Firefighting Aircraft

[rickshaw]

The discussing in the CH-53 and Ch-54 topic about the use of Skycranes to fight fires downunder made me think we need a topic specifically related to the subject.

Downunder, despite having had bad bushfires of tremendous size for tens of thousands of years (Francis Xavier when he visited the Malacan islands in Indonesia in 1546 remarked on the pall of smoke over the southern horizon from the bushfires), is a relative latecomer to the use of aircraft to fight fires.

We've tended to concentrate on the use of small crop-dusters, converted to drop water and chemicals.  These aircraft are available in relatively large numbers because of their widespread use in agriculture.   While effective against small-medium size fires, they haven't been able to cope with the big, life threatending fires we have been starting to have over the last 10 or so years as settlement is pushing more and more into areas which are dangerous when a bushfire occurs, such as the ridges around Sydney and the hills to the north-east of Melbourne.   After some disasterous bushfires in 1998, the NSW government leased "Elvis", a skycrane helicopter adapted to firefighing.  It was able to carry 9,000 litres and could refuel in one minute. They also could drop it with pinpoint accuracy.  Elvis has since come back each summer, along with several others and provided excellent service.  The Victorian government followed suit and even went one better, leasing a DC-10 in late 2009 for trials.  However, it was found that the DC-10 was expensive, spent most of its time on the ground, difficult and slow to reload.   The trial was deemed a failure and instead several Convair 580s were leased.  I'm unaware of how successful they've been.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YtiIX9lax-s
[Youtube video of DC-10 trials in Victoria, 2010 - can't figure out how to embed the video  ]

One of the problems for the DC-10 was that it had to return to a major airport capable of handling it, in order to reload and this resulted in a comparatively long turn around time between sorties.  In addition, because of safety regulations it couldn't be operated close to firefighters.   The Skycranes, small helicopters and crop-dusters could operate close to the firefront, have rapid turn around times and undertake a larger number of sorties and had few restrictions on their operation.

I've personally witnessed small(ish) helicopters being used to quell a local bushfire near where I lived.  One afternoon, a couple of years ago my kids called me into the backyard because there were several helicopters hovering over the back fence near a park a few streets away.  They were coming in, lowering themselves and then departing and returning to repeat the process.  We wandered over, along with a large mass of onlookers.  They were refilling from the hover from some ponds in the park.  Here are some photos of it occurring:








This was their air-controllers:


They apparently quenched the fire quite quickly.  Luckily it was only a small scrubfire, more than likely lit by bored kids, in a local conservation reserve by the coast, rather than a fullblown bushfire.

Their turn around time was about 10 minutes from refill to dump and return to refill again.

We have had demonstrations dowunder from Canadair with their CL-415 but being a flying boat, its rather limited in Australia as to where it can scoopfill.  Most farm dams are far too small, while lakes of a larger size tend to be few and far between and rivers are just trickles in summertime/bushfire season.  They'd be great around the coasts but unfortunately, bushfires aren't quite that accomodating.

I know the US is the biggest operator of firefighting aircraft, with Europe close behind.

I've always felt that perhaps we should have used the retired Caribous or outgoing C-130Es in this role.  They could operate from forward airstrips, carry more than a Skycrane and operate at low altitude.

[scooter]

The Guard and Reserve tends to play a role with firefighting aircraft, using C-130s equipped with the MAFFS system (Modular Airborne Firefighting system system?  ), and Blackhawks and previously Hueys with water buckets.  And, while not quite a/c, military personnel will supplement wildfire fighters on the ground.

[rickshaw]

The ADF does that as well.  However, it tends to get called in to provide logistical support (initially) and later if the civilian agencies get stretched.  

Way back in 1983, Australia had its absolutely worse bushfire season to date.  Not as many deaths as in 2009 in Victoria but essentially fires which stretched from Adelaide, in South Australia to Melbourne, in Victoria with fires right across the countryside (about 1500 km).  Referred to as "Ash Wednesday" it saw hundreds of thousands of hectares burnt over about a three day period.   As a young digger I was called out to drive a water tanker.  My father remarked at the time that he was leaving my oldest brother's small farm in the Adelaide Hills after doing some work there in the morning and driving down to the city of Adelaide that he'd passed a massive convoy of Cement Mixers going up into the Hills.  The emergency plan called for their use as water tankers.  They had to dump their loads of concrete and fill with water.  When he saw that, he knew it was serious.  The road he came down, later saw the loss of several lives as people got trapped in cars and tried to make "run for it" (which is against all contrary advice - it's been found best to shelter in cars until the firefront passes, covering yourself with anything you might have to protect yourself from the radiant heat - the thing is the firefront moves at incredible speed and you can NEVER out run it. Your care will be ruined but it won't explode or burn in the way Hollywood likes to portray such matters).  While I was kept busy ferrying water, most of the ADF personnel sat on their arses because the firefighting authority didn't think they were well enough trained to fire fires.  I remember hearing that the Brigadier when he came up from HQ to inspect what was going on, blew his top.   There were apparently "harsh words said" and the ADF and the fire authority came to an understanding that ADF personnel would be utilised in future, if they had been assigned.

The Army apart from obviously providing water tankers, also provides POL and rations for extended bushfires.   They're the only people we have downunder who can do so at short notice and in out of the way places.   They have IIRC one RAAF C-130 which can be configured for firefighting but as far as I'm aware, it never has been used in that role (yeah, I know crazy but this is the military afterall).

Oh, and these are youtube videos of the Convair's Victoria:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gNOkfKJnOjg#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=IhVjXRLsa6Y

[coolpop6307]

Firefighting aircraft are my favorite type of aircraft, so thank you for making this thread.Could you imagine a early 1907 aircraft as a firefighting one.

Thanks
  Joshua

[Rheged]

Firefighting aircraft are my favorite type of aircraft, so thank you for making this thread.Could you imagine a early 1907 aircraft as a firefighting one.

Thanks
  Joshua

Nearest I can find for you is the link below, an aircraft of 1913

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets

Just think of a fleet of  "Imperial  Russian Firefighting Aeroform Apparatus"   keeping Eastern Europe  safe.

[rickshaw]

How about firefighting Zeppelins?

Of course, you'd have to be extra careful with all the hydrogen...

[kerick]

I can just see any sort of LTA craft going up like an elevator in the Sears tower as soon as it encountered the updraft from a good sized fire.
When the USAF was considering cutting back or eliminating the A-10 there was ideas of how to convert it to firefighting. Google Firehogs to see what I mean. Recently retired S-3 Vikings may be another possibility.

[Mossie]

How about firefighting Zeppelins?

Of course, you'd have to be extra careful with all the hydrogen...

Here's a more modern version.  This shows a hybrid airship (I think it's the proposed Skycat) being replenished in air by what looks like CL-215's.  Aerial top up seems a little far fetched, but maybe with such a large volume of water the airship could drop it's load from higher altitude reducing the effect of updraft?  I would guess that a hybrid airship would be less affected than a conventional LTA craft?

[PR19_Kit]

Perhaps the CL-215 is trying to cool off the airship's envelope as it floats above the fire? 

[rickshaw]

In 2003 Canberra was devastated by bushfires with a 200+ homes being destroyed.  A firestorm occurred, with a massive winds being sucked into the fire, feeding it as it spread through the extensive pine forests which surrounded the southern and eastern sides of the city.   Today, news was released that scientists had documented the first observed "fire tornado", with winds of up 250 km/h at the base feeding fires.  While I'd joked about the use of LTA, I wouldn't want to be flying anything in those sorts of conditions and I don't think we really have anything big enough to have much effect on such a firestorm.   

[Weaver]

Before I read Mossie's post, I was already wondering if air-to-air replenishing of a small water-bomber from a large tanker aircraft would be feasible using adapted refuelling technology. That way you could have the maneuverability and quick response of the small aircraft with the massive capacity of the big one. One tanker could be re-filling at a distant airport while one was on-station, while the small sprayers could re-fuel at local airports near the fire: as I understand Rickshaw's post, it's not aircraft and small airports, but water which is the hardest commodity to come by.

[rickshaw]

Before I read Mossie's post, I was already wondering if air-to-air replenishing of a small water-bomber from a large tanker aircraft would be feasible using adapted refuelling technology. That way you could have the maneuverability and quick response of the small aircraft with the massive capacity of the big one. One tanker could be re-filling at a distant airport while one was on-station, while the small sprayers could re-fuel at local airports near the fire: as I understand Rickshaw's post, it's not aircraft and small airports, but water which is the hardest commodity to come by.

Yep.  Australia is not known as "the driest inhabited continent in the world," for nothing.    Aerial replenishment might work but I think it would be rather an expensive way of reloading firefighting aircraft.  Water is scarce but its not quite that scarce!

[scooter]

Hmm...equip B-52s with snap-in chemical fire retardant tanks in the main bay and hardpoints and use them as a fire bomber?  Combat training *and* wildfire suppression in one go.  ::goes off to ponder the kitbash in 1/144th::

[PR19_Kit]

There are conversion sets available to make existing cargo aircraft into water bombers, the C-130 and the IL-62 being examples that come to mind. I doubt if they carry as much as the Martin Mars, the largest firebombers ever, but they're faster and could probably put as much water-retardant on a fire in the same time as the Mars could.

[Weaver]

If you could design a water-bomber from scratch, what would it look like?

I wonder if a traditional bomb-aimer's position is an advantage in a fire-fighting aircraft?

Assuming cost is still an issue, then it might end up looking like an amphibian version of the An-30 Clank, but with An-32 engines, i.e. effectively a rather bigger CL-415 with a glass nose, or a slimmed-down Be-12 (same engines but lower empty weight).

An-30:



An-32:



The An-32 has already been used as a firefighter (An-32P Firekiller) with external tanks, which preserve it's ability to carry cargo (the tail ramp must make it an attractive choice for fire-jumpers). This seems like a damned handy bit of kit, given that the whole point of the An-32 is good hot'n'high performance, so it has high power to weight ratio: ideal for a dense cargo like water.



Amodel do both an An-30 and an An-32 in 1/72nd scale.