|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 9:06:45 GMT 12
I have been thinking, (as did Richard Prebble), in view of Global Warming and NZ's hotter, drier Summers, is it not time for NZDF to consider using a Hercules as a fire Bomber. Before everyone shoots my idea down, think about it first. Helicopters are limited in the amount of water they can carry, I do not know the load capacity of a Herc but it is sure far more than a Helo. For not a great amount of dollars a alloy tank could be made that would fit into a Hercules to carry a very large amount of water plus retardant. If cargo, including bulldozers (as at Pitcairn Island) then dropping a few thousand gallons of water out the back door via a couple of large diameter pipes would be no sweat. I know they need a runway with access to water, but in the case of Christchurch, there is everything in place. I reckon the 8 home owners would have been grateful to see a large volume of water dropping from the sky. While monsoon buckets do a great job normally, when the fire is as intense as when say a large house or pine trees are burning, the heat generated causes a large proportion of the water to evaporate basically. So is this a sound idea that has merit or not.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 16, 2017 9:26:00 GMT 12
Technically possible, as the USAF (Reserves, I think?) does exactly this. However, there are a large number (relatively) of heavy fire-fighting aircraft and trained crews based in the northern hemisphere. It is cheaper to hire them in their off season than maintain the capability here - see what Australia does.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 16, 2017 9:30:48 GMT 12
the Christchurch fires are definitely an example of a fire that needs heavy waterbomber capability, however it is pointless basing such a bomber permanently in NZ since there would only be 1 or 2 fires needing such an asset every year. A "quick change" solution in theory makes sense. The problem is the practicality of such an installation. However I dont think dumping water out the back door of a Herk would be workable for C of G and discharge pattern reasons. Something that can take a Belly tank might be a better solution. Alternatively a Bristol Freighter with "Ag Hopper" openings in the floor! (as the RNZAF machines had...)
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Feb 16, 2017 9:37:43 GMT 12
A great deal of research has gone into how, where and when to use monsoon buckets, and their effectiveness is generally well understood by the pilots and rural fire experts. Having flown on a couple of bucket runs, and been on the ground coordinating helos with buckets and ground crews, along with briefing response teams, I can assure you there are not too many times that a bucket load is wasted. Various additives are used to make the water "sticky" as well as using retardent - the red stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 9:42:25 GMT 12
Good to see a response. But there is no need to hire an aircraft from o/seas. all that is required is an alloy tank and fittings. No great expense. As for C of G, that must also be a consideration when dumping cargo via parachute out the back.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 16, 2017 9:42:58 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 16, 2017 10:01:43 GMT 12
. all that is required is an alloy tank and fittings. No great expense. One cubic metre of water weighs a Tonne. That is a tank with 1 metre sides. Now we have to design in 9G loading considerations and then brace the tank itself. Alloy is not at all strong when under any pressure and you may well find that the load is going to have to be a series of cylindrical based tanks. We then have to factor in re-charge and discharge flows and pressures and I would have thought there would be a great deal of design work involved. Aircraft role equipment has to meet the same design standards and airworthiness practices as the aircraft itself, not like something you can tow around behind a tractor. Something slung underneath a helicopter may be designed as something in between. As for global warming, you have to wonder where these MSM types were in years past when we had scorching Nor' Westers. It was just last week they were telling us how wet and cold the country had been this summer. The smoke doesn't seem as dense this morning so it may well be the fire is in it's final stages now.
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on Feb 16, 2017 10:22:45 GMT 12
the Christchurch fires are definitely an example of a fire that needs heavy waterbomber capability, however it is pointless basing such a bomber permanently in NZ since there would only be 1 or 2 fires needing such an asset every year. A "quick change" solution in theory makes sense. The problem is the practicality of such an installation. However I dont think dumping water out the back door of a Herk would be workable for C of G and discharge pattern reasons. Something that can take a Belly tank might be a better solution. Alternatively a Bristol Freighter with "Ag Hopper" openings in the floor! (as the RNZAF machines had...) Hang on Christchurch I'm on my wavy!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 16, 2017 12:43:14 GMT 12
Having been inside a firefighting Hercules "Thor" I will say it amazed me just how complex the equipment and system it. It's not just a big water tank with a trapdoor like a hopper. The engineering looks pretty complex to me.
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 14:07:32 GMT 12
Seems like I stirred things up a bit. "Thor" does not empty via the rear door, Bristol Freighters have been history for a few years now, a C130 can carry more than 1tonne, in fact quite a bit more. I looked at this from an engineering point of view, I am first to admit I am not an aircraft engineer, just an old fashioned engineer with 60plus years of experience. An OVAL alloy tank with baffles is super strong, think road going fuel tankers as an example. As I stated earlier, a couple of large diameter pipes draining out the rear will deliver a large amount of water in a short time. At least I got some critical response which appreciate.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 16, 2017 14:18:42 GMT 12
Do any of the firefighting C-130's around the world use a system where it's just a big tank with pipes out the back door though? Is it a proven concept? If not, why does it not work?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 16, 2017 14:22:37 GMT 12
Also, heavy fire tankers do not just drop water - it is generally accepted amongst the firefighting operators now, that a big dump of water on its own is not as effective as a mix with either fire suppressant or retardant. Note that is two very differentadditives for different jobs, and each additive has different mixing and distribution requirements (for example, you dont put supressant foam additive in before loading, otherwise you get a massive foamy mess that you cant actually carry!). Most water tanker hopper doors esentially open the entire bottom - and have HUGE vents to let the air in as it fills and empties. Even a large diameter pipe produces enough resistance that dump times become too long. It sounds nice and simple to put a tank of water in a plane, but there is a LOT more to it than the general public think.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 16, 2017 14:39:32 GMT 12
Or people could simply google the modular system already in operation on C-130s mentioned above? Oh look, used by 4 air forces in addition to the USAF.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Feb 16, 2017 15:03:26 GMT 12
Looking alternatives, a large water bomber maybe two would be ideal, in the lessor chance things go quiet, the machines can go offshore , do what DRAKEN did with Skyhawks and Macchi's turn it into a business, start looking at engineering the C-130 for another role and when retire can be sold two a company willing to take on the task .. Here and Australia for example, thus we keep the crews and the technician's and engineering's .. biggest part the experience. EDIT: OoHPS! ... The Bristol .. that would look the part .. big RED NOSE and a lotta courage
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 15:09:58 GMT 12
I appreciate the fact that water alone is not discharged, in my first post, 5th line down Fire Retardant is mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 16, 2017 15:15:22 GMT 12
The media may have you believe ChCh was damaged in the earthquakes. We are now choking in smoke and I can see people may be thinking water tankers are required. I just stepped out and took some pics of the fires on the hills.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Warren on Feb 16, 2017 15:29:18 GMT 12
I also look at it this way , had Wigram been kept open, it would have been an ideal Forward Base of Operations, lack of foresight in that direction, course using the the base as it should have been used ! .. and I known many don't disagree, in the case of this for example , trains ACT, ground staff and keeps regular operations at NZCH , I guess wait for the next big fire and then have people start asking the same question again.
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 15:39:57 GMT 12
Thank you Errol C, seems this old me came up with the idea 10 years after the USofA. I just knew it was feasible. To be able to dump nearly 3000US gallons in 5 seconds is way more practical than a chopper. 8minutes turnaround is fast. Landing and takeoff added on, but in the case of Christchurch total turnaround time would surely be less than 30minutes.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 16, 2017 15:57:46 GMT 12
It almost sounds like we bought the C130 yesterday.
Then again, maybe this is the first time we have had a fire in the years that we have had them. I have been involved in fitting and removing tanks for several aircraft types now and it does sound like a broken record though.
I was once paid US$250 cash just for certifying the removal of a Beaver ferry tank. It is never a simple task.
Was there mention of any firefighting role in the new transport aircraft specs ?
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 16:18:15 GMT 12
baron, may I suggest you take the advice offered above and Google "modular aircraft fire fighting systems" to see just how the tank system is fitted to C130 aircraft. You just might learn something new.
|
|