|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 16:20:34 GMT 12
And this is not the first major fire in NZ in the time of the Herc's being here.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 16, 2017 16:31:02 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. .... I thought Errol and Bruce answered the question early in the piece before we got side-tracked with the alloy tank and some fittings. The guys here that are involved in aircraft modification and certification could see the flaws in that plan. I am not sure the words 'aeroplane' and 'no great expensive' are mutually inclusive. The system I described was how I remembered it, a series of pressurised interconnected cylindrical tanks... a modular system if you like. My example of a cubic metre tank was to illustrate the need for smaller tanks given the weights, restraints and floor loading involved. You may notice the discharge nozzles are a little different than simple role equipment also.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 16, 2017 17:05:30 GMT 12
Neither myself nor Beeza are knocking MAFFS at all, it is indeed a workable solution, but if you look at it, it is in no way an "Alloy Tank and Fittings, No great expense". It is Very complex, to cover factors that we have alluded to. It is for example a pressure vessel system - anything involving pressure vessels is far from simple. I agree it could be a good system for NZ, but be aware that installing it takes time (24 hours is stated). In the Christchurch fire scenario, you would only see the aircraft starting to operate about now (by the time someone decided it was needed, made the aircraft and crew available, installed the MAFFS gear, ferried to Christchurch to set up etc). Also, is the terrain and environment suitable to use the C130 in? also remember the US Forest service banned the use of high - hour early model C130 firebombers after the wings fell off one... The best solution for a quick response would have been the Victorian BAe 146 tanker, but that is tied up fighting an even bigger fire in NSW at the moment... I'm sure that far more informed people than us will analyse the use of heavy tankers in the aftermath of this blaze, and hopefully a realistic solution will be devised.
|
|
|
Post by haughtney1 on Feb 16, 2017 18:54:41 GMT 12
A couple of these would be waaaaay more effective...
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 19:25:04 GMT 12
My response to the last two posts. My initial post was purely a thought I had regarding using a C130 as a fire bomber. My comments re an "Alloy Tank and Fittings, no great expense" I stand by because simply that is what MAFFS is. The cost relative to having a dedicated aircraft built as a stand alone fire bomber is comparatively small in comparison. I have been involved with pressure vessel systems so I do know they are not that complex. And yes a 24hour time frame is needed from start to go, but please remember these two fires, which merged into one have been burning for almost a week. If a Herc. can overfly Pitcairn Island and drop a bulldozer surely the Port Hills would not be as difficult. And yes the nozzle pictured is of the MK2 version which empties out through the side doors. There are pictures on that site also of the Mk1 version that unloads out the rear. I did not reckon on it all getting so technical and beaurocratic. The main point is really that if a means of carrying a larger quantity than a helicopter is/was available and used then 11 houses would possibly still be standing.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Feb 16, 2017 20:00:00 GMT 12
I did not reckon on it all getting so technical and beaurocratic. We are talking aircraft though, a very heavily regulated industry. There are some here that have intimate knowledge of role equipment and modifications to RNZAF aircraft. I have personally submitted several mods and had an almost 100% acceptance rate, it is really tough going and you really have to do your homework to stand a chance of getting anything through the mod committee. As I also mentioned I have also extensive experience in the civil field and although rated on several airliners am generally more likely to be involved in mod work on lighter machines. The point being though that I am certified to do such work and am required to do 5 yearly refresher courses. Having a knowledge of pressure vessels and an engineering background may not extend too far into the field of aeronautics at all. I worked in power stations for years before turning my hand to military aircraft engineering. Similar but different. The first few replies were from guys that have actually worked on aircraft. The whole idea should have lasted about as long as it takes to have the next sip of beer. One alloy tank, carrying a few thousand gallons of water ! That would have me spluttering before I even got the glass back up to my mouth.... We then have the operational aspects such as training, re-currency, maintaining sufficient trained aircrew etc to realise that it is a tall order for the RNZAF. Maybe as the others have suggested, we will see some recommendations for a dedicated fixed wing option. I doubt it would involve the RNZAF however but didn't we have Gerry Brownlie's name mentioned in the process for the renewed transport fleet ? There are many reasons that the helicopters with monsoon buckets are so effective. While they may have load capability issues the convenience and ease with which they can be deployed and basically operate independently may far outweigh any disadvantages. The fires may not always be so obliging as to be on the doorstep of a major airport.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 16, 2017 20:06:10 GMT 12
And what skills are the Herc crew not practising while they are keeping current in this rarely used skillset? What other 'service' would not have been supplied by the RNZAF over the last several years while the 'just in case' training happened?
Also, I understand that a big drop interrupts the work of helicopters, so it isn't just a case that adding a big asset increases the effective firefighting ability by the 'value' of that asset.
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 16, 2017 20:12:50 GMT 12
It seems Group Captain that with all your expertise you should be like a few others and be in a glass case.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Feb 16, 2017 20:24:43 GMT 12
I read some of this stuff and just shake my head. The cost of acquiring and equipment, maintaining crew currency, conducting training and keeping aircraft available on a reasonable notice to move would be a staggering over investment for the type of "problem" people think needs solving.
There's a huge debate in Australia about the level of investment in leased air water bombers - with the mainstream view that the various fire authorities have far more capacity then they reasonably need. In any given season in NZ there probably isn't a single fire, on average, the would justify anything close to a Herc sized aircraft on a leased basis, yet alone owning and operating our own. Toys for the boys?
|
|
|
Post by kiwiduster1 on Feb 16, 2017 20:28:28 GMT 12
Bet the pollies wish they had a few of these old girls in reserve!!
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Feb 16, 2017 21:10:54 GMT 12
I know where there are a couple of spare Martin Mars water-bombers up for grabs....
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Feb 16, 2017 21:13:38 GMT 12
It seems Group Captain that with all your expertise you should be like a few others and be in a glass case. I find it somewhat odd that someone posts a thread with "thoughts about..." in the title to prompt discussion and sharing of thoughts, then gets somewhat rude and aggressive when people have differing opinions and point out difficulties with the original idea. (none of the other respondents have been rude or derogatory by the way...) I guess that is the modern internet "debate" when people post things expecting to get a tummy rub and complete agreement. Next, according to Godwin's law, we should get a reference to Hitler...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 16, 2017 21:52:19 GMT 12
Oh come on Bruce, there's no need to turn into a little Hitler about this!
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Feb 17, 2017 0:08:11 GMT 12
40 Sqn blackhanders could whip this up in their lunch break.....
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 17, 2017 8:44:14 GMT 12
Having worked with them a wee bit, that big shiny thing in the middle looks remarkably like a pressure vessel rather than a simply alloy tank. Not something to be knocked up quickly or easily (or cheaply).
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 17, 2017 8:45:23 GMT 12
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. Not how climate change works, and since when are MSM experts in anything?
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Feb 17, 2017 9:43:28 GMT 12
rather than a simply alloy tank. To be fair, I recall reading the plan was an alloy tank with baffles. Speaking of which, the discussion in this topic certainly has me baffled! It's all way over my head and interesting to learn that the process isn't as simple as, say, the Bristol Freighter topdressing operation as mentioned earlier.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Feb 17, 2017 10:02:48 GMT 12
40 Sqn blackhanders could whip this up in their lunch break..... Now that is a serious bit of kit - pressure vessels, mixing chambers, high volume trunking and all the control valves, gauges to manage it all.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 17, 2017 10:39:49 GMT 12
Yes, not something you can simply roll onto the aircraft on a pellet.
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 17, 2017 11:45:24 GMT 12
Not so Dave, Google "MAFFS". Wikipedia has the history of the system, developed from 1971. As can be seen bottom of last picture posted the chains holding the unit in place. It looks sophisticated but in reality it is basically just as I first suggested, a tank/tanks on a frame. I am fully aware that to make it work there are valves,controls, etc., I did not expect such a highly technical, surgical analysis of how to make it work.
|
|