WA Radio Scanner Users' Group

Waterbomber game.
http://www.dailyhaha.com/_flash/waterbomber.swf

Thanks for that link.

Once i worked out you need to throttle back to get the speed back into the blue and apply slight backward stick (down key) to stop the nose digging it, great fun but still not as easy as it looks.

I still prefer my flightsim. One day I'll create a heli bucket for it.

What's the button to drop water?

"espace" does something with incendiary.

Turns out its space bar. I wish I could speak whatever langauge it is.

Ahhhh I didn't realise you had to 'collect' the water first

It's in French and represents a Canadair water bomber.

Avoid the birds!

Slow speed to the blue zone by using left arrow.... down arrow pushes you up, up arrow pushes you down...

Slowly descend to the water surface and when you hit it you'll notice the water capacity starts to rise. Don't sink and don't run into the land at the lake shore.
Space bar drops the water and it usually takes at least two runs to kill the fire. Keep low above the fire but not too low or the drop is ineffective. Too high and the water does nothing.

I've had the link on the WAVFRSA site for a while.

Shifted to the Off Topic forum as it's not really FESA related. It's just a game.

ops i blew mine up by hitting the birdies

WPXZBP wrote:Avoid the birds!

haha I should have read the instructions Wes provided a bit more! managed to pick up some water, can't pick up too much though otherwise you go visit davey jones...good idea having floating planes to fight fires though, they can then just block the river and use that instead of perth airport etc. Oh and yes I took out a flock of birds, couldn't land it on the river like the pilot of that jet though!

Tyranus wrote:...good idea having floating planes to fight fires though, they can then just block the river and use that instead of perth airport etc...

There was a whole heap of research done on what the best way of delivering water to a fire from the air is.

After the Ash Wednesday Fires in 1983, Victoria started really experimenting with the idea of water bombing. Tried numerous helicopters, SEATs like Dromaders, Airtractors, etc, the CL215 and the MAFS C130, with the idea that flying over a fire in the early stages and dumping tonnes of water would stop it growing. Helicopters had the advantage of being able to pick up water from farm dams, swimming pools, portables tanks etc, and could work close to crews with pinpoint accuracy. Disadvantage was they were slower than the planes, had generally higher per hour costs and didn't carry as much.

Problem was the Canadair (now Bombardier) was not able to use its main advantage (scooping water from a nearby lake or sea without landing) over most of Victoria, so the extra turnaround time travelling to an airbase with a long enough take off run made the effective drop rate pretty bad. (This isn't a problem in Canada which has more freshwater lakes than anywhere else in the world). The Victorians wanted the C130 but either the RAAF or the government wouldn't let them have it. So they settled for SEATs and light choppers unitl the Aircrane arrived.

In 1995, the US forest Service compiled stats into the effectiveness of fixed and rotor water bombers and found that the Aircrane had the lowest average cost per litre of water delivered (0.14 US cents) and the highest average volume of water delivered per hour (about 70 000L). In comparison, the C130 cost nearly 40c/L and delivered only 25 000L. The Bombardier came in the middle. While not as big as the S54E, the S61 Fire King can carry a full load of RAFTs to the fire making it really useful for long distance rapid response in WA.

dlcat1 wrote:

Tyranus wrote:...good idea having floating planes to fight fires though, they can then just block the river and use that instead of perth airport etc...

There was a whole heap of research done on what the best way of delivering water to a fire from the air is.

After the Ash Wednesday Fires in 1983, Victoria started really experimenting with the idea of water bombing. Tried numerous helicopters, SEATs like Dromaders, Airtractors, etc, the CL215 and the MAFS C130, with the idea that flying over a fire in the early stages and dumping tonnes of water would stop it growing. Helicopters had the advantage of being able to pick up water from farm dams, swimming pools, portables tanks etc, and could work close to crews with pinpoint accuracy. Disadvantage was they were slower than the planes, had generally higher per hour costs and didn't carry as much.

Problem was the Canadair (now Bombardier) was not able to use its main advantage (scooping water from a nearby lake or sea without landing) over most of Victoria, so the extra turnaround time travelling to an airbase with a long enough take off run made the effective drop rate pretty bad. (This isn't a problem in Canada which has more freshwater lakes than anywhere else in the world). The Victorians wanted the C130 but either the RAAF or the government wouldn't let them have it. So they settled for SEATs and light choppers unitl the Aircrane arrived.

In 1995, the US forest Service compiled stats into the effectiveness of fixed and rotor water bombers and found that the Aircrane had the lowest average cost per litre of water delivered (0.14 US cents) and the highest average volume of water delivered per hour (about 70 000L). In comparison, the C130 cost nearly 40c/L and delivered only 25 000L. The Bombardier came in the middle. While not as big as the S54E, the S61 Fire King can carry a full load of RAFTs to the fire making it really useful for long distance rapid response in WA.

history lesson??/

munchkin1981 wrote:
history lesson??/

Oops, I write too much.

I meant to say that despite their good looks and charm, singel engine air tankers are better and helitankers are best.

hahaha nah I appreciated the background there mate as I'm sure so did some of the other folks. Thanks for that

dlcat1 wrote:

Tyranus wrote:...good idea having floating planes to fight fires though, they can then just block the river and use that instead of perth airport etc...

There was a whole heap of research done on what the best way of delivering water to a fire from the air is.

After the Ash Wednesday Fires in 1983, Victoria started really experimenting with the idea of water bombing. Tried numerous helicopters, SEATs like Dromaders, Airtractors, etc, the CL215 and the MAFS C130, with the idea that flying over a fire in the early stages and dumping tonnes of water would stop it growing. Helicopters had the advantage of being able to pick up water from farm dams, swimming pools, portables tanks etc, and could work close to crews with pinpoint accuracy. Disadvantage was they were slower than the planes, had generally higher per hour costs and didn't carry as much.

Problem was the Canadair (now Bombardier) was not able to use its main advantage (scooping water from a nearby lake or sea without landing) over most of Victoria, so the extra turnaround time travelling to an airbase with a long enough take off run made the effective drop rate pretty bad. (This isn't a problem in Canada which has more freshwater lakes than anywhere else in the world). The Victorians wanted the C130 but either the RAAF or the government wouldn't let them have it. So they settled for SEATs and light choppers unitl the Aircrane arrived.

In 1995, the US forest Service compiled stats into the effectiveness of fixed and rotor water bombers and found that the Aircrane had the lowest average cost per litre of water delivered (0.14 US cents) and the highest average volume of water delivered per hour (about 70 000L). In comparison, the C130 cost nearly 40c/L and delivered only 25 000L. The Bombardier came in the middle. While not as big as the S54E, the S61 Fire King can carry a full load of RAFTs to the fire making it really useful for long distance rapid response in WA.

nice reply 'dlcat1' i find it quite an interesting topic of aerial firefighting and what everyone else uses cheers