If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 May 2004 21:51:59 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:
Oh, blarney. John, there is no such thing as a 'former fighter pilot' and you know it. You'll have fangs to the day you die. I once made the mistake of referring to my flight instructor as an ex-Marine. "There ARE no ex-Marines!" all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"John Carrier" wrote in message ...
Sigh .... True on both counts. Let's overlook the last (unmentioned) criterion. R / John "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:h_Tpc.63391$iF6.5578946@attbi_s02... "Krztalizer" wrote... R / John (former fighter guy Oh, blarney. John, there is no such thing as a 'former fighter pilot' and you know it. You'll have fangs to the day you die. ...not to mention a big watch. :-) The Canon camera??? Regards, Dick Long ago MATS/MAC AC T-34,T-37,T-33,C-47,C-123,CT/T-29,C-118,C-141 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"John Carrier" wrote in message ...
Sigh .... True on both counts. Let's overlook the last (unmentioned) criterion. R / John "John R Weiss" wrote in message news:h_Tpc.63391$iF6.5578946@attbi_s02... "Krztalizer" wrote... R / John (former fighter guy Oh, blarney. John, there is no such thing as a 'former fighter pilot' and you know it. You'll have fangs to the day you die. ...not to mention a big watch. :-) The Canon camera??? Regards, Dick Long ago MATS/MAC AC T-34,T-37,T-33,C-47,C-123,CT/T-29,C-118,C-141 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Krztalizer" wrote in message ... Is the 747 firebomber a serious proposition ??????? Dave, would I ever lie to you? no comments, all the rest of you bums out there. Maybe the politics guys.....but us aviation guys? Us lie? Never!!! (^-^))) George Z. G |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Vaughn wrote:
Me. (Just today, in fact) Sure, rub it in. Last sortie: 17 JUN 03, but hoping to return to flying by 17 JUN 05.... BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
T-37, T-38, F-105D & F, T-39D, F-4C, D, & E, AT-38B. (And a few cats & dogs sand-bag rides in other stuff.) Damn, those were the days.....most guys are real lucky if they fly 3 different airframes (not including the T-37 & T-38 flown during S/UPT) over the course of a 20 year career now-a-days. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Ron wrote:
However, a lot of the concerns expressed about it being too big, were also said when the B-17 was being introduced into forest fire work. I would think airspeed would be more of an issue. I mean, a 747 can obviously carry *tons* of water, but how useful is that if your minimum dispersion (due to your 250+ KIAS minimum safe airspeed) spreads that water along a *5 mile* track? BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
I would think airspeed would be more of an issue. I mean, a 747 can obviously
carry *tons* of water, but how useful is that if your minimum dispersion (due to your 250+ KIAS minimum safe airspeed) spreads that water along a *5 mile* track? BUFDRVR That is true. And often you want to drop retardant in fairly close proximity to those people on the firelines, with with a 747, it will be such a deluge, that you would have to get everyone pretty far away I would think. You can get a lot lower with the current tankers and lay retardant more precisely. . But I guess if you need a lot of it laided down quickly and precision isnt a huge issue, the 747 project would probably have a role Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4) Silver City Tanker Base |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
First took to the air in 1940.
Chris Mark |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"BUFDRVR" wrote...
I would think airspeed would be more of an issue. I mean, a 747 can obviously carry *tons* of water, but how useful is that if your minimum dispersion (due to your 250+ KIAS minimum safe airspeed) spreads that water along a *5 mile* track? Drop the flaps, and VREF is about 156 at max landing weight, and in the 120s with no load and min fuel. V2 at Max TOGW (396.8 tonnes) is 181, so 200 knots is doable at any weight (747-400 numbers, but the -200 shouldn't be too much different). Since max zero fuel weight limits internal load to about 128 tonnes, that would be the outer limit of water carriage ability (dispersing/dumping rates notwithstanding). With a short-range fuel load, the airplane would be at or below max landing weight at the beginning of a run, so 170-180 knots would be very feasible. With less water, 150-160 knots would be possible. Biggest hurdle would be a dispensing system with high enough rate and good enough safeguards against adverse CG situations. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Fliers Only | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 37 | December 4th 03 09:33 PM |