olyclimber Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Check it out... 24,000 gallons of water.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 The russians did it first, but with half the capacity  http://www.didyouknow.cd/firefighters.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Whith the tanker fleet grounded for saftey reasons thier going to need something this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 The Russians, via the Canadians, offered us the use of their tankers for the California fires but apparently the FS declined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 i hear 747's also work good for urban demolition  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 bah, that's no 747 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blake Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 i hear 747's also work good for urban demolition   looks pretty edited to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 I prefer Airborne Demolition: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 that looks edited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 that looks edited That's because first flight isn't till next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 I was just poking fun at "Blake" for giving his "that looks edited" disapproval to an obviously-edited photo above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 blake's a real smart guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 At least for wildland fire applications, I think the use is pretty limited. THey aren't going to work in anything remotely hilly, and the only flat stuff that could really use 24k gallons is flat, worthless sage and grass not worth the cost of the application. But I bet it'd be pretty fucking cool to call in and watch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 That's why the sputnik's use them on siberian forest fires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkernews Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 It depends on how low and slow they can fly the things. It sounds like the FAA may do a 180 and approve those C-130s and P-3s for airdrops again. Let's hope so. A P-3 saved a big part of Turkey Rock outside of Denver during the Hayman Fire. Many other parts of that area are still closed. Those are our climbing areas that'll go up in flames without some sort of fire management. On the other hand... some of those airplanes are literally 60 years old and still dropping retardant. Thats nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 Usually water or retardant are dropped on or near an active fire. Can retardant be applied proactively to create a fire break? In other words, if you are in the middle of extreme fire weather and you want to protect against a fire that may or may not occur, can you coat trees by aerial treatment with fire retardant chemicals that will not hurt the trees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double_E Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 Is the P3 that plane that has a scoop/door just under the nose which allows it to skim a lake or other waterbody and pick up 1000s of gallons? saw that on some teevee documentary once.. pretty cool technique. think it might've even been Lake Wenatchee where the footage was from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkernews Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 Usually water or retardant are dropped on or near an active fire. Can retardant be applied proactively to create a fire break? Kind of... Firefighters will drop retardant in lines near active fires to create fire breaks or direct the fire in a certain direction. I suppose they could do it proactively... but if you multiply the cost of the retardant times the millions of acres you'd have to cover just to create proactive firebreaks... it'd cost more money than a day's worth of bombs in Iraq. and we could have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted May 20, 2004 Author Share Posted May 20, 2004 That is a bizzare concept...coating forests with chemicals to avoid a possible fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 That is a bizzare concept...coating forests with chemicals to avoid a possible fire. The active ingredient is ammonium phosphate which is a fertilizer and is also the same chemical used in household fire extinguishers. If a colorant is needed, they add iron oxide, which is basically red ochre. When it rains, the ammonium phosphate washes off and fertilizes the soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 I heard something last year after our big fire season about how there were also high levels of arsenic in the retardent chemicals, and it was all gonna wash into the streams and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 I heard something last year after our big fire season about how there were also high levels of arsenic in the retardent chemicals, and it was all gonna wash into the streams and stuff. arsenic aint no big thang. just ask gw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 Speaking of things washing into things around 30, 000 tonnes of dirt washed into downtown Kelowna in a post-fire Mudslide in October Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 I heard something last year after our big fire season about how there were also high levels of arsenic in the retardent chemicals, and it was all gonna wash into the streams and stuff. I tried to google that one up and couldn't find anything. There shouldn't be any arsenic in fire retardant. I do know that arsenic and cadmium has been found in iron supplements for lawns because they used old mine tailings as the source for the iron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoboy Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 Perhaps it is something like that (arsenic in iron in retardant.) Â They put all kinds of crap in fertilizers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.