WA Radio Scanner Users' Group

Click link (22. DC-10 waterbomber)
http://www.nearmap.com/community/topfin ... dslideshow

Looks like a big kit is needed for its Operation.

The DC-10 would be a great tool for fighting the current fires in wa, but i don't think it will happen due to costs, the distance to travel here and the set up needed for its ops. And what happens if there is a big fire in vic while its here, dangering lives

5hrs here, 3.5hrs back to Melbourne. As for the cost, its being paid by Victoria, there is no Fed Gov help there. As for DEC who is managing the fires, it comes out of their budget, so that is why they would be reluctant to bring it over. Yes it would be good to see, and for only 1.5hrs turn around time ex Perth or Pearce, for the distance that it can drop the water/retardant would significantly reduce the ROS of the fire.

brocks wrote:oh if my maths are right 250,00 could equal 1 house being lost how many homes did toodyay lose again about 38 x 250,00 = about 9.5 million hmmmm me thinks thats quite a bit in savings wouldnt mind that in my bank

Oh so you're saying if they had that aircraft here, the Toodyay fire would've been stopped and no homes lost? Why don't we buy everyone their own fire truck, that'll stop the fires.. who cares what it costs?

You're drawing a rather long bow with no evidence to back you up. Leave it with the experts.

we will never know fastlane but we have this piece of equipment in australia why not use it if its appropiate,theres no cost to life ,thank god that hasnt happened over here for a while and if we can save peoples property and lively hood lets try our best, why have a dc 10 in australia if we cannot use it,i would have thought that it would have saved some property around toodyay but we will never know,thats what it was bought over to victoria for save homes and lives and to stop fires turning into major incidents. lets leave it to the experts and keep it in the hangar,maybe we all could put our knapsacks on and control the 22000 hectares that would save fesa money dont take it serious just a joke

The DC10 cannot provide the same accuracy at putting water on a fire as the Helitacs or fixed wing waterbombers can do. It's like trying to compare a smart weapon like a cruise missile to a WW2 bomber. The DC10 would only be effective in very rural settings. When protecting houses the water bombing aircraft we have here are much more effective. If you tried doing the same with a DC10 you would end up smashing the houses to bits.

what happened to perth second today? Offline due to 2 injuried crew.

Just my two cents, and I'm not a fire manager, just someone who reads.

Do a search on the IAFC and waterbombing costs. Type 1 Helicopters (Aircranes. S61s like Cougar and the Carson from last year) cost less per volume dropped and have a higher drop rate per hour than an equivalent fixed wing. SEATs like AirTractors work out fairly cheap as well. DC10s and supertankers just do not add up.

WPXZBP wrote:The DC10 cannot provide the same accuracy at putting water on a fire as the Helitacs or fixed wing waterbombers can do. It's like trying to compare a smart weapon like a cruise missile to a WW2 bomber. The DC10 would only be effective in very rural settings. When protecting houses the water bombing aircraft we have here are much more effective. If you tried doing the same with a DC10 you would end up smashing the houses to bits.

Yes it can.

The DC-10 supertanker was never designed to protect houses, its for asset control, those fires that are raging out of control and inital attack.

It would have worked well in the recent Christmas Fire well. Dumping, 12,000 US gallons (45,000 L) of water or fire retardant in an exterior belly-mounted tank.

written_ficton wrote:

WPXZBP wrote:The DC10 cannot provide the same accuracy at putting water on a fire as the Helitacs or fixed wing waterbombers can do. It's like trying to compare a smart weapon like a cruise missile to a WW2 bomber. The DC10 would only be effective in very rural settings. When protecting houses the water bombing aircraft we have here are much more effective. If you tried doing the same with a DC10 you would end up smashing the houses to bits.

Yes it can.

The DC-10 supertanker was never designed to protect houses, its for asset control, those fires that are raging out of control and front line protection.

It would have worked well in the recent Christmas Fire well.

Houses are assets. Nor are you controlling the 'assets' you are protecting them, the only assets that you are controlling are the fire crews and their appropriate appliances. Trying to fly a large aircraft over a fireground around a town is not really practical, this aircraft would be more suited to the large fires that occur in the goldfields, pilbar and Kimberly regions where the fire front could potentially be a few kilometre's long.

Tyranus wrote:

written_ficton wrote:Yes it can.

The DC-10 supertanker was never designed to protect houses, its for asset control, those fires that are raging out of control and front line protection.

It would have worked well in the recent Christmas Fire well.

Houses are assets. Nor are you controlling the 'assets' you are protecting them, the only assets that you are controlling are the fire crews and their appropriate appliances. Trying to fly a large aircraft over a fireground around a town is not really practical, this aircraft would be more suited to the large fires that occur in the goldfields, pilbar and Kimberly regions where the fire front could potentially be a few kilometre's long.

and even then, the cost and reload times would far outweigh the benefit (considering the isolated areas we are talking about). The helicopters and smaller aircraft are far more flexible and provide much greater precision. When you're working on a fireline, you certainly appreciate this. Alot of people seem to be blinded by the 'hype' and 'bigger is better'.

Fastlane wrote:

Tyranus wrote:

written_ficton wrote:Yes it can.

The DC-10 supertanker was never designed to protect houses, its for asset control, those fires that are raging out of control and front line protection.

It would have worked well in the recent Christmas Fire well.

Houses are assets. Nor are you controlling the 'assets' you are protecting them, the only assets that you are controlling are the fire crews and their appropriate appliances. Trying to fly a large aircraft over a fireground around a town is not really practical, this aircraft would be more suited to the large fires that occur in the goldfields, pilbar and Kimberly regions where the fire front could potentially be a few kilometre's long.

and even then, the cost and reload times would far outweigh the benefit (considering the isolated areas we are talking about). The helicopters and smaller aircraft are far more flexible and provide much greater precision. When you're working on a fireline, you certainly appreciate this. Alot of people seem to be blinded by the 'hype' and 'bigger is better'.

While I am not blinded by the 'hype as you call it, on a large bush fire, I daresay that you would appreciate the use of a DC-10 dropping water onto the fire front. It only takes roughly 8minutes to refil the water!

written_ficton wrote:While I am not blinded by the 'hype as you call it, on a large bush fire, I daresay that you would appreciate the use of a DC-10 dropping water onto the fire front. It only takes roughly 8minutes to refil the water!

I appreciate the fact that a) you don't need to land a helicopter to refill it and b) the fixed wing bombers can land on gravel/dirt airstrips (and often do), so you're not limited by having a rated runway/airport. I think what dlcat stated earlier, says it all.

Clip of test drop from DC10 today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtiIX9lax-s

if it aint no good the dc 10 that is,why did the vic goverment bring it out here,the state is a lot smaller than wa and much more heavily populated than wa,my opinion just a point scoring exercise when it stuffed up the firefight last year,just a knee jerk reaction to keep the people in victoria happy.like some of us on here said it would have been a good exercise to trial it under bad fire conditions in wa over the last week if the 2 state governments had of come to some agreement but only up at lancelin and enneabba where there were big firefronts.if it aint going to be used then dont bring it out here,be very interesting to see what happens in victoria next summer

brocks wrote:if it aint no good the dc 10 that is,why did the vic goverment bring it out here,

I don't think anyone said the aircraft was "no good". You might want to go and re-read others posts if that's the impression that you got.

The Victorian government make decisions that they believe are right for their state. It is not our place to second guess those decisions and/or why the same type of aircraft is or isn't avialable in WA.