Sirius7dk Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 the air freight company Evergreen International Aviation have made a Boeing 747 into a firefighting plane and they say that it can replace 7 of the biggest firefighting planes in use in the US today read more here http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/index.htmland if you just want pictures, they are here: http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/gallery.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundking Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 well it would be pretty cool to see a boeing put out a fire, but I think it would be difficult to use... especially with storage... lie okay, you have 165 days of forest fires a year, where do you put it for the other 200... That I think might be a big issue with some people and the plane, is that it is quite large.I would love to see them though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taylor Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 They did a show on it, it's sort of impractical because of the amount of time it takes to refuel.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyPI Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You would be correct, the turnaround for a B-747 is impractical compared to a specially designed FF plane or a seaplane reconfigured. Those two types have the luxury of bellyflopping to resupply vs the 747 which is not designed in a way to do this type of resupply from a lake or such a body of water. So in order to resupply it, you would require a massive pumps to support it, unfortunately.They did a show on it, it's sort of impractical because of the amount of time it takes to refuel.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SHERIFF05 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 It would be fun to stand under it as it drops the water .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius7dk Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 from what i have read about the plane, the plane is different in that it can have 7 times the amount of normal planes and it can drop the contents from a higher altitude which means that it can cover a large area quickly (when it is loaded)and about the usage issue, the plane has been made so it can have those 4 different types of content• Firefighting• Oil Spill Containment• Weather Modification• Biochemical Decontaminationand that means that it can be used for other things than fires when it is not "forest fire season" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taylor Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 It would be fun to stand under it as it drops the water .... Similar to what happens in the EM4 game, and I'm not just saying this because it happens in a game, but I think that much water comin' down on you is going to do some damage. Just like to the trucks and the other guys in EM4 when you drop the water from the plane.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ami89E1234 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 havent these been around for AWHILE?they shouldnt use 747s (even though i love them). they should use Antanov AN-225s or C5 Galaxies. much bigger planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyPI Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Generally I'd tend to disagree with you merely due to the physics of how the water falls, it is not comming down in a torrent of water, it is dispersed similarly to an airburst of sorts, the water tends to become more similar to a spray effect rather than a direct drop. Typically those types of aircraft have doors that regulate the flow to disperse it more evenly over a longer distance, those doors help control the flow and the wind going around the airframe ensures that the water is spread out some before it hits the ground, so generally you'll get quite wet but not harmed by the water falling from the aircraft. I personally would be more concerned about the fire than the water falling from the aircraft. Think about when terrential rains occur, the rain may pelt you a bit, but in the end it is not going to hurt you since it does not have the required mass to do so, water does not wish to stay as one solid object like ice/hail does, water wants to break apart and due to this effect it has limited mass and generally won't hurt ya falling on it's own. If you were to put pressure behind the water and try to force it to stay together then yes it can hurt but a typical helo/plane drop does not do this. =)Similar to what happens in the EM4 game, and I'm not just saying this because it happens in a game, but I think that much water comin' down on you is going to do some damage. Just like to the trucks and the other guys in EM4 when you drop the water from the plane.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundking Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 well I guess you have to look at how they are built, and if they can "belly-flop" because otherwise, it is kinda like the bucket method, works great.... once... Then it isn't half as good as the old garden hose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius7dk Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 havent these been around for AWHILE?they shouldnt use 747s (even though i love them). they should use Antanov AN-225s or C5 Galaxies. much bigger planes.747 firefighting planes have not been around before, other much smaller firefighting planes have been around for years thoughAN-225 is a much bigger plane but there is only made 1 (another 1 is currently being built and should be finished in 2010 according to wikipedia) and there is a huge demand for that plane already as it is so it would be stupid to take it out of business for more than 2 years (which is the time they have spent changing the 747) and then rebuild it to a much more limited use than the AN-225 has today.according to wikipedia, then the C5 is not very much bigger than a 747, but the company have choosen the 747 because they have a lot of experience with 747s already, and the C5 is mainly a military aircraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyPI Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 The C5 has an advantage over the 747, it could theoretically be modified to be a more efficient fire fighting aircraft due to the engine/wing configuration, it may be possible to refit it to make it strong enough to do a smooth-water skip across a lake to resupply the water for drops, it would not be ideal still but the 747 can't do this. In the end all three planes are rather impractical for this job.747 firefighting planes have not been around before, other much smaller firefighting planes have been around for years thoughAN-225 is a much bigger plane but there is only made 1 (another 1 is currently being built and should be finished in 2010 according to wikipedia) and there is a huge demand for that plane already as it is so it would be stupid to take it out of business for more than 2 years (which is the time they have spent changing the 747) and then rebuild it to a much more limited use than the AN-225 has today.according to wikipedia, then the C5 is not very much bigger than a 747, but the company have choosen the 747 because they have a lot of experience with 747s already, and the C5 is mainly a military aircraft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ami89E1234 Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 lol last year ppl were bitchin to Hoppah about making the firefighting plane into a 747 (more than 6 months ago)lol when I become el prez imma change the Air Force One to a 225 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirius7dk Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 lol last year ppl were bitchin to Hoppah about making the firefighting plane into a 747 (more than 6 months ago)lol when I become el prez imma change the Air Force One to a 225Ami89E1234 for President! to go back on topic, i think that MikeyPI is right when he says that all those big planes are impractical, but i can still see the idea in using it for the purpose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taylor Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Ami, I don't think they'll let you use a Russian plane.. it's sort of against code.Also, the C-5 would be impractical, it's a cargo plane.. HOWEVER, they are being used to transport water tanks (literally big cylinders of water) over to Iraq and Afghanistan for our military to shower. We could get some of those and just basically push them out the back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyPI Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Generally most of the class of aircraft used for water drops start off in cargo configuration and are then modified to carry a water tank, so that does not disqualify the plane necessarilly. Few planes are special-purpose built aircraft to do the task... That is more of a modern era thing that has started to occur. Generally any bush plane (preferably water-landing capable) with a decent cargo hold, strong airframe, good powerful engines mounted high up on the wings make good water dropping aircraft since they can resupply on a lake or another placid body of water. Generally Jets are not favored since they may suck things into the engines and cause problems (obviously). So generally they go with turboprop engines mounted higher on the wings so that the risk of damaging the engines is minimized. The whole concept is fairly impractical but useful none the less. In the end I think smaller planes are more practical than the heavy aircraft that are proposed in this topic, especially the poor 747, which in the end could fill a swimming pool in 20 seconds flat, but turnaround on it would be rather terrible. Great concept but totally unrealistic that anyone would buy that aircraft unless we're talking about austrailian bush country where you may need to fly for quite some time before you reach the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ami89E1234 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 @Taylor: sorry for off-topic, but this ISNT the cold war anymore, so i dont see where youre getting at. besides, Antonov is a Ukranian company (Ukraine is part of Europe) and therefore not Soviet. furthermore Im part Ukranian. and Ukranians are MEAN when they dont get what they want (and just in general) lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
