Modelling > Engineering Dept.
Medium Air Tanker concept
kitnut617:
Like I mentioned in your other thread Stephen, there's not a lot of ground clearance on any of the Dash-8's, although the Q-400 maybe the better of the two. IMO, if you're going to convert small airliners into tankers, just use the cabin to hold the tanks like Coulson's do with their 737's
But then ----- there is this conversion ---
kitnut617:
Mind you, I think the various outfits that have tankers should work together, like working at Wing strength --- with a concentrated attack on one place at a time, and get that fire out before moving to the next one.
I've noticed here in Canada during wild fire season, you'll see a couple of the bombers working one fire, a couple of others working another, and meanwhile, the fire keeps on going while they go back to fill up again. What if they came at a fire in a large group, say twenty of them and just saturate the area, give the ground guys a chance to snuff out anything left over.
I know it's all down to money --- but how much money will they have to spend in the aftermath of a disaster ---
LemonJello:
--- Quote from: elmayerle on January 09, 2020, 11:17:24 AM ---An approach I could see for the US would be to take early LRIP MV-22Bs, bring them up to a common standard (much as the USMC is already doing), and outfit them with a downsized version of the MAFSS fitted to C-130's. Using the belly hatch, they could even reload from lakes or rivers in hover.
--- End quote ---
And here we see a justification for me to add another V-22 kit to the stash to do up as a fire bomber.
apophenia:
Thanks for the feedback folks!
Evan and LemonJello: I can easily see the V-22 as an air tanker ... as usual, in a category of its own.
There doesn't seem to be an existing, official category for the V-22 as a fixed-winged air tanker. Officialdom would probably class the V-22 as 'rotary-winged'. Were it to be seen as 'fixed-winged', I guess it'd be classed as a 'Small Air Tanker' - assuming a payload of 2,725-to-3,765 litres (720-to-995 US gallons).
Robert: Basically that's what the rural fire services have been advocating for several years. Those agencies' pleas were rejected by the Turnbull Government (IIRC) but the theme was picked up again by the Australian Labor Party during Australia's 2019 federal election.
BAe 146: Yep, not a lot of ground clearance on the Conair RJ tankers either ;) IIRC, these (and the RJs) sit at the lower end of the Large Air Tanker category. If no common air tanker is feasible, the BAe 146 would be a good choice for Australia (based on availability, familiarity, and at least two of proven conversion options). The Neptune/Tronos conversions (BAe 146-200 and RJ100) is similar but has a completely internal tank.
Ground clearance: True for all high-winged transports. I was hoping that shortening the Conair tank would provide at least as much clearance as is available for the long Q400-MR tank. Personally, my preference would be for an internal tank but that pretty much dictates an enlarged cargo door and reinforced cabin floot with attending increases in conversion costs. Of course, in the current political climate, 'ScoMo' might now be willing to push a lot more money at the problem!
I was trying to avoid strongly advocating either of my two Q100/Q200 options. The main priority at this stage would be getting the system agreed to and conversion completed in a timely fashion. Until now, BC has had a pretty dry winter with little snow pack ... I've got a feeling that we're next :o
Jeffry Fontaine:
New build amphibian with air tanker capability should also be a thing. Beriev makes a very capable amphibian that has an air tanker capability.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version