Official Aviation Thread...

[flyboyx]

there is a sea fury and a p51 parked at centennial airport in denver. i wonder if they are in reno this year?

[BlackbirdM3]

there is a sea fury and a p51 parked at centennial airport in denver. i wonder if they are in reno this year?

Do you know the identity of them. I'm guessing not as the 5 sea furies that are at Reno are regulars. 3 come from the same place, one from Wisconsin, and one lives at Stead.

Will

[LateFan]

Personally I think its stupid they are being retired. They are still doing the job well, they don't have replacements in place, and with the way fire seasons are getting, we are going to need them.

I think it's because the airframes are getting to an age where metal fatigue can't be overcome without rebuilding them from scratch with new parts. Right now they have a couple of planes they're cannibalizing for parts, and are machining their own when they're not available.

For a couple of years they've been converting these little 4-engine jets (BAe-146?). We've been seeing them a lot this summer. Bigger payload, faster turnaround, less maintenance. But the newest ones are from 2002, so how long will they last?

[BlackbirdM3]

There are tons of low time/lower time P2Vs out there. The push is to get away from piston engines because the feds want everything to be jet powered. They could replace the P2Vs with P3s, but Aero Union kinda screwed that one up. (the former P3s owned by Aero Union are for the most part still around, I think a couple have been bought and are being rebuilt by another company made of former Aero Union Employees) We will have to wait and see how that goes.

The BAE 146s only hold 3000 gallons, about the same as the P3s, but they aren't that great of a tanker (and they look like a pregnant guppy) There also aren't that many of them out there that are tankers.






I'm not sure jet engines are really the way to go. They don't like particulate matter being inhaled, and they get a lot doing drops on fires.


Like I said, I'll miss the low droning sound of a pair of R3350s announcing that a P2V was on site.

Will

[M-technik-3]

Trip out to Davis Monthan and pick up some C-130H models or some L100 from the contractors are no longer using.

Turbine powered, easy to fly and have decent capacity and already set up as a air refuels so not much required to convert to fire fighting and Colorado NG already has what 5 that are rigged for this duty.

[flyboyx]

There are tons of low time/lower time P2Vs out there. The push is to get away from piston engines because the feds want everything to be jet powered. They could replace the P2Vs with P3s, but Aero Union kinda screwed that one up. (the former P3s owned by Aero Union are for the most part still around, I think a couple have been bought and are being rebuilt by another company made of former Aero Union Employees) We will have to wait and see how that goes.

The BAE 146s only hold 3000 gallons, about the same as the P3s, but they aren't that great of a tanker (and they look like a pregnant guppy) There also aren't that many of them out there that are tankers.






I'm not sure jet engines are really the way to go. They don't like particulate matter being inhaled, and they get a lot doing drops on fires.


Like I said, I'll miss the low droning sound of a pair of R3350s announcing that a P2V was on site.

Will

Finding parts for those old ass airplanes is increasingly becoming an issue. Especially that 50's technology excuse for a jet engine they use. Unfortunately, you can't just machine up new internal parts for those....

They are cool for sure, but I can see why some decision maker thinks it's time for them to go.

There are a lot of reasons the arvo 85/bae146 was chosen. 4 engines, decent payload, way way faster than any prop plane, a glut of them sitting in the desert for cheap. No one else wants them because the Canadiar 700/900 and more notably the embraer 170/190 make them completely obsolete for passenger use.

I don't know what a used c130 costs, but I would guess the bac jet costs less than 2 million each before modification. That less than the cost of one of it's engines.

As to your argument for particulate ingestion, I presume you may have a point. However, they have been using dc10's for years. I'm sure it lowers the time between overhaul significantly. I would also assume they would take that into account?

[M-technik-3]

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/02/04/lockheed-to-sell-special-ops-c-130s-to-civilians/

At the bottom of the article it talks about spraying and firefighting in a brief blurb.

[flyboyx]

i was just checking out the stats for a c130. looks like the payload is potentially 2x that of the avro.

it also appears the average cost of a c130 in today's dollars is about 30 million. i'm guessing Aero Union chose the avro/bae because they can be had for a fraction of the price.

i have been thinking about the particulate ingestion issue that will brought up. i have never done aerial fire fighting and i have never flown an avro. i can say that it is not abnormal for a low slung engine to ingest a sheet of paper now and then while taxiing around on the ramp. the evidence is that there will be a few tiny remnants of it stuck to the leading edge of the blades. i can't say that i have ever seen damage from it. i would assume forest fire ash to be slightly more erosive than paper generally but much less so than volcanic ash. i also had the experience to fly through that once. we were coming out of puebla, mx after the local volcano la orizaba ripped a massive fart for 10 days straight. in the climb passing through about 16,000ft, we flew through about 2000' of black cloud. the engine egt's shot up about 100 degrees and there was a lot of sparking on the windshield. the rest of the flight was uneventful. and once out of the ash, everything seemed to return to normal. afterward, the airplane was down for 2 weeks waiting for engine replacements. that stuff will fuck your shit up like nobody's business.

[M-technik-3]

C130/L100 was designed to operate EVERYWHERE, Antartica to Sauda Arabia and with no issues. Needs zilch for ground support with exception of a power cart. Perfect aircaft and high wing so stall speed is less of a factor like the Avro and the BAE.

[flyboyx]

Does that airplane have an aux power unit? If not, that could be a fairly hefty negative.

[M-technik-3]

Late model J's do the early airframes do not. And even if they did it would not have cockpit cooling, it needs to have an engine running to have air.

[flyboyx]

I was thinking more on the lines of aircraft autonomy. Most any regional airliner can sit for hours on an empty ramp with the apu burning and only consume 150-200 pounds an hour. No air cart or ground support needed other than fuel and someone to fill the tank with water.

The short field and rough terrain considerations are a huge advantage though.

I was reading wiki and it mentioned the l100/c130 is only faa certified for a 3.5 or 4000 gallon tank. That is a real shame. About the same as the avro. Judging by it's payload, it should carry around 6000 gallons.

[george graves]

apu burning and only consume 150-200 pounds an hour.

These little apu's that no one talks much about are a lot bigger than I expected.

[M-technik-3]

Not our old beasts, they would consume 1500 pounds under load each. They were horrendous but they are all but gone now. There is still three A models flying at our field.

[jpod999]

Do you have any photos of the crew quarters on the C5?