Any fliers?

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

"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

"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

"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

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"

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"

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"

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

First took to the air in 1940.


Chris Mark

"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.