Author Topic: Fire bombers (Read 17226 times)

CFS_Firey · « **on:** October 07, 2006, 01:21:20 AM »

Does anyone have a list of what Bombers the CFS has hired for this season, where they will be stationed and what capacity specs they have?

Are there any new, bigger, better, faster ones?

Pipster · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2006, 09:59:42 AM »

I don't think they have even let the contract yet.....!

Just guessing we will have similar planes to last year - if what CFS hired for last Wednesday is anything to go by....

Pip

SA Firey · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2006, 07:00:00 PM »

From news reports the other night there will be five aircraft being retrofitted from cropdusters to bombers this fire season plus Heliair

oz fire · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2006, 03:30:11 PM »

It appears from todays fires that the helitankers are back.

If past years are anything to go on - for the primary Mt Lofty response zone there will be AirTractor 802's or similar with 3000ltr water capacity with the capability of on board foam induction and computer controlled release doors.

Historically the SE has had slightly different, as Forestry has a bomber on their contract and I also believe one may be heading to the West Coast, for the peak season.

Haven't heard [/i]officially[/i] when the contract starts or exactly what is in it!

medevac · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2006, 04:04:25 PM »

i think they run 602s in the south east.....

Camo · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2006, 04:05:45 PM »

Sounds about right and i think they ran a 502 on EP last year.

oz fire · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2006, 10:01:20 AM »

Heres one to look at:
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/whyst.html

Apparently they can drop from between 400 and 800 feet (thats between 120 and 250 mtrs) and carry 24000 gallons (or approximately 110,000 litres) - from their web site the only airport they could use near adelaide would be Edinborough - BUT it would be interesting to see!

Timbo · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2006, 10:21:49 AM »

now that is one awesome bomber - wouldnt like to be hit by the load though

Robert-Robert34 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2006, 10:26:48 AM »

Plus it would save having to even roll fire trucks or NPWSA QAV's to the fire as it would kill the fire in an instant with 24000 gallons

bajdas · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2006, 10:33:27 AM »

Quote from: oz fire on October 13, 2006, 10:01:20 AM

Heres one to look at:
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/whyst.html

Apparently they can drop from between 400 and 800 feet (thats between 120 and 250 mtrs) and carry 24000 gallons (or approximately 110,000 litres) - from their web site the only airport they could use near adelaide would be Edinborough - BUT it would be interesting to see!

Yeh but how long to refill the aircraft & would we have enough water to fill it without drying the fire mains for a few kilometres around the airport.

Maybe it could be an interesting BWC - eg. all CFS trucks respond to airport to refill water....110,000 litres divided by 3000 litres per truck = 36 CFS truck refils.

bittenyakka · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2006, 11:16:55 AM »

however the airport is most likely to be a long way from any fire that the CFS go to.

Scania_1 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2006, 03:54:07 PM »

Speaking of bombers I wish the media would stop talking to the crop duster idiot from the West Coast who bags the CFS everytime there is a fire there. He is not a nominated contractor to the CFS and likes to sh**can them . He did it the other day and he did it last year after the Black Tuesday fires cos no one called him. I know his name but wont mention it here.

Camo · « **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2006, 05:00:15 PM »

Here is a pic of the South East Water Bombers from last season.

Camo · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2006, 05:01:50 PM »

here is another shot

oz fire · « **Reply #14 on:** October 17, 2006, 05:08:42 PM »

Quote from: bajdas on October 13, 2006, 10:33:27 AM

Quote from: oz fire on October 13, 2006, 10:01:20 AM

Yeh but how long to refill the aircraft & would we have enough water to fill it without drying the fire mains for a few kilometres around the airport.

Maybe it could be an interesting BWC - eg. all CFS trucks respond to airport to refill water....110,000 litres divided by 3000 litres per truck = 36 CFS truck refils.

From their info - they bring everthing with them - including floating collar dams, tankers, support infrastructure and alike - once unloaded they then inflate the storage tanks in the aircraft.

Takes them 20 mins to fill

SA Firey · « **Reply #15 on:** October 17, 2006, 07:30:50 PM »

Imagine the page for that

SHQ:*CFSRES:PARA,LIGHT,BAROSSA,EAST TORRENS,LOFTY,STURT GROUPS RESPOND STRIKE TEAM EDINBURGH AIRPORT REFILL BOMBER

Pipster · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2006, 12:37:50 AM »

And the plane is only allowed one drop...after that, the state has no more water left....

Pip

5271rescue · « **Reply #17 on:** October 22, 2006, 07:35:20 AM »

With all the media coverage this week about Elvis/sky crane what do people think should we or should we not?

Look I think it would be great but in some part's of the state where would it refill and if you had to truck in water for it where would you get the water from?

?.

Don't get me wrong people air support is great but it is still the job of ground crews to put the fire out and in doing so to make sure its blacked out all the way. Its a shame that the public don't have a good understanding of bombers may be its time the CFS did a public campaign about the role of bombers and ground crews....

Pipster · « **Reply #18 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:23:36 AM »

Unfortunately these days, the budget must be taken into account - do we get one very expensive chopper (with a running cost of $11,000 per hour ) plus the cost of actually hiring it......or do we spend the same amount of money, but have more than 1 bomber / chopper available?

CFS, like all Government departments has to work smarter with with their money.....

bittenyakka · « **Reply #19 on:** October 22, 2006, 11:29:14 AM »

The flexibility of many bombers is possibly more useful than one large one. of coure it depends on the fire. ie. in the US with the large forrest and crown fires big bombers like the 747 and skycrane are probarly more useful than the smaler types we use.

Scania_1 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 22, 2006, 02:25:43 PM »

Definitely better in SA to have many smaller aircraft than one big one. That is the only way you can say have one in Lincoln, a couple in the Hills and a couple in the South East. Not to mention when you may get a campaign fire somewhere (like KI) and you commit one or more aircraft for consecutive days. Easy for people to say `Hey government spend more money on firefighting`. But harder to do and make the books balance. How many people do you hear whinging about paying their ESL now? Besdides if it went up.

SA Firey · « **Reply #21 on:** October 22, 2006, 03:05:38 PM »

I think CFS Budget would be better spent on another bomber rather than Elvis,we cant really justify the expense for it here, but in VIC and NSW sure.There is always an option to send it here if something similar to Sydney's fires happened here again.

Our bombers do a great job and compared to when we had no aerial support at Ash Wednesday and ageing appliances we have definitely come up in the world

Scania_1 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 22, 2006, 04:42:37 PM »

In tight spots like the hills the large airplanes would be useless as they wouldnt be able to access the fire in gullies like the air tractors do.

Robert-Robert34 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 22, 2006, 08:54:49 PM »

I was reading the Advertiser editorials/talk back page yesterday and there was a reader who posted a talk bac article in there about South Australia being able to afford a Elvis

Article from yesterdays paper

State Can afford an Elvis

So the State Government is too stingy to purchase an Elvis helicopter? ("Elvis will help concedes CFS",The Advertiser,yesterday).

Considering the millions raked that it has raked in from the emergency services levy,there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to have brought several helicopters

If the State Government does not want to spend the emergency services levy on emergency services,maybe it is time for the levy to end.

Anyone else agree with what this person is saying

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2006, 12:07:31 AM »

I completely disagree. The CFS is already spending more than $2.38 million on aerial support each year... How about we employ some engineers to design the next fleet of trucks instead of getting a new over-sized chopper? (As much as it would be an awesome asset...

)

Author Topic: Fire bombers (Read 17226 times)

Timbo