Water Bomber/ Air Tankers alternative aircraft projects

[McColm]

Hi Guys,
I don't know if this topic has been covered before, but here goes my daft idea.
I was horrified of last years forest fires ranging from the USA to Australia. I congratulate all those who took part in controlling and putting out these fires.
If I won the Euromillions and all the other large lotteries I'd start my own Water Bomber company, somehow I don't think uncle Kermit will let me buy his Shorts Sunderland and convert it into a water bomber, although other companies use Neptunes, Orions, Tri-Stars, C-130s and various float planes. The largest being the Mars sea plane. I'm trying to avoid current aircraft used in today's aerial fire fighting

This is a what if, CGI and Profiles are welcomed. My computer won't allow me to do down loads or look at down loads as these keep coming up with a red cross X.

My list would include;
The Shorts Sunderland
Avro Shackleton MR3
Breiev A-40P Mermaid
C-17
C-5 Galaxy
C-141 Starlifter
Nimrod MR2 or any Mk3s AEW
F-117 (carrying flame retardant in the weapons bay) or lead Plane
B-52s
Handley Page Victor
An-124 or An-226
Shorts Belfast
Airbus 380
Airbus 340

[B777LR]

If I won the Euromillions and all the other large lotteries I'd start my own Water Bomber company,

Purely theoretical, but in order to start a water bomber copany you would probably need to win the EuroMillions more than once to afford most of the listed aircraft...

Anyhow:

My list would include;
The Shorts Sunderland

Turboprops!!!

Avro Shackleton MR3

Why not? If the neptune can do it...

Beriev A-40P Mermaid

No need to. Beriev modified the A-40 to become the Be-200, a much better suited plane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200

C-17

The Russians never really seemed to find an effective way of releasing water from the Il-76, so that would have to be found first. (The Russians opened the tank inside the hold, and let it run out of the open ramp). The C-17 is rather expensive too. Perhaps in 40 years when they are beginning to retire them?

C-5 Galaxy

Too much plane. MTOW would be reached before the hold is full. Expensive to operate. The USAF is not letting go of it.

C-141 Starlifter

Apart from the lack of flying C-141s, i suppose the C-141A would be a good plane for the job.

Nimrod MR2 or any Mk3s AEW

I love the idea. Add the P-3, Il-38 and P-8 to the list!

F-117 (carrying flame retardant in the weapons bay) or lead Plane

Lead plane perhaps. Don't really see why a stealth plane with bad downwards visibility would be of any use though...
It would be nice to look at though

B-52s

Unsuited for low altitude work doing lots of hard turns inside a valley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVaAVN94sTs

An-124 or An-225

The An-225 is out of the question. Ony 1 has been completed, with a second soon to fly.
The new build An-124 on the otherhand...

Airbus 380

It will only set you back $300+, and they haven't even developed it yet!   

Airbus 340

Hopelesly underpowered aircraft. Hardly gets off the runway in passenger configeration.

Other aircraft that could work as firebombers:

Boeing 777-200 (quite a few of the non-ERs becoming available over the next few years)
Boeing 767-200 (The -300 could also do)
Boeing 757-200
Boeing 737-500/300
Boeing 737-200
Boeing 747-100/200/400F

Airbus A310
Airbus A318
Airbus A330-200

Douglas DC-9
McDonnell Douglas MD-87
Boeing 717
Embraer E-170
Bombardier CRJ-100/200 (tons and tons available over the next few years)
Antonov An-12 (lots of those, and they are cheap)
Antonov An-24 (same as above)
Sukhoi Su-25 (Cheap to aqcuire, lots of them. Easy to maintain. Lifts a lot)
Republic A-10 (Not so many available, but otherwise same as the Su-25)
S-3 Viking
Rockwell OV-10 Bronco
Skyraider

[McColm]

Hi B787,
This is where you have to use your imagination, most of the turboprop aircraft are already used as fire fighters. Now if there
was a turboprop convertion of the Shorts Sunderland lying around, I'd use that for an office or personal use.
The larger jet transporter aircraft was a bit of a gamble, I would need to go to one of the desert bone yards and see what is available.

The Boeing 747s are used as fire bombers releasing a mixture of retardant and water which is dropped using a pressurized system. These 747s are known as the Evergreen Supertanker.

The IL-76 uses a tanking system.

The Beriev Be-200 is in use as a scooper, scooping up water from fresh water lakes of Europe.

Other aircraft used include:
S-2 Tracker and Super Tracker which uses the turbo up graded engines.
Airtractor AT-802F.
DC-4 and DC-7.
C-130.
P-2V Neptune and P-3 Orion.
DC-10.
PB4Y-2.
PBY Catalina.
Canadair CL-215 and CL-415, scooper and superscooper.

Lead Planes include the:
O2 Skymaster.
OV-10 Bronco.

[jcf]

Why not design your own based on what you consider the optimal combination of features?

[JJC]

Vulcan!

[philp]

I have a water bomber version of the S-3 Viking on my list (in Aero Union markings).

Besides the 747, the DC-10 has been used as a Firebomber.
There is a conversion to add a water tank into the C-130 and I believe the Guard units do this when fire season is big.  There have been a couple incidents where the Hercs have lost their wings on these missions (don't think they were Guard planes thou).  I think the same system could work on the C-17.

[McColm]

Hi guys,
Thanks for your replies. I'll have to save up my pennies and buy my own laptop with the software to allow me to draw profiles and CGI. My network provider won't let me, do the things you guys can do.
The Vulcan flying at 150 feet used to scare the hell out of the USAF on Red Flag exercises, think what it would do if you saw this thing flying towards you. at that level. Is the B-2 any good at flying a low level, what about the B-1s?
I'm still looking for ideas, if there were any Lancaster bombers, Halifax, or Flying Fortresses, Liberators or even the mighty Bear!
There are two categories;
Scoopers or bombers.

Both need a fast way of replacing their load once this has expired. A scooper can refill its tanks whilst flying at low level over a fresh water lake in 14 seconds. Sea water trials have taken place but wild life experts have complained about displacement.
The 747 can carry 24,000 US galloons of water/retardant, DC-10 12,000 US galloons the smaller aircraft between 2,500 and 3,500 galloons.
I'm not sure how much a Us galloon of water weighs but a litre of water weighs a kilo gramme.

A far fetched idea would be to lease the ex-Chinse aircraft carrier formerly known as the Riga when it was built in the USSR. this could be towed to the trouble spot, unless this is inland somewhere near a airfield. the vikings would be ideal along with ex-US Navy or Marines aircraft. C-130 did land on an aircraft carrier, I'm not sure if the P-3 ever did or the P-8 ever will. The shackleton could if it still had the viper jet engines installed, the Nimrod would be okay to land. Taking off might be a bit tricky.
747s, Dc-10s and other civil jet liners would be a no no.
The C-160 could do it and so could the C-27, along with the all the other STOL aircraft listed.

[B777LR]

A far fetched idea would be to lease the ex-Chinse aircraft carrier formerly known as the Riga when it was built in the USSR. this could be towed to the trouble spot, unless this is inland somewhere near a airfield. the vikings would be ideal along with ex-US Navy or Marines aircraft. C-130 did land on an aircraft carrier, I'm not sure if the P-3 ever did or the P-8 ever will. The shackleton could if it still had the viper jet engines installed, the Nimrod would be okay to land. Taking off might be a bit tricky.
747s, Dc-10s and other civil jet liners would be a no no.
The C-160 could do it and so could the C-27, along with the all the other STOL aircraft listed.

1. The Chinese/Soviet carrier is much smaller than the US carrier they tested the C-130 on.

2. Carriers usually need to be moving forwards in order to launch aircraft, especially if they are fully loaded.

3. The Chinese are using it

4. No good if its further from the fire than the airstrip is...

PS: The Il-76 thing, when the French gov. tested it, they found that the method of releasing the water was by a crew member knocking the nozzle off with a sledgehammer, and merely letting it run out on the floor. See the picture in the link:
http://htka.hu/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/russian_il-76_waterbomber-584x389.jpg

[jcf]

PS: The Il-76 thing, when the French gov. tested it, they found that the method of releasing the water was by a crew member knocking the nozzle off with a sledgehammer, and merely letting it run out on the floor. See the picture in the link:
http://htka.hu/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/russian_il-76_waterbomber-584x389.jpg

A classically Russian approach.

[Taiidantomcat]

you could be like our farsighted governor here in New Mexico. After a water bomber crashed he banned all water tanker aircraft from fighting forest fires because any wreck would only cause more fire    Kind of like banning police officers so there are fewer men with guns on the streets.

the decision was reversed after a couple years of serious screaming on the part of the Forest service...good times. I always wondered "What if my governor had a brain?" He would have been on President Obama's cabinet if it wasn't for the investigation into corruption and other criminal activity. Alas, he is still here and not helping prevent/prolong forest fires elsewhere.

[andyreb3]

 

[andyreb3]

The 747 has been made into a waterbomber by Evergreen Avaition out of Washington State , the same company which operates the Dreamlifter 747 which is the aircraft that carries the sections of the new Dreamliner Airliner being buit by Boeing. The Firebomber 747 however is still going under evaluation by the FAA and NASA to seeif the aircraft is viable as a Waterbomber.

[McColm]

Many thanks,
But getting back to the topic in hand. As global warming is here, forest fires will I'm afraid get bigger until the Ice Age comes. as nature always seems to balance things out. So as you have hot dry summers somewhere in the world there a landsides and flooding.
Would a hovercraft be the best way of tackling the fire? The Brits used to have four of the largest hovercraft covering the Channel run. I'm not quite sure what ever happened to them, but every time the Airfix kit of the SNR-4 comes up for sale someone always puts in a higher bid.

This leaves the:
SHINMAYWA US-2               search and rescue
HARBIN SH-5                      aerial fire fighter
BERIEV BE-12P                   aerial fire fighter
LOCKHEED P5M MARLIN        retired
MARTIN P6M SEA MASTER    jet engined

Looks like I'm going to have to design something as big as a 747 that can land on water, has STOL, turboprop or turbofan 4 engines or two large engines.
Any ideas?

[B777LR]

The Brits used to have four of the largest hovercraft covering the Channel run. I'm not quite sure what ever happened to them,

They ran out of spares.

Using hovercraft would be a really bad idea though. Last time i checked, most regions where fires rage also have mountains. Hovercraft and mountains don't really go together very well.

Looks like I'm going to have to design something as big as a 747 that can land on water, has STOL, turboprop or turbofan 4 engines or two large engines.
Any ideas?

No, nothing available. The Be-200, Harbin SH-5 and Shinmeywa US-2 are the largest aircraft capable of landing on water today.

With something the size of a 747, it would need 3 GE-90 sized engines. Since the GE-90 is only available for the 777, it would be either 4 GEnX or 4 RR Trent 900/1000, all mounted on top of the shoulder mounted wing.

[McColm]

Thanks for trying.