They are developing new aircraft now and are looking to other aircraft to use.

How long have you been in and around aviation?

Your answer tells me a lot and it should tell other
people on this board a lot.

I won't be staying awake, waiting for your production
line start-up. Got your banking lined up? Please tell us
all who with.

The only new firefighting airplane in the world is
the Be-200 and they've been talking that one up since
the late 90s. It is supported by a succcessful IPO, the
EADS (AirBus)group, out of Europe, and an option for
8-9 taken out by Hawkins & Powers for 1st delivery in '07.

What other aircraft have you got in mind? Please post
your information.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by JohnA]

From one of your own article:

Developers of the 747 are hoping to have the plane approved and ready to fight fires this year but that's only if they can get the green light from the U.S. Forest Service.

So please next time you open your mouth try to think. I do know alot and the olders members know this. I am on the net everday searching for the latest news and information on aircraft. I read aviation books and use other reasorces.

By Bryan Corliss
Herald aerospace writer

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.

The Il-76 is proven. It goes to work every wildfire season in Russia
and gets called out to other nations on occasion.

Australia did far more testing on the IL-76 and said it was a very,
very good firefighting airplane. You can't say that about the
new one yet. You can only recite that the promoters and one other thinks.

When the US Forest Service briefly tested the IL-76 and issued a
35 page report, they called it an Emergency Supplemental Air
Tanker, indicating they would be using it.

For sure the IL-76 will have a range of handling, fuel consumption, cost
advantages, and drop effectiveness characteristics which will make it far, far
superior to the competition, if the competition's airplane is safe and actually works.

We noticed how skeptical Tom Brokaw was about the experimental airplane. It's
only ever been tested with less liquids onboard than the IL-76 already hauls on
a regular basis. Bit of a pressurized pig in a poke if you ask me.



This is an old report. Can you get me anything that says anybody has certified the experimental airplane for use? Some progress was supposed to have been made by now.

I think I'd rather accept the credentials of Professsor Bill Kauffman, whose opinion is that the US Forest Service is almost criminal for not using the IL-76 than you who tells us you're on the net everyday, looking for information on airplanes. Are you what they call a propellerhead?

[edit on 17-6-2004 by JohnA]

When did I say it was not proven? Also it would be better for the US Forest Service to use the 747 for a few reasons. There would be more parts for the planes in the US because it is a popular aircraft. Also there are more people who ca work on the 747 in the US than can work on the Russian plane. There is already an established base for the 747 in the US.

Your answer assumes the 747 might actually work
fighting wildfires.

Jury's still out on that one. If it did work, (which is
not admitted) it would be immensly more expensive
to operate than the IL-76, no question about that.

Were you aware that just under 1000 IL-76s have been built
and that they've been flying around the world, including for NATO
and including into the US and Canada, for many years?

I want our readers to know Boeing has $1.3B invested
in the Russian aviation business and I want our readers
to know Boeing sells about 75% of all sales of foreign
passenger planes into the CIS (vs AirBus). I want our readers
to know Boeing and Ilyushin have enjoyed a great working
relationship for many years, including jointly working on
the 777. I want our readers here NOT to assume Boeing
wants 200s turned into waterbombers. There are
several very good reasons why Boeing would not want that,
including, but not restricted to, the distinct possibility that
the aircraft would not work well in that role. After all, the 747's
mission profile never included dropping heavy weights.

All this was not for your benefit, setter-chum. You have your mind made up.

Good luck with your unproven choice which has yet to even
test with as much liquids as an Il-76, let alone go out and
work.

I really wonder about your credentials. I wonder how you think
the world of trade actually works vs some impression you have
of how it will work in this relatively small corner of business.



[edit on 17-6-2004 by JohnA]