DC-10s as Water Bombers?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
"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.

Obviously, he doesn't actually know.

Pete

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
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

I'm sure the designers of the DC-10 and 747 would be extremely surprised
to hear that.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they
start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge

In article , (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

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

I'm sure the designers of the DC-10 and 747 would be extremely surprised
to hear that.

Wasn't the 747 derived from Boeing's failed bid for the C-5?

--
Bob Noel

"Newps" wrote in message news:jdBrb.156759$Tr4.420869@attbi_s03...
Never happen. Costs too much to operate and too limited on where they
can land. Doesn't do you any good when you are 100+ miles away from the
fire, no matter how much you can carry.

Landing isn't a problem, taking off with all that water aboard will be :-)

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:55:10 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"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".

Right. Indicating a change in design. All that the other guy said
was that the Mars was intended originally to be a bomber.
Not a water bomber. A military bomber. When the Navy
changed its mind, the innards got redesigned so that they
could be used for other things.

The prototype was never used as a water bomber.

Neither the original poster nor I claimed that it was.

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.

You said we should read the histories. I went out on the net and
read enough to make me quite sure that the original poster's
point was accurate. Now you want to change the terms of the
debate.

You may have the last word.

Marty

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"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.


Sorry Peter. You said in an earlier post:

"Martin Mars (originally
designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire
fighting)"

and

"It was not. I already told you, it [the Mars] 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."

Clearly *you* were wrong here. You didin't say 'Originally designed as
a bomber, then redesigned as a troop transport'. You said 'Originally
designed as a troop transport'. It was clearly designed as a bomber,
and the 'repurposing' as a transport didn't involved structural
redesign of the wing or structural components of the fuselage. It
consisted of

"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. "

So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
'originally designed' as a troop transport.


Yes it was repurposed, but don't you think it's rather ironic that you
chimed in on this thread to chastise the poster for being wrong about
the original purpose of the aircraft, and the being provably incorrect
about it *yourself*?

Cheers,

Cap

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message

So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
'originally designed' as a troop transport.


Looks like a medium, uniform shade of gray to me. I've done no research
other than read the cited site above, but that refers to the Mars being
"conceived" as a bomber, but delivered as a transport. "Re-design"
apparently occurred *during* the design phase, which could arguably be taken
as no redesign at all. I didn't get the impression that there was ever any
Mars delivered to an end user as a bomber. How gray do you want to get?

JG

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
[...]
So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
'originally designed' as a troop transport.

I was speaking of the airplanes actually *flying* as water bombers. They
*were* originally designed as transport aircraft, not bombers.

As I already pointed out, many (most) aircraft are not from-scratch designs.
They are generally redesigns to some extent of previous aircraft. When I
write "originally designed" I do not mean the very first aircraft in the
lineage, but rather the originally intended purpose of the specific aircraft
in question.

You might as well say that the 747 was originally designed as a bomber.

You are also losing track of the point he all of the discussion regarding
the actual "design" is moot unless the person claiming only bombers make
suitable water bombers can explain what it is about the design of a bomber
that is unique. Obviously since bomber designs have been converted to
passenger designs, they really aren't all that different. There is no a
priori evidence that a passenger design cannot be used in a bomber role,
even if it's as a water bomber.

Pete

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
I'm sure the designers of the DC-10 and 747 would be extremely surprised
to hear that.

I doubt that they would. I can't speak directly to the DC-10, but my
history book on Boeing tracks the lineage of all of the Boeing aircraft, and
at each step along the way, each new aircraft borrows heavily from the
previously built aircraft. In many cases, the passenger aircraft projects
started as military contracts.

Pete

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" said:
You are also losing track of the point he all of the discussion regarding
the actual "design" is moot unless the person claiming only bombers make
suitable water bombers can explain what it is about the design of a bomber
that is unique. Obviously since bomber designs have been converted to
passenger designs, they really aren't all that different. There is no a

Bombers are built stronger. Bombers converted to passenger planes have
never been all that successful, especially not if there is a commercial
competitor, because the extra structure they need to take military G loads
is extra weight that their competitors are carrying in passengers instead
of structure.

They are also designed to take some battle damage. I don't know of any
non-military aircraft where the spec said "must be able to take a 23mm
cannon shell hole in the main spar and keep flying", but I remember the
design spec for what became the UH-60 helicopter did have that provision
(ok, I don't remember seeing that in the spec for other military aircraft,
but the UH-60 and the AH-63 and AH-64 were the only ones that I read in
detail, and they all specified exactly what sort of battle damage they
must be able to take). To be successful as a water bomber, an aircraft
has to be able to maneuver in tight quarters, take high Gs, and maybe deal
with "battle damage" from hitting tree tops or other sources.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....if you squeeze a MS product into a small enough memory footprint there may
not be sufficient space for it to fall over, thus giving the impression it's
reliable. -- Geoff Lane