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.

 

First Global SuperTanker nears completion

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The first 747-400 Global SuperTanker is nearing completion on Sacramento. The aircraft underwent a heavy maintenance check, along with being brought into compliance with 28 ADs, and now is having the water tanks and dump system installed.

Alterna Capitol Group owns the aircraft and plans to use it worldwide to assist firefighters, or oil cleanup crews. They've been to Australia, Germany, Croatia, France and the European Union in Brussels to discuss operations. The previous 747 tanker was owned and operated by Evergreen before they shut down.

The new aircraft will be able to carry over 19,000 gallons of water, fire retardant, or oil dispersant over 4,000 nm. They also see a potential fleet of up to 4 aircraft.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sounds AWESOME!!!

Found this article which has some great photos fireaviation.com...











Just look at the landing gear, jeeeze





edit on 23-3-2016 by FamCore because: photos



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

What makes me mad is I just left Sacramento.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

marvelous machine.. thanks for sharing Zaphod



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
That is a very large capacity .I wonder what the turn around is . This Martin Mars does a good job if you have a lake around to refill . But its just 8000 gallons

edit on 23-3-2016 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

About 30 minutes to refill the tanks for the Evergreen 747 and the DC-10 that is also used.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Awesome!! Now if someone put a pair of skids,,,



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Good Lord!! that's a fine looking aircraft.


I can imagine the Hotshots are going to love it!



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Wow Just imagine the chemtrails they can lay down with that big boy.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

It's actually safer for them in addition to carrying more than the usual tankers. It drops over such a wide area that it doesn't impact with as much force.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

Oh please don't get them started.

lol!



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Okay when I first read the title of the thread I thought this was an air-to-air refueling tanker. Then I read this in the OP:

and now is having the water tanks and dump system installed.

So, I thought "that thing must have one big ass bathroom!"


Then I read the next paragraph and realized this was a firefighting tanker aircraft.

-dex



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you think this type of application (water bomber) is particularly hard on an airframe. I only say that because of a recent video that I watched...it showed a C130 dropping water and then the wings broke off....it was sad to watch.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Oh yes. It's brutal on an airframe. These will stay somewhat higher than the usual tankers do, to reduce the stress, but it's still going to require a lot more proactive maintenance than normal.

They lost a PBY that year too. That's what led to Evergreen converting the first 747.
edit on 3/23/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Yes it is. Having to fly in the dense turbulent air near the ground and around fires is rough enough on an airframe. Then you add in the weight of the water or retardant onboard and then releasing it in a short amount of time. That's a lot of stress on wing spars.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I never have understood why there's not a fleet of 50 of these. Wouldn't that be cheaper than the millions spent fighting fires that get out of control? You would think there would be a bazzillion tankers in California alone. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Thank you guys for answering that.....I assumed it was...and yet it seemed a little odd that the wings on the 130 came off "after" the load was dropped. But Im sure there was more happening in those few seconds then meets the eye. Positive G's then negative G's then positive in quick succession ...I imagine.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

They start out with negative Gs as they push over down the hill, then positive as they level out and start to pull out. After they release, the aircraft flexes for lack of a better description, as the weight is released, which puts strain on the spars as the fuselage lifts.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: SonofaSkunk

They spent something like $40M on this one alone.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SonofaSkunk

Apparently there are a lot of factors that come into play regarding the effectiveness of aerial firefighting.
- It's expensive relative to ground forces.
- Environmental conditions like temperature and humidity have different impacts.
- They are more effective when deployed early, becoming less effective as the fire continues to burn.
- It's inherently dangerous. One study found that half of wildfire firefighting fatalities were aerially related.
- Aerial firefighting is not particularly effective on really hot fires because the water or retardant never reaches the ground.

KCRA Investigative Report
Australian study

-dex




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join