s, based in a smaller town in Oregon is
looking
into making it happen.

I'm quite familiar with them. Using one of their 747s as a water bomber
would just be one more entry on the long list of bizarre ideas that they've
come up with. Ironically, some of those bizarre ideas have worked, and that
guy has spent a lot of years in the forestry/aviation arena, so don't put
anything off the table quite yet. However, I would think that mod costs on
a 747 would be easily prohibitive, not to mention operational logistics.

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:Z0Erb.11547$7B2.9752@fed1read04...
You're looking for a fight which is trange to me. You won't find one
here.

I'm just trying to get the facts straight. More than can be said about you.
You're right about one thing...you sure didn't put up much of a fight.

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
"Firefighting certainly wasn't what Glenn L. Martin had in mind for
the design of the Martin Mars. Originally conceived as a bomber for
long range missions and patrols, the production aircraft were
redesigned and classified for long-range general transport because of
the demonstrated heavy-lift capability of the prototype."
http://www.martinmars.com/mars.html

Key word: "redesigned".

The prototype was never used as a water bomber. The airplanes in use as
water bombers (and not of the same design as the prototype) were never
intended for use as a bomber. Claiming that they were doesn't make it so.