Aircranes offer a better service than airtractors. they can pick up from anywhere without landing, dams, even a pool, and can hold 3 times an air tractor.
all absolutely true !
Then there come some conditional truths Gilly.
They could put at least 10 times the water on a fire than an air tractor over the same time period. (and in most places, water sources are fairly close by).
My opinion - it is only an opinion since I wasn't actually under it, merely noticing cycle time from the NE flank of the Willunga fire...
The Crane made a big difference at the Willunga fire.
(It hurts to say that - I'm a AT802F fan). Because it was in the hills with a lot of decent farm dams available close by, it was dropping 8,000+ Litres every five minutes or so. The AT's take time to fly to an airstrip, land, load (2 mins with the latest pumps at Cherry Gdns) take-off, return to the FG & be tasked by the AAS... maybe 3,000L per 20 mins. Quicker if the fire is closer.
Away from the Hills & the farm dams, the AT's probably have the edge. The Crane is slower so its cycle time would be much longer.
They can also direct water easier, are safer than fixed wings, can dump more concentrated loads (lower speeds).
Any rotary winged aircraft is inherently more dangerous than a fixed wing one. If the big wheel stops turning, it's a brick...
On the other hand, the ten or so AT802's that would be needed to do the job of the one Crane ***in this one situation*** would need careful management to avoid bumping into each other.
It would also need some investment in reloading & refuelling infrastucture at the various airbases.
People are too willing to "shoot down" things due to cost, without really looking at the advantages.
You noticed that too, huh !! Mind you, has anyone actually seen a cost comparison between one Crane @ between $12K & $22K / hour flying time depending upon who you believe, plus stand-by costs, vs. a pack of AT802Fs at whatever their hourly rate is ?
The operating costs of 10 AT802Fs per hour may possibly be comparable to one Crane. But 10 x 802's can be at 10 different fires just as easily as beating the living daylights out of one fire...
The other thing is that for every hour of flight time, the Cranes have to spend much more down-time for maintenance - something like 2:1. If one of 10 AT's breaks, you can still run at 90% of their capacity. If a crane breaks, you run at 0% of its capacity until fixed..
I'm more than happy to have an air-crane here as they are so effective. The government is not buying one for $30m, just having one here for the whole season (which was done basically this year anyway...).
We got lucky this year - it rained interstate, & a mate in RFS Blue Mountains was bragging that their max temp hasn't exceeded 30C at all in 2008... Could have very easily squabbling with Vic & NSW for it & come away with nothing.
Anyway, enough with grizzling from me.
There's no question that the Crane is good.
Just whethwer it represents the *best* value for our money.
cheers
AJ
[edit: fixed quoting]
