DC-10s as Water Bombers?

"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).

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

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)

Pretty sure it was designed as a bomber nad bombers do make a good platform,
generally, for fire tankers.


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

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


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.


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.


Why say it then?



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).

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.



(no pun intended)

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

A sense of humor can help everything go easier.


Pete

"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

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 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.

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

"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.

"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