Jumbo 747 tankers could be used to fight forest fires


Saturday, May 22, 2004 | 1 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font |
McMINNVILLE (AP) - Crews battling forest fires this summer may see a load-a BIG load-of reddish-pink fire retardant streaming from a converted 747 jet.

Evergreen International Aviation has spent more than a year converting one of the jets to a tanker, and it could be ready by July.

The company says it would be the nation's first firefighting jet and can carry 10 times as much water or retardant as a conventional tanker.

Though it won't be able to navigate narrow canyons, pilots say it still is versatile.

It can carry a 20,000-gallon payload. It has made about 50 test flights in Arizona.

"It represents one of the most advanced pieces of firefighting equipment that's come along in a long time," said Mike Padilla, the chief of aviation for the California Department of Firefighting Protection, which hopes to test the jet for its own needs this summer.

The jet still needs approval from the Federal Aviation Administration.

It comes at a good time. The U.S. Forest Service recently grounded its 33 largest tankers, including five in Oregon, because of safety concerns after two crashed in 2002.

Oregon congressmen are trying to get at least some of the tankers restored, but the Forest Service is eager to update its aging fleet.

Federal agencies have not yet said they will use the jet this summer and say they might not be able to afford it in any case.

Evergreen has not decided on a price for the plane, which cost millions of dollars to prepare. Evergreen officials say they don't intend the plane to replace other tankers, but rather to act as a new tool for fighting the largest fires.

"Once we get something coming out of a forest with a large front, this really becomes a natural," said Penn Stohr, Evergreen's chief of supertanker operations and a longtime pilot of retardant planes.

An early question was whether the plane could fly slowly enough to drop its load on the right place.

The 747's are made to fly at high altitudes in a thin atmosphere, and its wings provide for extra lift in "thicker" air at lower altitudes.

Thus it can stay in the air at relatively low speeds of 170 mph.

Older tankers, often converted military plans, can drop retardant at 200 feet above a forest. Engineers have adopted a nozzle system that prevents the entire cargo from being dropped at once.

Stohr said Evergreen is preparing to set up bases around the country that could get one of the big tankers only a few hours from any fire.
Previous Email this story to yourself or a friend Print this story Next

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments above are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

Samuel A. Mullen-Perron wrote on Jul 14, 2007 8:14 PM:

Is this suppose to be a surprise to everyone? If it is then I am flabergasted because all we need to do is look that the polls. The Ironic think about this is supposidly over 50% of the votes were in favor of Bush during the 2004 election. As Connie Frances sang sometime ago; Who's Sorry Now?!?!?

(optional)
   

Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Editors Note | BlogThe World Forums

Most Popular


» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections