I'm in awe !. What a fantastic bit of kit. Imagine the skill to pilot this thing so close to fires.

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-23/boeing-737-deployed-in-newcastle-to-fight-bushfire-world-first/10547636

And Pete will post a pic as proof of chemtrails in 3,2,1......

We need to tell pilot about those faulty pitotubes in their Boeing planes!The last thing we want is airplane crashing into forest and provoke even bigger fires.

www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/families-of-lion-air-victims-sue-boeing-over-aircraft-design/news-story/5c38f13a045496694466220fa03ca2d3

A very expensive way to fight a bush fire. I'd rather have a fleet of medium helicopters with long line buckets. A much quicker turnaround and can get in really close to where I want it. But they are great for the Pollies and publicity

Cost too much to keep that many aircraft here all year round I'd reckon kato and sn. I'd imagine it'd be heaps cheaper to have a big tanker here on contract for our fire season and then send it back stateside for their fire season, although their fire season seems to be all year round lately.

kato said..

Paddles B'mere said..
Cost too much to keep that many aircraft here all year round I'd reckon kato and sn.

No , we contract them for summer only. Big ones just cost more dollars to sit around.

Costs too much??

RAAF has EMPTY aircraft flying all around Australia, just to keep the aircrew's flying hours up to date.

Why not have "RAAF Reserve" recycled C130's fitted out with firefighting gear clocking up the hours instead of "front line" aircraft?

I am not an expert regarding aircraft performance, but C130's are designed for flying low and slow in dodgy conditions - which to my mind is exactly what firefighting is all about.

kato said..

RAAF has EMPTY aircraft flying all around Australia, just to keep the aircrew's flying hours up to date.

Why not have "RAAF Reserve" recycled C130's fitted out with firefighting gear clocking up the hours instead of "front line" aircraft?

I am not an expert regarding aircraft performance, but C130's are designed for flying low and slow in dodgy conditions - which to my mind is exactly what firefighting is all about.

No, C130 are designed to carry stuff, not spray water stuff onto fires. Once a fire gets to a certain size nothing is going to put it out. We can only just redirect it around our houses while waiting for nature to give us a break. Helicopters, crop dusters are great for this and then allow ground crews to get in. We continue to build in dumb spots or not accept that fires will happen. Btw been doing this fire stuff for awhile.

I go back even further.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Airborne_FireFighting_System




They weren't really a cost effective way to deal with bushfire.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_firefighting_and_forestry_in_southern_Australia
"During the summer of 1981-82 equipment was borrowed from the United States Forest Service for evaluation under operational conditions in Victoria. The equipment known as Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS) was trialled bombing bushfires with a slurry of an Australian made chemical fire retardant (Amgard-A11) in quantities up to 11,000 litres per drop.[37][38]

A C-130 Hercules was obtained from the Royal Australian Air Force for the trials. The roll on/roll off system was installed and operated by 36 Squadron from RAAF Richmond in NSW but operated from Hamilton, Mangalore and RAAF East Sale for the trial.[37]

MAFFS could deliver a much greater volume than was possible with the smaller agricultural aircraft contracted to the Forests Commission at the time and was used effectively in the suppression of bushfires at Broadford, Bright and Orbost.[37] Due to its low usage in 1981-82 MAFFS was again trialled in 1982-83 where it made 175 drops.[1]"

Does the Canadian system not work here? Lack of handy lakes?

^^^Google says that aircraft requires less than 1500m to descend below 15m, scoop and get back above 15m altitude. Perhaps in WA at least there might be a couple of options they could fly into, but apart from Wellington Dam all the big ones are drinking water catchment/storage. I'd have to think Water Corp don't want an entire dam contaminated in the event of a crash or spillage of retardant?

kato said..
A very expensive way to fight a bush fire. I'd rather have a fleet of medium helicopters with long line buckets. A much quicker turnaround and can get in really close to where I want it. But they are great for the Pollies and publicity

We have those here in the U.S. and were put to use just recently here in California. The thing about those that makes them worth it, they can lay down a trail of retardant over a mile long! Choppers can't do that, a bunch of choppers can't do that. So turnaround time isn't that much of an issue.

Mastbender said..

kato said..
A very expensive way to fight a bush fire. I'd rather have a fleet of medium helicopters with long line buckets. A much quicker turnaround and can get in really close to where I want it. But they are great for the Pollies and publicity

We have those here in the U.S. and were put to use just recently here in California. The thing about those that makes them worth it, they can lay down a trail of retardant over a mile long! Choppers can't do that, a bunch of choppers can't do that. So turnaround time isn't that much of an issue.

Very different veg in the us/ Canada, I've had fire burn through retardant lines cos most of it is in the canopy. Lat and Mat aircraft have there place in fighting fires and are good at slowing down the spread. But grunts on ground are how fires are put out and it takes weeks of hard work after the media has moved on. Earthmovers , rakehoes and fire are the most used pieces of kit not water and aircraft.

GWatto said..
Well we could do with one of them around here today don't think the choppers and crop dusters are getting on top the fire near us.

Just read the 737 is actually on its way, relief for those poor souls affected

Paddles B'mere said..
I'd imagine there could be money/logistics issues. Those Canadair water bombers wouldn't have the range to quickly fly here

out of curiosity I did a google for maximum ranges

C130 military transport aircraft = ferrying range of 5250km
CL415 amphibian water bomber = ferrying range of 2443km
PBY Catalina amphibian = ferrying range of 4030Km [standard WW2 military specification]
PBY Catalina amphibian = service range of 6652km [as per QANTAS' WW2 flights between Swan river Perth and Colombo SriLanka]

Just goes to show, if you want to get the best out of an aircraft - you can rely on QANTAS!!

Shifu said..
Does the Canadian system not work here? Lack of handy lakes?

I lived up in the high Provence region near a village called bargemon, the terrain around there would be almost impossible to fight fires
We would hear the village warning sirens go off in the summer then the drone of the canadair fire fighting planes
Actually watched them at lac st Croix
the crew would be hanging out of the door giving distance to water contact as they skimmed across the lake
Then first plane would direct the others with his drop onto the fire
amazing skill into undulated mountainous terrain

jn1 said..
I'm in awe !. What a fantastic bit of kit. Imagine the skill to pilot this thing so close to fires.

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-23/boeing-737-deployed-in-newcastle-to-fight-bushfire-world-first/10547636

And some not so good.... (not greatly expectable with a C-130 Hercules , so wonder how it comes to be , i read the original articles but no info)

Macroscien said:


there are not stealty but you could not see them in action here either .Because we are not going to buy any.

Gold bit off comedy just there

I can't comment on the 80s Canadian road show with the Canadairs, but I do remember a similar attempt in the late 90s. The Canadians went on to expel the myth we have here against the larger water bombing. They also proved that there is a suitable body of water to scoop from within a half hour turn around time of anything worth the effort.

As usual, the desision against the bombers was political rather than practical..