Blog: Dermot Cole
Evergreen 747 Supertanker displays firepower
Published Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Peter Kelley, hard at work at Alaska USA Insurance Brokers, glanced out the window this afternoon and saw an unusual Boeing 747 above Birch Hill on a landing pattern for Fairbanks International Airport.
“The only markings were a large 979 on the vertical tail,” said Kelley, who is a specialist in aviation insurance.
He looked it up and it turns out the plane in question is the Evergreen Supertanker, which can carry 20,500 gallons of water to drop on fires.
To put this in perspective, Hamme Pool holds about 250,000 gallons.
A spokeswoman for the company said the firm has had the plane on a tour of France, Spain, Germany and Alberta since mid-July.
An Evergreen crew flew from Edmonton to Fairbanks today.
The supertanker might be used for a demonstration dumping water on the fires southwest of Fairbanks, displaying its capabilities. The details on how it might be used are still being worked out.
Evergreen won approval earlier this year from the federal Interagency Air Tanker Board for the 747 tanker, the first of its kind. The company wants to develop a fleet of planes for use in firefighting.
The company has spent $50 million developing the project.
The plane can drop water or retardant while flying from 300 to 600 feet off the ground, at about 160 mph, about 30 percent faster than the 747 stall speed.
The water or retardant can be dispersed at a rate equivalent to rainfall or all at once, the company says on its Web site. http://www.evergreensupertanker.com/
Oh good deal, Dermot! Glad to see you've given up on keeping our ex Naughty Monkey Guv on the front page and actually posted something of interest!
I love the smell of fire-retardant in the morning...
For heaven's sake, grow up DNMwatcher!!!!!!!!
I WONDER IF THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO LAND IT AT THE AIRPORT IN TAKOTNA.
I bet the smaller planes are still more effective since they can reload in a small lake or river and make 20 passes before the supertanker is refilled at a large airport.
While smaller planes are returning to reload I've seen winds pick up and the fire gain momentum before they can return with the next drop.
Quick kill is the best fire fighting procedure, and if my home or family is in jeopardy, I'll vote for equipment that can loiter and make multiple drops before a fire rekindles.
With UAV spotter aircraft that can transmit longitude latitude data of the hot spots to the cockpit crew of the B747, technology wins over the brute strength of multiple smaller fire fighting machines every time.
When it comes to protecting life and property, it is my experienced opinion that multiple drops and shorter cycles, are always more effective than multiple drops over longer intervals.
OK...I need to put this into perspective. Let's say your pant leg is on fire and you have a choice between a 8 oz cup of water (for smaller more frequent drops)or a 60oz cup of water (for larger less frequent drops). You're saying that it's more effective to use the 7.5oz cup because the 60 oz cup takes longer to fill? So if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that you'd choose the 7.5oz cup, dump it on your pant leg and fill it 7 more times vs. choosing the 60oz cup that you would only have to dump once?
For more accurate detailed information (and videos) on Evergreens Supertanker, please visit the website at www.evergreenaviation.com
Hard to understand illogical logic of fairbanksgas unless the difference between the discharge methods of each aircraft is not understood.
Most small aircraft discharge their full load, while the large aircraft has a pressurized resevoir tank similar to a captive air pressure tank on an individual presurized water system. There are discharge valves that can meter the discharge to match the need, similar to the faucets on a sink.
Using the last writers analogy, the large aircraft can drop 7.5 oz loads 8 times before it's 60 ounce cup is emptied, while the small aircraft would transit to base 8 times to make an equivalent drop, spending more time in transit and recharge than fighting fires.
I have personally witnessed the fire rekindles and grow before the smaller aircraft can make the next drop, requiring additional aircraft to sequence drops at closer intervals before bringing the fire under control. Meanwhile, multiple drops by the larger aircraft in close sequence brings the fire under control without losing time in transit and recharge.
Every fire is different and neither aircraft will be applicable on every occasion, so intelligent assessment and choices of aircraft are required by management, but based on logistics and the nature of wild fires, a bigger resevoir is generally preferable.
Post a comment