[rednesss]

Why don't they have a fleet of these?????

[PapaBear3625]

The point of the article is that the DC-10 would have much higher capacity than that plane (I'm guessing between 4 and 10 times). The downside is that it would need to land at an airport rather than a nearby lake

The DC-10 would likely have higher maintenance costs per flight hour, and higher fuel costs, but if they don't use them every day, then that cost would not be as significant as the savings from being able to kill a fire while the fire is still small

[Don W]

Well, first off it’s made in Canada. Actually, that’s the only reason. It’s proven, reliable and relatively cheap, but...

[norton]

1,621 gallons versus 12,000 gallons.
Retardant (or water) instead of water alone: there aren't many Foscheck (sp?) ponds anywhere.

(see at http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_0.html)

Also, the -10 appears much more stable,, I don't know the altitude they let it operate at but with 12000 gallons accuracy might not be utterly necessary.

IIRC, those fire bombers that fell apart a few years ago were, I believe, C130's and likely much older than the DC10 in use today only on waivers. USAF has been flying the KC-10 hot and heavy for decades - that's also a modified ex-commercial aircraft and I'm not aware of any serious structural issues.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Not enough lakes....we got a desert out here.

[Don W]

Just FYI, one of the last two of these was due in Cali this evening. The Martin Mars. They live about 150 miles from where I'm sitting. Amazing to watch. How something that big can fly so slow is beyond my understanding.

www.martinmars.com