poser.S3v3N wrote:
Me Last night after a briefing.
Umm.. you're not breaking anything down to me. I get exactly what you are saying.S3v3N wrote:
I'll break it down for you all.Kmarion wrote:
There is a reason in this instance.. it has nothing to do with "pride".. although m3th pointed out earlier the US doesn't care what anyone thinks.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
It's not just Russia. There have been several companies that have offered large aircraft for firefighting use, but America doesn't want them.
1) Aircraft require highly skilled pilots, DNRC, BLM, Forest Service don't pay as much as say, America's Airlines, also you'll only be employed for the duration of the fire season.
2) Aircraft maintenance, certifications is very EXPENSIVE.
3) BUDGET. BUDGET. BUDGET. and more BUDGET. If you won't understand what a budget is, you get a certain amount of money to effectively run your department, you can't go over that set amount.
If you still don't understand,
My state is 147,165 sq mi or 381,156 km².
We've got 4 helicopters for my district. My district is roughly half the size of the state.
Last year per helicopter it cost 1mil each to operate it, that doesn't include paying the Pilot, spotter and the 3-4 smoke jumpers onboard, and it was a very mild fire season.
It was roughly the same figures for the 4 Tankers. Except they don't usually carry smoke jumpers.
Also my legion of hand crews and wildland engines put out more fires than the flyboys.
However, the planes in question would not be in a district budget. I believe since the OP referenced old and outdated information from a congressman that the purchase in question would be one against the federal budget. It looks like this is where they are leaning. I'm pretty sure they have already been used in AK.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oooo
lookie what I found.
lookie what I found.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
i so want to post "i can see Russia from my house" but i've already pushed my luck too far. nice find.
i had a halloween costume like thatburnzz wrote:
poser.S3v3N wrote:
Me Last night after a briefing.
Kmar, honestly I didn't read the OP as it was a blatant attack of OMG Amerikkans won't do this blah blah blah.
That 747 in your link is used by a private company that i'd gladly give my first born child to if we could afford to use their services just for the few uses of that 747. Though their are very few airports capable of handling a 747 and we have yet to have a fire remotely close to those airports..
I did go back and read parts of it, it says Russia will gladly loan it, but we have to pickup the operating tab. Ever try to buy russian parts in America? or have a ground crew that is certified to work on a Russian Aircraft in America? (my opinion)
I know on the DNRC side of life, our pilots have to have so many hours of experience flying that aircraft before they can support fire suppression.
Try finding somebody in the U.S. even remotely qualified to fly that pig.
I'm by no means defending the jackholes who denied the use of it.
Infact, I'm quite irritated that they've cut my funding so I've got less personal and less wildland trucks.
also We call it the Forest Circus for a reason.
That 747 in your link is used by a private company that i'd gladly give my first born child to if we could afford to use their services just for the few uses of that 747. Though their are very few airports capable of handling a 747 and we have yet to have a fire remotely close to those airports..
I did go back and read parts of it, it says Russia will gladly loan it, but we have to pickup the operating tab. Ever try to buy russian parts in America? or have a ground crew that is certified to work on a Russian Aircraft in America? (my opinion)
I know on the DNRC side of life, our pilots have to have so many hours of experience flying that aircraft before they can support fire suppression.
Try finding somebody in the U.S. even remotely qualified to fly that pig.
I'm by no means defending the jackholes who denied the use of it.
Infact, I'm quite irritated that they've cut my funding so I've got less personal and less wildland trucks.
also We call it the Forest Circus for a reason.
Last edited by S3v3N (2009-08-25 21:32:15)
^ Most of this could be directly applied to the so called resistance to use the Russian bomber. My only reason for sharing the Evergreen is to dismiss the OP nonsense.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
IMO I don't think the decision to not go Russian has anything to do with race and just because the aircraft is bigger doesn't mean it is better.
There are a number of issues to consider when using aircraft for aerial firefighting including:
Where is a good source of fresh water - Salt water does more damage to the environment than the fire does so you must use fresh water
How do you fill it up fast enough - pumps are too slow, if scooping, you need a huge area for a big aircraft
Cost - Though this is usually a minor issue in a large scale natural disaster. Once a situation becomes big enough, federal funding kicks in.
How do you employ it - Aircraft are great for creating boundaries around a fire but aren't very good for attacking it directly. If you drop a ton of water onto a fire, it will shoot thousands of embers into the air, creating further "spot" fires miles away from the original dropping point.
That's just a couple of issues but imo it would have been a technical, not race based decision.
There are a number of issues to consider when using aircraft for aerial firefighting including:
Where is a good source of fresh water - Salt water does more damage to the environment than the fire does so you must use fresh water
How do you fill it up fast enough - pumps are too slow, if scooping, you need a huge area for a big aircraft
Cost - Though this is usually a minor issue in a large scale natural disaster. Once a situation becomes big enough, federal funding kicks in.
How do you employ it - Aircraft are great for creating boundaries around a fire but aren't very good for attacking it directly. If you drop a ton of water onto a fire, it will shoot thousands of embers into the air, creating further "spot" fires miles away from the original dropping point.
That's just a couple of issues but imo it would have been a technical, not race based decision.
Not to mention the fact we already have a bigger tanker that flys at 161.3 MPH and 200 ft. There is no need to borrow.
Details.
Details.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I understand, it is called wealth envy. You need not explainRed Forman wrote:
you guys can spin what you like. the last people i feel any sympathy for in this world is people in their million dollar mountain homes.
orly?Stubbee wrote:
/wristsFEOS wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbombers#Airtankers/threadWikipedia wrote:
The largest aerial firefighters currently in use include two converted Martin Mars flying boats in British Columbia (one of which was brought to southern California in September 2007 to help battle the wildfires there), carrying 7,200 U.S. gallons of water or fire retardant each, and Tanker 910, a converted McDonnell Douglas DC-10 that can carry 12,000 gallons of water or retardant. The Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations operates convertible-to-cargo IL-76 airtankers that can carry up to 15,000 gallons but have been operating with 11,000 gallon tanking systems, and a few of Beriev Be-200 amphibians. Evergreen International Aviation is developing a Boeing 747 aerial firefighter, known as the Evergreen Supertanker that can carry 24,000 gallons fed by a pressurized drop system.
WND needs to do some research before twisting off on topics of which it knows little/nothing. The 747 variant has actually been used in the past couple of years, IIRC.
Tankers larger than the -76 have been used in the US repeatedly. Once again, a situation where some Congressman heard something and figures he/she knows more than the experts who have been dealing with the same situation for decades.
you need to more research yourself
The full-loaded Il-76 would require a concrete runway, as well.Stubbee wrote:
The last Mars was built in 1947, only 2 are left and they only have 7200 gal tanks and one is overhaul. However they do have the advantage of on-fly-refilling like the CL215/CL415s from Canada and the Beriev from Russia.
Any commercial aircraft like the DC-10 (910) or the 747 REQUIRE a concrete runway. Nor are they designed for low and slow flying especially in the very turbulent air over fires.
And it would suffer from the same refill problems as the other large aircraft...it takes time. Hence why the Canadian on-the-fly refillables are used extensively in the US--particularly in CA.
Stubbee wrote:
Additionally the 747 is experimental and not yet fully operational.
Evergreen’s Supertanker utilizes a new type of pressurized system allowing the aircraft to fight fire from higher altitudes. Depending on mission requirements, the Supertanker’s versatile application system can disperse retardant under high pressure, for an overwhelming response, or drop retardant equivalent to the speed of falling rain. The system was designed to allow the Evergreen Supertanker to fly at a very safe altitude, 300 to 600 ft, and within its design envelope. Also, the Evergreen Supertanker’s tank system allows segmented drops. This means that the aircraft can drop its 20,500 gallons at multiple intervals while in flight.
At no time in flight will the Evergreen Supertanker operate outside the Boeing 747’s normal operating parameters. The drop speed is approximately 140 knots. This provides a 30% cushion over the Boeing 747’s stall speed. During a retardant drop, the Evergreen Supertanker is configured as if it were approaching for a landing and is well within all the typical speed parameters that a Boeing 747 would normally be in when approaching an airport for a landing.
Evergreen will operate the aircraft from any major airport with sufficient ramp space to load the aircraft. These include civilian bases, joint use civilian/military bases and accessible military bases. Generally, the runway requirements for the Evergreen Supertanker are 8000 feet.
The Evergreen 747 completed its SOAP flights last spring, erasing a number of critics' concerns about the feasibility of supertankers.
Don't bother yourself with facts or anything.Stubbee wrote:
The DC-10 is...well... a DC-10. Very good flying record
Wikipedia wrote:
The DC-10's lifetime safety record at 2008 is comparable to similar second-generation passenger jets.[6] Increased inspections and modifications made the DC-10 among the safest aircraft for passenger travel.
Why would they need to? There are more C-130s available, they fly the mission constantly, refill quickly, operate from more austere strips, and can probably put more retardant on a fire in a given timespan than the -76 can. Keep in mind, the 76 would have to land further away and take longer to fill. The overall sortie rate for the 130s is much higher--hence why they are the primary ones used for that type of mission.Stubbee wrote:
Only the 910 is operational and is currently larger in capacity. Although the Il-76 can carry 15000 gal.
MARS... 7200 gal
910.....12000 gal
IL-76...11000 gal (up to 15000)
747.....24000 gal
Why not try them and validate the concept? The US has a vast fleet of underused cargo aircraft like c-17 or c-141 designed for low and slow flying and operation from rough landing areas. They have multi role capability that could be used to transport loads of personnel and material to remote fires. Very easy to modify them for the gravity drop system used in the IL-76. Hell I could envision some sort of cartridge tank system to speed up refilling or as previously mentioned add a refill-on-the-fly system.
Pretty sure nobody has made any of those arguments against it.Stubbee wrote:
oh noes it is Russian so it must be crap
oh noes it is Russian so they must be up to something
oh noes it is Russian and we would look real bad if it works like they have already shown around the world
oh noes it is Russian so we can't make any money converting ill suited aircraft to waterbombing
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Isn't backburning during winter just much easier?
Fuck Israel
lollowing wrote:
I understand, it is called wealth envy. You need not explainRed Forman wrote:
you guys can spin what you like. the last people i feel any sympathy for in this world is people in their million dollar mountain homes.
Well this argument sure as hell makes more sense than your last several, and it has no content whatsoever.Red Forman wrote:
lollowing wrote:
I understand, it is called wealth envy. You need not explainRed Forman wrote:
you guys can spin what you like. the last people i feel any sympathy for in this world is people in their million dollar mountain homes.
Because yours didn't either, so I responded appropriately.lowing wrote:
Well this argument sure as hell makes more sense than your last several, and it has no content whatsoever.Red Forman wrote:
lollowing wrote:
I understand, it is called wealth envy. You need not explain
Actually, I don't need an argument to save peoples homes. It is an automatic, unless under the circumstances previously discussed. I was simply calling you out on your reasoning for not wanting to do so, and so far you don't want to help or they do not deserve help because:Red Forman wrote:
Because yours didn't either, so I responded appropriately.lowing wrote:
Well this argument sure as hell makes more sense than your last several, and it has no content whatsoever.Red Forman wrote:
lol
1. they make more than you
2. have more than you
3. was given more than you
4. can afford more than you
...........and you want to see them suffer for it
This is called wealth envy, and there is nothing to argue about, it is what it is.
It is also the reason why you have tried to turn it into a race issue, ( typical), because you know it is wealth envy and you really can not argue it isn't, so you try to deflect and re-direct the discussion away from it. to the point where youare now reduced to a simple "lol".
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-27 02:17:48)
you have issues dude. i am not going to turn this into one of your multi-page multi-quote loads of bollocks.
its about stupidity, not wealth envy. they build their homes in a fire zone because they have the money. its about penis envy for them. somewhere to show everyone "oh come join muffy and me for dinner in our mountain side home." they dont need to build there. period.
now, you can draw your own conclusions. idc. i am not going to go off in one of the typical lowing circle jerks. this thread ends for me right here. you can feel free to say what you want, i wont read it.
its about stupidity, not wealth envy. they build their homes in a fire zone because they have the money. its about penis envy for them. somewhere to show everyone "oh come join muffy and me for dinner in our mountain side home." they dont need to build there. period.
now, you can draw your own conclusions. idc. i am not going to go off in one of the typical lowing circle jerks. this thread ends for me right here. you can feel free to say what you want, i wont read it.
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-08-27 05:51:25)
In this instance I agree with you. You should end your contribution to this thread right here. You have bared your ass far too much with your ridiculous arguments, and accusations of racism on my part. If I were you I would be running for the woodwork as well.Red Forman wrote:
you have issues dude. i am not going to turn this into one of your multi-page multi-quote loads of bollocks.
its about stupidity, not wealth envy. they build their homes in a fire zone because they have the money. its about penis envy for them. somewhere to show everyone "oh come join muffy and me for dinner in our mountain side home." they dont need to build there. period.
now, you can draw your own conclusions. idc. i am not going to go off in one of the typical lowing circle jerks. this thread ends for me right here. you can feel free to say what you want, i wont read it.
Why should all of us pay more tax to save houses which insurance companies say are uninsurable anyway?lowing wrote:
I understand, it is called wealth envy. You need not explainRed Forman wrote:
you guys can spin what you like. the last people i feel any sympathy for in this world is people in their million dollar mountain homes.
Wealth does not buy common sense.
Yeah some one else tried to make that argument and here was my counter argument:Pug wrote:
Why should all of us pay more tax to save houses which insurance companies say are uninsurable anyway?lowing wrote:
I understand, it is called wealth envy. You need not explainRed Forman wrote:
you guys can spin what you like. the last people i feel any sympathy for in this world is people in their million dollar mountain homes.
Wealth does not buy common sense.
they are tax payers as well, and probably pay more taxes than you do. So they can reasonably expect the same services you would wish for yourself.
the second point is. Where were you screaming about the bailing out the people in New Orleans who decided it was cool to build a home by the SEA that is 50 ft below sea level?
Everywhere you choose to live has inherent risks, on the coast it is hurricanes and floods, in the woods it is fires, in the moutains it is snow storms, in the plains it is tornadoes. Who are you to decide who should not get help with the very tax money that the victims themselves paid for?
Last edited by lowing (2009-08-27 10:37:18)
Lowing, you are willing to share in the additional cost, even though they are uninsurable?lowing wrote:
Yeah some one else tried to make that argument and here was my counter argument:
they are tax payers as well, and probably pay more taxes than you do. So they can reasonably expect the same services you would wish for yourself.
the second point is. Where were you screaming about the bailing out the people in New Orleans who decided it was cool to build a home by the SEA that is 50 ft below sea level?
Everywhere you choose to live has inherent risks, on the coast it is hurricanes and floods, in the woods it is fires, in the moutains it is snow storms, in the plains it is tornadoes. Who are you to decide who should not get help with the very tax money that the victims themselves paid for?
None of the other examples you provided are in that category.
lol 50 feet below sea level. Try 7 feet
Last edited by Pug (2009-08-27 11:07:23)
No, not really.Lowing wrote:
Everywhere you choose to live has inherent risks
I'm sorry, where did I miss where these people do not have insurance? Also Insurance is not relevant, you claim you are a tax payer and should not have to pay, well, they are tax payers as well, paying for most of the shit they do not use either.Pug wrote:
Lowing, you are willing to share in the additional cost, even though they are uninsurable?lowing wrote:
Yeah some one else tried to make that argument and here was my counter argument:
they are tax payers as well, and probably pay more taxes than you do. So they can reasonably expect the same services you would wish for yourself.
the second point is. Where were you screaming about the bailing out the people in New Orleans who decided it was cool to build a home by the SEA that is 50 ft below sea level?
Everywhere you choose to live has inherent risks, on the coast it is hurricanes and floods, in the woods it is fires, in the moutains it is snow storms, in the plains it is tornadoes. Who are you to decide who should not get help with the very tax money that the victims themselves paid for?
None of the other examples you provided are in that category.
lol 50 feet below sea level. Try 7 feet
That makes it worse, if they are insured then they really shouldn't need tax payer money in the first place right? Yet you do not bitch about it.
When dealing with flooding of a home 50 ft or 7 ft makes no difference. I used 50 ft as an exaggeration to prove a point.
Really, well pray tell where can someone live where they are immune form natural disasters? I am curious.DrunkFace wrote:
No, not really.Lowing wrote:
Everywhere you choose to live has inherent risks
Dutchland seems to do ok.lowing wrote:
When dealing with flooding of a home 50 ft or 7 ft makes no difference. I used 50 ft as an exaggeration to prove a point.
Immune? no where.lowing wrote:
Really, well pray tell where can someone live where they are immune form natural disasters? I am curious.DrunkFace wrote:
No, not really.Lowing wrote:
Everywhere you choose to live has inherent risks
Very low risk, lots of places.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-08-27 11:35:38)