WIX Archives
differeing opinions?
Posted by Chuck on Sun Dec 08, 2002 06:05:19 PM
In reply top You are all wrong.... posted by Joe Scheil on Sun Dec 08, 2002 12:49:17 PM
Good points, Joe.
I am ready to see the 25 year old aircraft start their service for the forest industry now and let the 60 year old ones retire.
I am very greatful that the firefighting use of the warbirds kept many of them around to this day and age. Many were lost along the way but many have been been preserved by this means.
: Its always the same thing, ground those old airplanes befo
: re they hurt someone...ect. First some facts about the ai
: rtanker life. This is a rant...
:
: 1. No aircraft was designed for the job you are about to d
: o. The B-17 made a good tanker, but structural problems g
: rounded it, as has happened to the PB4Y. There is NO airc
: raft that can handle the loads of firefighting without cra
: cking wings. NOT ONE. P3's, DC-7's and P2's all have cra
: cks, the USFS is just being selective about grounding. Wi
: ll "new" C-130's work, H models perhaps? Only for now, as
: they are tougher than the A's but will still eventually f
: ail, based on the budgets of the operators at the current
: levels. PBY's due to their speed never seemed to have win
: g failures, but scooping is a hazardous activity as well.
: Cracks are a way of life, structural repair must be aggre
: ssivly preosecuted, as with all aircraft. No Airtanker ha
: s ever joined the fleet without being at least 25 years ol
: d anyway. The problem is becoming one of rarity. There a
: re no more "older" airframes in store, and the newer aircr
: aft were not built to the same standard in many ways. Go
: ahead, name some types that are available for conversion..
: .They are even doing Convairs now! In any case don't tell
: me one of the new C-130's or P3's will out tough a DC-7 w
: hen they both have to carry 3000 gal of retardant at 9.2 l
: bs per gallon. All of them will be at limits, and one cos
: ts under a few hundred grand. Guess which one an operator
: can afford. I'd rather they had new planes, but where do
: es the money come from, the USAF/RAF can't afford the new
: 130's anyway, and the design has major problems. The bes
: t boat in my mind would be a Beriev... but see below.
:
:
: 2. low level mountain aerobatics does not happen. The air
: craft are flown SMART as possible into a turbulent and dyn
: amic environment. You begin to know where to go to minimi
: se TB, and do your best to keep the airplane unloaded.
: It still beats airplanes up, but Patrol aircraft VP types
: are good because they are supposed to be at low level, and
: are able to work down there..PB4Y, P2V, P3 ect..
:
: 3. The PB4Y is not a B-24. They can be modified static t
: o look like a B-24, but that is a disservice to the 4Y and
: its war record. The Smithsonian should have a mint tri-c
: olor PB4Y RATHER THAN a B-24. The B-17 can represent the
: 8th, but the Pacific theatre patrol bomber has no real rep
: . Support the PB4Y. As for the money, well who knows wha
: t it will cost to buy and fly one again...
:
: Exception: The CL-215 and 415T, as well as some Chinese an
: d Russian built things (Beriev) are the only real aircraft
: designed (sort of) for the job. Since the USFS or BLM do
: n't AND won't consider them, they are off limits, and real
: ly do not exist.
:
: Sorry to rant, but I think that this job is the least unde
: stood thing that vintage aircraft do.
:
: JOE