Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Wed Jun 18, 2025 5:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:08 pm
Posts: 63
Location: Left Coast
At a recent fire in my area they were running the DC10s in mostly level flight. Everything else was running down hill. The MD80 was dropping gear down. I assume that was to help limit speed gains heading down hill.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 9:56 am
Posts: 1546
Location: Brush Prairie, WA, USA
notice the water coming out of the side of the fuselage? they pick up more water then they can hold.

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:42 pm
Posts: 159
Location: Reno, Nevada
Notice the gear down on the MD.
I am assuming to slow it down, more maneuverability? All the passes they made near us he had it down, except the first dry pass. In that one he was clean but wallowing through the turn a little. Next pass he flew over the gear was going down and the power was going up. Shook us so hard I thought we would lose windows but at that point he was LOW.
Fire got within a quarter mile so they were hitting it hard with the D, DC-10 and Bae's. Helped being within the approach of the tanker base, even though the big stuff was coming from out of the area (you can't tank a DC-10 at Stead).
I was too busy trying to decide when to get out of Dodge to take pics until it was almost over on our hill.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:53 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:45 pm
Posts: 1094
Location: Kimberley, B. C. Canada
'Tis the season...

We have 2 Lockheed Electras based at our local airport this summer. Very cool airplanes, even if not ex military. We live right off the usual approach from the west -- the airport is 5 miles away. It's 20 miles downhill from the passes to the west -- the Lockheeds have built up a pretty good head of steam when they come cruising past the house. -- very impressive indeed...

_________________
Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:29 pm
Posts: 683
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
exhaustgases wrote:
The fuel required for that DC-10 in one run would last some old 2 and 4 engine recip planes for a week or so.

With the fuel required for that DC-10, a recip would not last 10 minutes.... Duh!

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 239
Rajay wrote:
exhaustgases wrote:
The fuel required for that DC-10 in one run would last some old 2 and 4 engine recip planes for a week or so.

With the fuel required for that DC-10, a recip would not last 10 minutes.... Duh!

Makes lots of sense?
At what a gallon per second per jet engine (60 gallons a minute), versus a recip burning maybe 150 gallons per hour per engine at power. I'd like to know why they killed the recip water bombers? I suppose there maybe a few around still, but its like someone high up in government hates them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm
Posts: 1380
Here is a USFS paper on the DC-10 used for fire fighting. They compare it against the P2V and have some good cost info.

https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/administrativ ... gPaper.pdf

From Wiki:
Civilian firefighting[edit]

P-2/P2Vs have been employed in aerial firefighting roles by operators such as Minden Air Corp and Neptune Aviation Services. The fire fighters can carry 2,080 gal (7,874 l) of retardant and have a service life of 15,000 hours. Neptune proposes to replace them with British Aerospace 146 aircraft which are estimated to have a service life of 80,000 hours and carry upwards of 3,000 gallons of retardant.[18]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:55 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3413
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
exhaustgases wrote:
Rajay wrote:
exhaustgases wrote:
The fuel required for that DC-10 in one run would last some old 2 and 4 engine recip planes for a week or so.

With the fuel required for that DC-10, a recip would not last 10 minutes.... Duh!

Makes lots of sense?
At what a gallon per second per jet engine (60 gallons a minute), versus a recip burning maybe 150 gallons per hour per engine at power. I'd like to know why they killed the recip water bombers? I suppose there maybe a few around still, but its like someone high up in government hates them.


He was being facetious. Jet-A in a radial or most recips are a bad combination. ;) :axe:

A CF6 (engine on the DC-10) runs about 3000lbs/hr in cruise (or about 500 gal/hr), the PT-6A (AT-802) averages 50-60gal/hr for most versions, and the 501D/T56 (C-130/L-188/CV-580) runs about 125-150gal/hr (or 2.5gal/min).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm
Posts: 1380
Nice pic of the water bomber making a pass.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 239
CAPFlyer wrote:
[

A CF6 (engine on the DC-10) runs about 3000lbs/hr in cruise (or about 500 gal/hr), the PT-6A (AT-802) averages 50-60gal/hr for most versions, and the 501D/T56 (C-130/L-188/CV-580) runs about 125-150gal/hr (or 2.5gal/min).

So what is cruise setting 60%? A fire bomber is not at cruise settings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 3413
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas, USA
Jets aren't the same as pistons. You don't cruise at a given "power". Power is a factor of best cruise performance for a given altitude.

While I don't have the full charts, looking at the Flight Planning Table for the DC-10-30 with CF6-50C2 engines, for a 2 hour flight at 10,000 feet (at 368 KTAS max cruise0), you plan a burnout of ~38,000 pounds for a landing weight of 320,000 pounds. For every 10K below that (I suspect they're operating quite a bit lower than that) you subtract 500 pounds off the burn, so the 38,000 is probably a good estimated burnoff for a typical attack flight within 2 hours of base.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:27 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm
Posts: 1380
Excellent, close up scooper vids....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5B4-JZA7FA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FGFW2yfdQY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ_fQ13q3hk

Some helo action....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPsPJ6J8oFw


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:59 pm
Posts: 837
Location: Redmond,Oregon
CAPFlyer,

I'm not sure if it helps in your calculations, but I happened to see DC-10 Tanker 910 enroute empty to Moses Lake, Washington for reload after dropping on the Nena Springs Fire on the Warm Springs Reservation in North Central Oregon yesterday. That's a distance of about 190 nautical miles. Just after crossing the Columbia River, according to Automated Flight Following the ground speed was 353 knots at an altitude of 12,450 feet. That appeared to be the final cruise speed and altitude for that leg.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:26 pm
Posts: 239
The numbers don't look right for 3 huge jet engines at a 38K burn in 2 hours.
So what is take off power approximate? And what is 10k hp in turbine terms? That's what I'm guessing engine out put is at
that fuel consumption.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:59 pm
Posts: 837
Location: Redmond,Oregon
For what it's worth, here are links to a couple of articles from the Fire Aviation website on the DC-10

http://fireaviation.com/tag/dc-10/

http://fireaviation.com/tag/10-tanker-air-carrier/

Here's one from a day or two ago on the old Aero Union P-3's maybe being put back to work

http://fireaviation.com/2017/08/08/a-fo ... surrected/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 270 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group