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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 11:02 AM
In effect, you are telling me to shut up, jetstuffer.

I will not shut up. If you want me to shut up,
ask the moderators for a ruling. I don't particularly
like you as you are a bit of a liar, but as least I don't
tell you to shut up like you're telling me to shut up.

NATO uses the IL-76 to take soldiers and equipment to Haiti.

Airlines use the 747 to take drunks from gate to gate.

Waterbombing is just not a mission profile suited to the 747, sorry.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by JohnA]

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:44 PM
Have you read what I have posted? The 747 is the more atractive choice becuase it is Americans, has a support base in the US(ie parts, people who can work on them) and it has a good record. The C-130 was a good aircraft also. It was because the Fire service was using 30 year old examples of the C-130 that they crashed.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 02:21 PM
Thank you for proving my point, exactly:

I have read what you posted and you are a leading
example of the jingoism and ignorance that
Pravda wrote about when California suffered

Key Facts About So. California Wildfires

Published: November 2, 2003
Filed at 5:08 p.m. ET

A quick look at Southern California wildfires:
Acres burned: 745,950.
Homes destroyed: 3,495.
Deaths: 20. (now 23)
Firefighting personnel: About 11,000.
Injuries: 185.
Number of fires reported since Oct. 21: 13.
Fires not fully contained: 5.
Il-76 article:
NATO demo last fall:

Check the mission profile on the 747 and the mission profile of the IL-76, aircraft non-expert.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by JohnA]

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 02:30 PM
jingoism havent heard that one in a while why cant they make a plane just for firefighting instead of using and getting anything they can.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 02:31 PM
When your a/c can do this, you come back
and tell me about it OK?

Until then, keep the faith in that new-fangled delivery
system and retardant because your baseline a/c is a
passenger plane and not a C-130 or an IL-76 and
your 33 junkers have been grounded.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 02:33 PM
Hawkins & Powers have ordered 8-9 of these,
for delivery, '07:

These are Russian w/RR engines, supported by EADS

posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 05:08 AM
As I have just discovered this website, I have to post my opinion on this discussion thread. Absolutely none of you have posted anything that even remotely resembles the truth about airtankers. Most of what I have read is frankly, just plain wrong. I would hope that some of you who are interested in this subject would do some research before posting your comments, but that is apparently not the case. I flew airtankers for seven years and I flew both aircraft that were lost in 2002. My own wings were cracked that year. The 747 is a neat media trick, but I sure as hades would not fly one on a fire. Tankers are capable of controlling the amount let lose in a drop. do some research kids.

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:13 PM
If the waterbomber system is in kit form, why not stuff it in a c-5 and let it rip. The USFS constantly makes bad choices. If I were a burned out resident I would have a class action suit against them for not using the right tool for the job. I personally saw fires in Fl in 98 that would have been stopped dead in their tracks by this plane/system.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in