Boeing 747 SUPERTANKER Firefighter Demonstrated

DougRobertson

Evergreen International Aviation of McMinnville, OR has been demonstrating a converted from passenger to firefighter Boeing 747 tanker to both California state and federal officials. The $50 million aircraft carries twice as much fire retardant as a McDonnell Douglas DC-10. DC-10s are currently the largest firefighting aircraft under contract in California to fight wildfires. California is under drought conditions with low water reservoirs and the fire season has been declared to be year-around. Federal and state officials are evaluating the B747 Supertanker's performance.

The B747 Supertanker can drop a line of retardant up to three miles long but cannot navigate tight mountain canyons. Evergreen plans to convert as many as ten retired B747 passenger jets to fight fires worldwide. The test aircraft is marked Evergreen Supertanker with a large 979 on the vertical tail. The demonstration on 11 June was at McClellan Airfield MCC outside Sacramento, CA the state capital.

CKennedy92

Evergreen's been touting that airplane for years now. The problem is that it is so expensive to operate and can only be used effectively on very large fires. Even the DC-10 tanker that the state of California has had under contract the last few years isn't used very often. That one costs the State $5,000,000 to keep under contract for four months out of the year plus $5,500 per hour when it's used.

DougRobertson

Thanks Chris, for the added info. The news made it sound like this was a new venture. Now that California is broke, they are looking at it again-makes perfect sense!

CKennedy92

The one they demonstrated could be a new one, but I remember seeing a video of an Evergreen 747 tanker several years ago.

I would be interested to hear how much they will charge for it compared to the DC-10 tanker.

I just read about a recent NASA study of very large tankers and they said they could be effective in open, flat areas, but no so much in mountainous terrain, because they aren't very maneuverable. Unfortunately, most large fires, at least in the West, are in mountainous terrain.

DougRobertson

I am sure you are right, Chris. Sacramento may be relooking at the larger tanker capability because of our extreme drought conditions. I watched the DC-10 tanker on TV doing retardant drops in SoCal a couple years ago. They operated in some mountainous terrain in San Bernardino County but lower or closer to the fire is more effective and more accurate when it comes to the drops.

stollercpa

Both the DC 10 and 747 should be used for direct water assaults on wildfires, rather then just to drop retardant around the perimeter of the fire. A recent fire in Palos Verde used 2 Superscoopers to directly drop water and quickly extinquished the fire.

We have had over 300 square miles of wilderness destroyed by wildfires plus homes and loss of two firefighter lives. The expected climate change will increase the frequency and severity of fires.

The current command structure of CAFIRE is to use these resources as support for the ground crews rather than as a primary tool. It is similar to when the Air Force was part of the Army.

Let's encourage the use of aireal tankers for direct assualts.

globemaster3

five thousand plus an hour to operate a 747 tanker is cheap, compared to some of the other jets flying today. in my opinion it is well worth the expense of flying these large slurry bombers where it is safe and effective. 24,000 gallons in one swath makes it worth that kind of expense. a 3 or better carrying capacity to large fires that threaten people, is a expensive proposition, but again I THINK that it is money well spent.