CAL FIRE DC-10 Fire Tanker - OOPs

[bluethunder28]

Personally, I think the C-130 with the MAFFS insert thingy is a great idea.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/fixed_wing/maffs_II/index.html

I also think they should use the AT-10 Firehog or think about using the S-3 platform...both would be effective and much more maneuverable than an Heavy...

or how about the Il-76?

http://www.vadscorner.com/pr1.html

I'm not sure that I have "all my ducks lined up," but I understand from local media that the California Air National Guard C-130s at Pt Mugu are being "retired" and replaced(?)...their C-130s will not be available for California's "Fire Fighting Season" this summer. I do not know any information on or about the MAFFS system.

It remains to be seen if the DC-10 will help in keeping Southern California from burning to the ground.

The C-130s at Mugu according to the latest Air Force Mag can't be used because they "take away" from private fire fighting companies. You know the ones that the goverment helped put out of business.

[Dave Fish]

OH, OKAY...

[Larry Kraus]

The MAFFS program has been a politcal issue since they began operating in 1974.As a contract tanker pilot since 1975,I have strong opinions as to the value of MAFFS.I've observed them in action for over 30 years.I will limit my comments,however,there are a few facts that never seem to filter through their press releases.The first being the actual daily cost per airplane,each of which has an average crew,including direct support personnel at the airport,of 15.
The tank system consists of one shot via compressed air that cannot be shut off once it has been activated.I realize that a couple of the tank systems have been modified and a new system is supposed to be available this year.However,there were reports that the USAF had rejected this system as of last month.

The other major problem also relates to the tank system,which is severely limited in coverage level (the volume and density of the retardant reaching the ground).The old system is capable of a coverage level 2 (2 gallons of retardant per 100 square feet on the ground).The average need in Oregon is coverage level 6.I realize that MAFFS says that they can drop at coverage level 4,but I've seen no evidence of this and the ground firefighters that I've spoken with agree that coverage level 2 is about right.

For Initial Attack fires,where we are among the first resources to respond to a new fire,we often have to try to box in small fires with multiple drops from a single load of retardant.Some of the MAFFS pilots are quite competent and have considerable experience in fighting fires,but due to the limitations of the MAFFS tank system,they are only truly useful on grass and brush fires where the fuels are light and the idea is to build long retardant lines at low coverage levels.

[skydaddy61]

Thanks for the first-hand report, Larry.

These big planes were never designed for extended low-level flight in extreme turbulence. I worry about the spars. IIRC they had to redesign the B1's wing when the mission was changed to include low-level penetration. The BUFF fleet has had wing issues as well.

Larry, is it possible to drop accuately with enough coverage from an altitude that's high enough so you're not pounding the rivets loose? (I suspect I know the answer.)

Given the fact that there is billions of dollars' worth of property at risk every year, would a ground-up, purpose-built supertanker be feasible? Or would the tens of millions of dollars that would cost be better spent elsewhere?

[Ztex]

Larry,

Thanks for your response.
Like I said I think the MAFFS is a great IDEA...a way to convert the abundant C-130 in to a fire fighter. Whether or not it works was not in my uneducated assessment.

It would seem to me a purpose built fire fighter in this day in time would be way to expensive. There are lots of airframes at AMARC that would do well in the role for many years to come...if the gubment would get out of the way...

Thanks Larry for doing what you do...I think it is the closest thing to combat flying there is..without getting shot at; so to speak...

[Larry Kraus]

Flying low and slow in turbulent conditions and fluctuating visibility deep in a canyon full of snags will never be completely safe or easy on airframes.That said,it is possible to operate a suitable aircraft regularly under these conditions with careful general and type-specific airframe and engine inspections.It is obviously helpful to operate well within the design limits of the the airframe.Most tanker pilots,including MAFFS guys,get the job done without doing anything too spectacular.Actually,most of the time,especially on Initial Attack missions to small fires,the conditions are relatively benign,other than operating close to the ground where situational awareness is the key to survival.

Once in a while,you'll see an impossible looking maneuver performed on a retardant drop on the news or in print.Most of the time these are the result of camera angles and/or long lenses.I'm not saying that we don't have to get in and out of some deep and tight places,but,I for one,look the situation over very carefully prior to comitting myself and my co-pilot to a retardant run.I also let my c/p know what the plan is and how we will recover and possible escape routes and hazards.

I learned the business in B-17's.I learned to plan escape routes out for several miles because you weren't likely to climb out of a hole very quickly.The DC-7 is an improvement,but we use a climb speed of 170 kts clean in the DC-7 vs.140mph in the B-17.so,everything happens more quickly in the "7" vs. the "17".In the DC-7 and most other tankers (now limited pretty much to P-2's and P-3's in the 2000-3000 gallon capacity for retardant) our speed in the drop pattern runs 140kts and 130kts on final.This takes place,ideally,at 150-200 ft. above the canopy.The idea is to have the reatardant stop its forward motion and fall straight down for penetration of the canopy rather than try to drive it through the trees with momentum.

There is always the possibility of a problem with an engine at an inopportune moment or a sudden loss of lift due to unstable or "down air".This last bit is apparently what caught the crew of Tanker 910 (the DC-10).Although the DC-10 crew are not really tanker pilots in the old school sense,they must be pretty competent in the airplane to salvage a situation that could easily have turned out to be a lot worse.

Most of the contract tanker pilots who flew the "A" model Herk's,at least the ones that had the Aero Union constant flow tank system,still say that it was the best tanker around.I'll have to take their word for it as I haven't flown the airplane.Unfortunately,it is unlikely that contractors will ever fly C-130's for the U.S.Forest Service again.This is mainly due to the spectacular accident with Tanker 130 that played endlessly on the news in 2000.

There are mixed feelings in the tanker world concerning the introduction and use of very large tankers (Evergreen's B-747 and the DC-10).One argument is that this is a logical evolution.The tanker business began in the late 1950's with Stearmans and N3N's and progressed through TBM's,PBY's to B-17's and PB4Y's,among others There is a need for a variety of aircraft,including large and small tankers,helicopters and many others.As usual,the budget will only stretch so far and it seems to get cut each year rather that being increased,so hard choices have to be made.Add to that politics and pet projects typical of any government program and you have the current situation.That's all part of the realities of life,I suppose.

[ZRX61]

As a former member of the Channel Islands ANG 146th MAW ACC I can tell you the reason the new J model C130's aren't being used for MAFFS right now: The system doesn't *fit* these later model 130's...
Somebody screwed up...

[ZRX61]

There is always the possibility of a problem with an engine at an inopportune moment or a sudden loss of lift due to unstable or "down air".This last bit is apparently what caught the crew of Tanker 910 (the DC-10).Although the DC-10 crew are not really tanker pilots in the old school sense,they must be pretty competent in the airplane to salvage a situation that could easily have turned.........

... into a rather expensive & somewhat embarassing re-enactment of the Airbus/Paris airshow debacle....

[Larry Kraus]

One important item that I left out of my airtanker post is that tankers very rarely "put out" fires.In 99% of the fires that we work,we help contain and control the fire until the ground guys get there and then support their line building until they can "get a handle" on the situation.Whether it takes a couple of Smokejumpers or Helitack/Rappellers,or a large response with multiple crews and engines,the people on the ground actually end up doing the dirty work.Tankers are most effective as an Initial Attack tool on fires that are just getting started.We can also help contain larger fires,especially where ground access and terrain are a problem.Once the fires get past a few hundred acres in size and the smoke settles in,we're just another tool in the box.

[engguy]

The ones that really do the work and contain fires never get an ounce of recognition for it. Everytime the news shows a forest fire it is some ground crews with shovels, putting out spot fires. Or an aircraft of some sort dumping something on it. But the ones that do all the work never are shown. Who are they, gosh most of you here probably don't even know, because its just ignored, its the BULLDOZER, that is the main element in suppressing wildfires. If the operators were allowed to actually fight the fires they wouldn't grow as large as they do.
I remember a hot summer back in the 80's clearing and burning, and putting out large lot size fires, if I wasn't attacking them we would have had a major forest fire on our hands.
And as far as the air tankers go, I've heard that jets and turboprops are not the way to go, they don't come up to power quick enough, its a job for the good old recips. All I have to say is where are all the save the owl bunch when there is a large fire burning, yet if loggers want to salvage the trees that just burned then all blanking heck breaks out. Yeah I know there are no conspiracys.

[Larry Kraus]

engguy has a valid point.Dozers are vital to stopping the majority of fires.As I tried to point out,fighting wildfires is a team effort.Not including Cats specifically in my last post was unintentional.

[Tillerman]

What's wrong with this one?

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_ ... -2571.html

Oh, it's made in Russia.....

Tillerman.