It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

747 Super Firefighter Tanker is Coming....

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The 747 Super Tanker that Evergreen Intl. (now bankrupt) had plans to create is now being resurrected in light of the wild fires that continue to devastate year after year. Global SuperTanker Services, LLC is now slated to take the fire fighting equipment from the older Evergreen 747 tanker and install it into N492EV, a Boeing 747-400BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter) that has been just sitting around unused since 2013.
It will give it a 19,600 gallon capacity, largest of any firefighting plane in the world.



All different kinds of aircraft that have been used to fight fires, from tiny Air Boss tankers to the oversized Erickson S-64 Aircrane helicopter. But the biggest and baddest of them all was the Evergreen Supertanker, a modified 747 that has recently been sidelined due to financial woes. A new company plans to change that.








The plan is to strip the firefighting systems from the current Evergreen Supertanker 747-100 and install them into a Boeing 747-400BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter). The new aircraft (registration N492EV) previously flew for Evergreen International and Japan Airlines before that, but has been parked since December of 2013. The 747-400 will be a very nice upgrade for the Global SuperTanker Services crew because it has more powerful engines than the 747-100. The company claims they’ll be able to carry 19,600 gallons of retardant or water for 4,000 miles. By comparison, Tanker 10’s DC-10 tri-jet carries 11,600 gallons. That’s a big increase.


flightclub.jalopnik.com...




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Wow...pretty interesting idea...I would be more interested in seeing the demonstration on a live fire..wondering why they didn't demo it...thanks



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco

They did. They could only use it when requested though. If the USFS didn't ask for the help from it, they couldn't just fly in with it and use it.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Very practical idea but a very expensive one I guess...




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: chrismarco

They did. They could only use it when requested though. If the USFS didn't ask for the help from it, they couldn't just fly in with it and use it.



Reading the link you posted it does make you wonder about the cost effectiveness. Maybe lots of smaller craft would be cheaper, have the same effect and also have a quicker turn around time in terms of filling up again.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: zatara

Yes. It's expensive.

However however the cost balances out in the end.

Though I imagine it's worth the cost if it's saving lives and property.


Of course this kind of capability doesn’t come cheap. While helicopters and smaller aircraft might cost a few thousand dollars per hour to fight fires, Supertanker comes in close to $30,000/hour. This does fuel the cost-effectiveness debate, but with Supertanker delivering at least eight times as much retardant as the typical tanker in the fleet, the math keeps it in the same dollar per gallon-delivered range as other aircraft.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

They're currently flying Bae-146s, MD-80s, and a DC-10 as a modernized fast fleet test. The DC-10 is already established in the fleet, but they're testing various smaller jets to replace the older tankers.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
wouldnt this put a lt of pressure on the airframes flying low and slow over fires, especailly at the wing roots, and engine roots



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: weemadmental

It does, but they reinforce those areas as they're putting the tanks in.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Zap, how many flight hours are they expecting to get, surely cant be too high a number ?

weemad



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: weemadmental

They'll last a lot longer than you think. Depending on age and condition of the center wing box they can get 5-6,000+ hours out of them. Most of their flights will be an hour or less and they undergo more inspections than the average aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join