Posted on 12/26/2004 2:25:12 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
SEATTLE -- Since first taking off in 1969, Boeing 747s have carried 3.6 billion people and flown the equivalent of 74,000 round trips to the moon. (A) consideration is whether the large planes could fly low and slow enough to be used effectively against the kinds of fires that have raged across the West in recent years -- charring 60 million acres in the past decade, or an area the size of Oregon, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, based in Boise, Idaho.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Holy lumbering behemoths, Batman!
I'm no aviation expert but I did see the movie "Always." Rolling, rollercoaster, near nap-of-the-earth flying in hot, violent updrafts and downdrafts sure does NOT sound like the Jumbo's airframe's cup of tea. I remember them saying in the movie that one had to drop below 500 feet or the retardant (that red goo) would dissipate.
The nice thing about them 747s is that they have HUGE cargo capacity. Cost an arm and a leg to fly, as well as requiring a LENGTHY runway (something not commonly found in remote mountain airfields). But a good use, if paid for, and perhaps they can find the theoretical altitude where the water needs to be dumped, so as to avoid erosion problems (releasing too low) or to avoid dissipation (releasing too high)
I would think the C-5 would be better equipped for low flying than the 747, and the C-5 has mroe capacity to boot.
This sort of flying imposes dynamic loads not considered in
the target for the original fatigue life of the main wing spars.
What then happens?
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/tanker130.htm
Let's fly.
/john
Yes, there is that little runway problem... Would they have to fly all the way to someplace like Denver or Salt Lake City to reload? This reminds me of Germany's FW200 Condor, a civilian airliner converted to a maritime reconnaissance-strike aircraft. It acquired a fearsome reputation in the Battle of the Atlantic but it's airframe was not designed for a steady diet of combat maneuvering and had a short lifespan as a result.
My guess is that someone is trying to figure out what to do with 747s. They ain't that fuel effective for flying passengers around anymore..
/john
There still is only one purpose-designed fire-fighting aircraft, isn't there?
Sorry, but, it's true.
/john
> ... someone is trying to figure out what to do with 747s.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/
A huge fleet of 'em, continously orbiting hostile ballistic
nations.
But what will they do with the piano and aquarium in the 747's lounge?
There's a made-for-TV-movie in there somewhere.
Considering the circumstances. The planes should be modified for ejection seats. I would recommend the 4th generation Zvezda K-36D ("air show special").
/john
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/
Evergreen has put up their own money. They believe in it. Why not let them show what the plane can do? I assume the crew has a more than passing interest in survival....
What I have not understood in all of this is, what is wrong with building NEW "obsolete" aircraft that we already have plans for, and which we KNOW from experience are well suited to the job?
It isn't like cars, where one is concerned with marketing cosmetics each new model year to maintain a customer/sales base.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.