It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


747 to be used for firefighting

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 01:27 PM

If this 747 actually works, that's just great,
but for now at least, this is the largest, fastest,
longest-range firefighting aircraft in the whole
wide world and with a decade's service behind it.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by JohnA]

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 01:42 PM
I spent a lot of time and effort placing information to
a now cut-off thread participants in this thread may never,
ever get to read.

Here's the locked out thread.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 01:54 PM
The only aspect of the IL-76 waterbomber
applying to the forum topics menu is aviation.
Believe when I say the waterbomber is very, very

The only project aspect of this aircraft
is weeding the garden at the US Forest Service,
which is thick with thistles and assorted other
prickly things.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:27 PM
on NBC last night they said that there are concerns that the 747 would not go slow or low enough to be used effectively to dump. It also said that the plane could carry more extinguisher than all planes currently in the fleet combined.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:40 PM
Maybe it could seed clouds for hail or maybe it
could do a city in some other kind of Homeland
Security nightmare right out of a Roland Emmerich
movie but wysiwyg and like TomB says, we have
our doubts.

OTOH, there can be no doubt whatsovever about the
fmr Soviet machine. None. And that's a fact, Jack.

One more thing: the 747 has flown tests,
yes, but with less liquid than the day-to-
day usage, IL-76. You really need to research
the press releases on the 747 to
get that out of them.

They speculate it can do the greater load
but have yet to prove they can and as you
point out - at what altitude?

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by JohnA]

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:58 PM
If you want to see it on TV like most of us do,
just check this piece at DenverChannel from
17-time Emmy Award winner in investigative
reporting, Tony Kovaleski

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 12:17 PM
Our Peruvian buddy at
(perhaps the world's premiere Spanish language
1st responder website) just came up with these great
Robert Kysela photos of the IL-76 waterbomber at Zeltweg:


posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 12:35 PM
Even though this thread is about the 747 water bomber there are enough forest fires, and enough room in this thread for both the 747 and the IL-76. The IL-76 has a well proven track record in service and the 747 when development is complete promises the same.

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 06:12 PM
Just not at all sure about that 747.

Not at allllll sure.

Neither was Tom Brokaw when he popped
it in at the end of one NBC broadcast.

There is a statement somewhere in the IL-76
proponents' records, however, that quotes the
US Forest Service as saying We don't care
how good it (the IL-76) is. We'll never use it.

(Surely it cannot be prejudice, can it?)

That may well be true. If it's everything the record
shows it is, it may well be better put into the hands
of the US military, or with the National Guard MAFFs
people, who have been more accepting of the notion
of the Russian tanker coming in than the US Forest
Service ever was.

Not really comfortable with the mission profile of the
747 (people, gate to gate) vs the IL-76 - heavy hauls
and dropping missions, with low and slow and STOL
capabilities. rather like a large C-130. Built for mudding.

Would you take a stretch limo mudding or would you
take an Escalade?

Not at alllllll sure 'bout that 747. Not at all sure.

[edit on 13-6-2004 by JohnA]

posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 06:25 PM
Here is what the US Navy and US Forrestry have been looking at using:
US Navy to order unique aircraft.

The 747/IL may be a stop-gap choice till these come into service?


posted on Jun, 13 2004 @ 10:52 PM
That's a first. A long way from production, probably.

It's been reported Hawkins & Powers has dibs on
8(+/-) Be-200s for delivery '07, and at least one of these
amphibs is being used by EMERCOM in Russia this season
so you have some idea of the lead times involved. These are
Rolls Royce-equipped Sukhoi-equivalent. Irkut's shares sales
went very well as Russia's first IPO so there is a lot of confidence
in this new firefighting appliance.

With an IL-76, you merely chuck a set of tanks in one, chain them
in (1.5 hours) and then set off for the nearest runway which orders
you up.

There, depending on your tanking systems and pumps, one
of these 20-wheelers (easy on your runways - especially light)
can be pumped up in about 15' and ready to put down 12 football
fields'-equivalent wetness in about 8 seconds, before wheeling
around and going back for more.

Cheap, fast, bucketfulls - about 4X your
largest fixed wing payload now. Maybe a
bit less than 4X, but not much and in that
order of magnitude.

Proven; very fast; very thorough; very
reliable crew/machines for your use
during the fire season only. Not yours to
buy but at your service (think carpet

[edit on 13-6-2004 by JohnA]

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 01:44 AM
I have witnessed several dump tests of this plane and even had the misfortune of getting in its way while flying and ultralight.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 02:12 AM
We need those 747s here in Australia with are bad bush fires and the fact we have had a drought lasting for close to 10 years. Its been raining but not enough to make the vegetation green.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 07:18 AM
Australasian Fire Authorities Council ran tests on
the IL-76; not the 747.

Aussies say the IL-76 waterbomber is
a "very, very good firefighting airplane."

Nobody knows about the 747 as a firefighter yet.

Here's your link:Google search on IL-76 waterbomber - your comments are being recorded.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by JohnA]

[edit on 20-6-2004 by JohnA]

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:54 AM
Pravda calls the US Forest Service "jingoes" and "ignoramuses"
Russian aircraft could have saved California

US aviation guru calls the US Forest Service almost criminals.

Here's an outtake from an article
50 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters

49. The Ilyushin-76: These giant forest-fire-fighting planes can hold 11,000 gallons... that's over 4 times more water than any other firefighting aircraft. That's enough to put out a four-acre blaze in one run. Or enough to cover an entire stadium full of Promise Keepers with dog semen. Whatever. The point is, they're sure to come in handy when global warming turns even the once lush Pacific Northwest into a tinderbox.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 11:14 PM
i know they hold a lot of water but are they good at really low altitudes?

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 11:15 PM
and can they get enough of them in time before fire season.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix

An Oregon company is experimenting with using a modified Boeing 747 to drop enormous amounts of water on wildfires.

In initial tests, the prototype - a modified 747-200 cargo jet - performed remarkably well, said Penn Stohr, director of flight operations for Evergreen International Aviation's 747 "supertanker" program.

"Its maneuverability is very, very good for its size," he said. "We're very, very satisfied."

Evergreen has been working on the program for about two years, but the concept gained new urgency after the federal government's joint tanker board grounded some of the contractors who used to provide aerial firefighting services to the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies, citing safety concerns.

I used to work for this company doing data entry !!!!! And my mother worked for Evergreen Helicopters (former name, before they became Evergreen aviation) for years.

I even flew to California on the company lear jet with Del Smith himself. Super nice man.

Evergreen Aviation also houses the Spruce Goose in the aviation history museum. I've seen it, it's massive. Very interesting looking plane.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by KayEm]

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 10:36 AM

Is this altitude low enough for you?

Note that if you ran what the photographer said about
the IL-76 waterbomber through Altavista, he says the IL-76
was the most spectacular airplane
at the airshow.

How about this altitude?

There are plenty of IL-76 ready to go. ANY Il-76 can be fit
out with a set of liquids tanks in a jiffy. It's a tanking kit.

Check it out:

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 10:47 AM
Get past the IL-76 man. They are never going to buy it. It is not cost effective to buy a aircraft that has no support base in the US. At least there are parts for the 747 in the US. There is also people who know how to fix the 747 in the US. The same cant be said for the IL-76.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in