DC-10 Fire Bombers?

[mtnjam]

All I can say is those pilots have some gigantic balls and amazing skills to be able to fly those fully loaded with retardant at near stall speeds with flaps.

What gives, why are DC-10's so good for this role as a heavy fire bomber? Are they that easy to maneuver at near stall speeds (I don't know if that's what they are doing) and full flaps, then a change in weight after dumping the retardant would make that thing shake and unstable.

[Meadow Skipper]

All I can say is those pilots have some gigantic balls and amazing skills to be able to fly those fully loaded with retardant at near stall speeds with flaps.

HUDGE balls. Don't forget the terrible flight environment and target location.

What gives, why are DC-10's so good for this role as a heavy fire bomber? Are they that easy to maneuver at near stall speeds (I don't know if that's what they are doing) and full flaps, then a change in weight after dumping the retardant would make that thing shake and unstable.

First off, maybe most important, they're cheap (relatively) to acquire, and pretty much obsolete for passenger transport.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236

I'm no pilot but I'm told they're fairly easy to handle. But as you noted, dropping x-thousand pounds of retardant during a run poses some handling quirks and strains on the airframe. Retardant ships pay pretty close attention to their speed and work hard not to approach stall speed. They have lead planes plotting their route, bringing them in, making the target, and working with the pilots to maintain their shit.

[powdrhound]

HUDGE balls. Don't forget the terrible flight environment and target location.


First off, maybe most important, they're cheap (relatively) to acquire, and pretty much obsolete for passenger transport.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236

I'm no pilot but I'm told they're fairly easy to handle. But as you noted, dropping x-thousand pounds of retardant during a run poses some handling quirks and strains on the airframe. Retardant ships pay pretty close attention to their speed and work hard not to approach stall speed. They have lead planes plotting their route, bringing them in, making the target, and working with the pilots to maintain their shit.

I do believe that they were designed for quickly dropping big heavy things.

[hawkgt]

my guess it was a cheap platform to convert. large jet that was pulled from passenger service so cheaper to purchase / convert than new, i have no clue though. Never seen the DC10 in action but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker

im on the front range and mostly get this flying overhead in the summer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-2_Neptune

[Meadow Skipper]

I do believe that they were designed for quickly dropping big heavy things.

I think that sort of design capability was mostly for military bombing and agricultural aircraft.

I may be talking out my ass*, but back when I used to fly wildfire aircraft coordination (aka air attack boss) air tankers quit dropping their entire load all at once because of the flex strain it put on the airframe - they space it out with timed gate openings or discharges. Different tanker models had different requirements for how much of their load they could drop at once, but 'salvo" drops were verboten.

Air attack or the lead plane usually designates a "coverage level" that determines how much retardant lands on a given spot, depending on fire behavior, fuel density, and target characteristics.

*I had retired by the time these Very Large Air Tankers (VLATs) came in, never worked with them.

[MTT]

DC10 = Airforce Refueling platform.

Now they are also retrofitting C-130's for a smaller version of the same thing.

[Meadow Skipper]

Now they are also retrofitting C-130's for a smaller version of the same thing.

They used C-130As for a while in the 80s/90s until the wings folded on one during a run. Turns out there was a corrosion problem with the wing spar in that model. There's a video of the crash somewhere on youtube.

Oh, here it is:

[PNWbrit]

They used C-130As for a while in the 80s/90s until the wings folded on one during a run. Turns out there was a corrosion problem with the wing spar in that model. There's a video of the crash somewhere on youtube.

Oh, here it is:

Holy crap.....

[tango uniform]

I believe they're KC-10s (flying refuelers); the military version of the DC-10.

I'm an aircraft mechanic, and have worked on the DC 10, and the updated version the MD 11. Yes, they're bad ass work horses.

My airline has 38 of them in service, and is buying more because they're so cheap.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[abraham]

They used C-130As for a while in the 80s/90s until the wings folded on one during a run. Turns out there was a corrosion problem with the wing spar in that model. There's a video of the crash somewhere on youtube.

Oh, here it is:

Holy shit.

That's a catastrophic failure

[MTT]

It's a bit off topic but local news around here.

Welcome news in a BIG FIRE YEAR
http://www.weau.com/content/news/431752593.html

[mecc69]

DC10 Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker

They are former passenger aircraft.

C130's are making a come back via interagency HC-130H transfers from the Coast Guard to USFS. Owned by USFS, operated by contractors. Coulsen is already operating some of their own that they acquired and converted to gravity drop.

http://fireaviation.com/2017/06/22/t...on-at-phoenix/

There is also a 747 that has operated internationally. Might be on contract in the US somewhere, I think in CA.

Coulsen is also converting 737-300's which are former Southwest Airlines passenger aircraft.

DC-10's and 747 (Very Large Airtankers) have become popular once the air attacks figured out how and where to use them. They can deliver 3-4 C130 loads of retardant, which means you can lay down long, long, long lines of retardant quickly. They suprisingly are as or more cost effective once you figure in the flight time, etc.

[bodywhomper]

[#######]

Tons of thrust at the rudder/vertical stabilizer. Although in the late 80's it was a bit of a killer when the rear engine threw a blade through the hydraulics, knocking out the rudder and elevator on United 232 which crashed in Sioux City, Iowa. Pretty miraculous that the pilot was able to even make it to an airport and not kill everyone on board since all he lost almost all flight controls. They since have been retrofitted as far as I understand.

[tango uniform]

The dc10, and md11 are a pain in the ass because of that no.2 engine; we call it an " engina". Not only are you taking your life into your hands while working up there in nice weather, but in inclement conditions, it is fn deadly. In addition to that, because of the design of the engina inlet, it gets distorted on the inside over time; allowing puddling of water; which freezes into giant sheets of ice. Because the inlet is so long, these potential ice sheets can't be seen from a outside the inlet; requiring a mechanic to enter the inlet for a thorough inspection. Entering that not in the winter, and falling on your ass from slipping on Deice fluid is scary.

Those engines get FOD'ed out frequently because of that; I've seen blades come through the cowling, and penetrate the the horizontal stab; which sometimes hold fuel. Of course that engine is an extra pain in the ass to change.

None the less, it is an awesome Aircraft, but not without controversy.

The Lockheed L 10 11 is King of the 3 holer wide bodies....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[tango uniform]

Watching these videos is reminder that the folks flying these heavy's, in those turbulent conditions, at that altitude and speed, possess an impressive mix of balls and skill; amazing actually.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[mecc69]

http://www.wildlandfire.com/pics/air23/dc10-damage2.jpg

Lucky they have a big ass wing for when they don't manage the turbulence so well...

[tango uniform]

That's interesting damage; do you know the story behind it? I'm curious. It looks like it may have clipped something.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[XXX-er]

definatly a " larger cock than you " mentality but up here lots of places don't even have enough air strip to operate those big airplanes out of ?

up here in BC they got a couple of Martin water bombers which look pretty cool but they are old and they can't operate places smaller planes can, I am heariing smaller prop driven tankers are more cost effective

most of what I see flying locally is a lockheed electra water bomber

[mecc69]

That's interesting damage; do you know the story behind it? I'm curious. It looks like it may have clipped something.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

They hit the trees. One of which was only 45 feet tall.

http://wildfiretoday.com/2008/10/11/...r-tree-strike/

[tango uniform]

That's fn insane. I can't believe I don't remember hearing about that; my wife is right; I am a fn burn out.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Meadow Skipper]

definatly a " larger cock than you " mentality but up here lots of places don't even have enough air strip to operate those big airplanes out of ?

Correct on both counts.

...I am heariing smaller prop driven tankers are more cost effective

Most of the time, for most fires, the smaller prop aircraft are much more efficient and cost-effective. Where the VLATs are much more effective is at keeping the public and politicians off fire managers' asses because it looks like everything is being done.

There's probably not as much public and political pressure up there in northern Canuckistan, so fire managers probably don't feel the pressure to have big fucking less effective noise makers/photo op bait.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

DC10 Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker

They are former passenger aircraft.

C130's are making a come back via interagency HC-130H transfers from the Coast Guard to USFS. Owned by USFS, operated by contractors. Coulsen is already operating some of their own that they acquired and converted to gravity drop.

http://fireaviation.com/2017/06/22/t...on-at-phoenix/

There is also a 747 that has operated internationally. Might be on contract in the US somewhere, I think in CA.

Coulsen is also converting 737-300's which are former Southwest Airlines passenger aircraft.

DC-10's and 747 (Very Large Airtankers) have become popular once the air attacks figured out how and where to use them. They can deliver 3-4 C130 loads of retardant, which means you can lay down long, long, long lines of retardant quickly. They suprisingly are as or more cost effective once you figure in the flight time, etc.

My buddy was flying lead plane in Chile this winter(summer down there) with the 747. I had lunch with his wife at the ski hill and she showed me a pic of the lead plane flying through the smoke, I thought cool but then saw the 747 through the haze behind the lead plane and it filled the entire screen. It was pretty amazing.

Yes, these guys have balls, buddy was a smoke jumper and then flew the jumper plane as he got older and then started flying lead.

[MTT]

http://www.wildlandfire.com/pics/air23/dc10-damage2.jpg

Lucky they have a big ass wing for when they don't manage the turbulence so well...

That is wild.

[bushman]

most of what I see flying locally is a lockheed electra water bomber

Holy shit an electra, I worked on those 35 years ago and they were ancient then.