Up close and personal with DC-7 tankers: the cockpit

I don’t know about you, but I have always been interested in airplane cockpits. When I have flown on commercial flights, I often will sneak a pike in the cockpit as I am boarding the flight. My intent here is to present some of Larry’s photographs of the cockpit of his tanker, T-62, along with some selected DC-7 manual pages that Larry had on file in his working computer.

What I have done, with Larry’s assistance, is to take the graphic and numeric key of a typical DC-7 cockpit arrangement (prior to conversion to its current use as a tanker) and match up some of Larry’s cockpit photos with the numeric key for the graphic of the cockpit arrangement. First I present the two images of the cockpit arrangement graphics then I present his pictures.

Please don't forget to read the comment after the pictures.

 

 

cockpit (radio stack on left in foreground)

control pedestal (36)

control pedestal (36)

control pedestal (36)

pilot-in-command instrument panel (25)

engine instrument panel (26, above control pedestal)

co-pilot instrument panel (27)

main fire control panel (in 16, above engine control panel)

heater fire panel (2)

upper instrument panel (8)

forward overhead panel (3)

aft overhead panel (1)

As Larry told me recently, "see, I told you it was complicated!"

Up close and personal with DC-7 tankers: former passenger cabin, floating beam

Before going any further, it is very important for you to know that this photograph of the passenger cabin of tanker 62 was taken before the ballast items were loaded.

Ok, moving on, do you notice the box like structure running across the cabin floor? That is, according to Larry, the floating beam. The floating beam secures the retardant tank to the aircraft. But Larry says that it is another important purpose, it helps to distribute the "considerable weight of the retardant tank (1,500 lbs.) and the retardant (27,000 lbs.) across the front and rear wing spars." Larry told me later that the floating beam acts like a shock absorber. As I understand it, by acting like a shock absorber, the floating beam will absorb the shock as the tanker is taking off, flying, and landing.

Not only is the retardant tank, located below the floor of the passenger cabin (in the belly of the tanker), attached by means of the floating beam, there are attach points fore and aft. Larry explains:

Along with the floating beam, the tank has attachments at the forward and aft ends as well. The four attach points at the floating beam distribute the majority of the weight of the tank and retardant to the wing spars, but there are also two attach points near the front of the tank on top near the outboard corners.

These attach to a reinforced area of the fuselage where the forward baggage compartment and the hydraulic compartments meet in a bulkhead. There are two similar mounting attach points at the other end of the tank where the rear baggage compartment meets the heater and air conditioning compartments  All of these are belly compartments below the floor of the passenger compartment.

These mounting attach points don't have the shock absorbing qualities of the floating beam and I've seen individual mounting bolts break on a couple of occasions. Nothing serious, but on a preflight check you can see the tank sag near the broken bolt when it's loaded. On the plus side, I haven't seen one break in the last 15 years.

Up close and personal with DC-7 tankers: former passenger cabin, ballast

 The image above is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, remember that Butler's DC-7's once saw service with the airlines. Obviously, part of the conversion process from passenger plane to tanker has been stripping the old passenger cabin. Moving on. Now in this photo it is obvious that there is something going on. This is Butler's tanker 66 and the gentlemen in the photo is Brian Lash, the pilot of T-66. Larry Kraus tells me that in this photo, taken on May 26, 2008, Brian is doing a preflight check for a maintenance test flight of T-66. More importantly, Larry sent me this picture because it shows ballast secured in place on the aircraft.

Ballast represents additional items (for example the tires in back of the cabin in the above photo), is carefully stowed and secured at specific points called fuselage stations to add weight to bring the aircraft within manufacturer designated weight and balance parameters. It isn't just the weight of the plane that is important but how the weight is distributed within the plane that is crucial for safe operations. For example, weight that is distributed too far forward will put the plane into a nose down situation with possible fatal consequences for the plane and crew. Aviation mechanics, aka airframe and power train or A&P mechanics, periodically reweigh the plane and then check the planes center of gravity. Once the center of gravity is known, there are calculations that are performed that determine weight and balance parameters. Then additional ballast is often needed to bring the plane within these weight and balance parameters.

The photo above, a little fuzzy, shows one of these fuselage stations (F.S. 860) for tanker 62. What this means, according to Larry, is that this station is "860 inches aft of the weight and balance datum (F.S. 0, located at the tip of nose of the DC-7)." As I understand the weight and balance datum is also known as reference datum and is:

an imaginary vertical plane from which all horizontal distances are measured for balance purpose (FAA, Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook (2007), Glossary p. 5).

From this ballast station, F.S. 860, additional ballast stations (fuselage stations) and their assigned weights are calculated to assure that tires, parts, ladders, etc equal the required ballast. According to Larry T-62 carries somewhere around 1200 lbs. of ballast. Most of it is behind (aft) of F.S. 860 and some of it is forward of F.S. 860.

Larry wanted to show you a graphic from one of his DC-7 manuals (electronic files) showing the location of the fuselage stations. Unfortunately, computer troubles with the computer where these manuals are stored prohibit him from doing so. Thanks for the effort, Larry.

I want to close this article on ballast by letting Larry share with us about how the weight of the retardant tank (1,500 pounds empty and an additional 27,000 pounds when carrying 3,000 gallons of retardant) affects tanker 62's center of gravity (CG).

With the retardant tank installed, the DC-7 is out of the forward center of gravity range in the empty condition unless several hundred pounds of ballast is located right aft, or a higher total weight spread over the aft part of the fuselage. We originally used sandbags at the rear pressure bulkhead,which is as far back as you can go inside the pressurized cabin, just behind the seats in the old passenger lounge at the rear of the plane.

The weight varies from airplane to airplane. I think that it's around 660 lbs on tanker 62.We now carry spare tires.tools,parts and other supplies that are carefully weighed in place with the fuselage stations noted (in inches from the bulkhead forward of the cockpit) to be sure that we get it right.

The mechanics changed things around in T-62 this year after doing a new weight and balance and I think that they got the CG slightly too far forward. At least it felt that way on take-offs and landings.There's a heavy box that we can move fore and aft over several feet to easily adjust the CG, but it wasn't bad enough to adjust, although I thought about moving it a couple of feet aft to see if I was right, but the season ended before I got around to moving it.

References

A wikipedia entry on an aircrafts center of gravity and the related concept of weight and balance may be found here. A somewhat more technical publication (cited above) called the Aircraft Weight and Balance Handbook (2007) is published by the FAA and freely available on the web, Much of it is written for A&P mechanics and other aviation experts. But the first chapter or two have an overview that I could follow as well as a glossary.

Up close and personal with DC-7 tankers: engine maintenance (2 of 2)

Here are some more photos from Larry Kraus off Q.E.C. stands either ready to install or just removed from the airplane. In order to provide a reference regarding the size of the Q.E.C's, a couple of the photos have people near by. Enjoy!

 

 

 

Up close and personal with DC-7 tankers: engine maintenance (1 of 2)

 

 

The other day Larry Kraus and I were continuing our e-mail exchanges about DC-7 engines when he shared some interesting details on the process of how Butler changes out a bad engine for a good engine. I had wondered how aircraft engines are replaced, so I was very interested in what Larry had to say:

One point of interest concerning the DC-7 engine installation is that the engine, prop, oil system (oil tank/cooler and all lines) and all of the accessories are mounted in a Q.E.C. (Quick Engine Change) assembly. The British call this Q.E.C. a "Power Egg". If you look at the Q.E.C./Power Egg, you can probably see where the term originated, especially if you think of the Q.E.C. without the engine stand.

The pictures here show an engine that Butler brought to us for Tanker 66 in Fairbanks in 1983. The engine itself weighs about 4,400 lbs. The Q.E.C. when it's ready to install weighs a bit over 6.000 lbs. These picture are in sequence, including photos giving a good view of what a Q.E.C. looks like out of the engine stand.

These really are Quick Change assemblies. The record for Butler for an engine change is truly amazing.I was flying as co-pilot to Laddie Lash in 1979 in the old Tanker 67 on a fire near Klamath Falls. We shut #4 engine down because of smoke from an oil leak and flew to Redmond. The problem would take a while to repair and a Q.E.C. was ready that had been run the day before on a test stand.

There were no complications and it took right at two and a half hours from the time we parked in front of the hangar to starting to taxi out for a test flight. The test flight went okay and we were back flying on the fire within four hours of shutting the engine down. That's a record,but it isn't unusual to have the old engine removed and the new one ready to run within four hours.

As I understand it, the Q.E.C. is used for many tankers, and the Q.E.C. can take some time to build. For example, Larry tells me that "It takes a long time to build up a Q.E.C. when you start with a bare mount and an engine in a can. For the DC-7 Q.E.C. at Butler, it takes around 3-4 months per Q.E.C. in the winter with two or three guys working on it."

Up close and personal with DC-7 tankers: power plant specifications

As I was looking around on the web recently to learn some history of the Douglas DC-7's when I ran across a couple of references to power plant (engine) specifications for the four engines on the DC-7. The specification was as follows:

4× Wright R-3350 18EA1 Turbo-Compound radial piston engines, 3,400 hp (2,535 kW) each

Now because of the reference to a 3,400 hp engine, I suspected that these power plant specifications where for the DC-7C not only that but some of the other specifications (not listed here) did not match those that Larry had sent me earlier. They appeared to be for a slightly bigger and heavier aircraft. So, I sent Larry Kraus an e-mail, I include his response below. But first I want to thank Larry for the time he took to write me and walk me through the incorrect power plant (engine) specifications. I am now slightly better able to read power plant specifications in the future. Here is what Larry says:

Our engines are a mix of civilian and military engines.The civil engines are either DA4's or EA1's. With 115/145 avgas,the DA engines were rated at 3250 hp. The EA's were used originally on the DC-7C and had some localized strengthening of the crankcase and improved mounting flanges for the PRT's that allowed an increase to 3400 hp (the C model was larger and considerably heavier than the DC-7.I think that the max take-off weight for the C model was 142,000.

We also use R-3350-42's and a couple of other dash number Navy and Air Force engines that were used on WV-2's and C-121's.These were military versions of the Lockheed Constellation. The P-2 also uses very similar versions of the R-3350. All of these engines are the Turbo-Compound models with the PRT's (Power Recovery Turbines).There are 3 PRT's per engine. They are similar to turbo-superchargers in that they use engine exhaust to spin a turbine wheel,however,instead of the tubine wheel being attached to an air compressor (to boost the air pressure at the carburetor), the PRT's are connected directly to the engine crankshaft via a fluid drive something like an automatic transmission in a car.

The main difference between the DC-7 engines and those in the P-2 is that the DC-7 engines use direct fuel injection with an injector on each cylinder and the P-2 engines use a single large injector into the eye of the internal supercharger that's driven by the crankshaft. I don't remember all of the dash numbers for the 3350 military engines that we use,but if it matters.I think that I mentioned it in my WIX thread somewhere. These are large engines with two rows of 9 large cylinders (18 total). R-3350 means a Radial Engine with a 3350 cubic inch capacity (the internal volume of the cylinders). A large 8 cylinder car engine might be 350-400 cubic inches.

The main point being that all of these engines (DC-7 and P-2) have been de-rated to 2880 hp while using 100 octane fuel. I'll attach a cutaway of a DC-7 engine from the Douglas manual (above) that gives a view of the PRT drive. It's a bit complicated, but the PRT's really do recover horsepower that's just going out the exhaust. With the 115/145 power, each of the 3 PRT's is said to have been worth 150 hp at take-off power.

So, if I were to say anything about the power plant on Butler's DC-7's, I would say the following:

Four 2,880-horsepower Wright R3350 engines.

Thank-you Larry!

This just in, I am adding a couple of posts tomorrow on changing out engines on the DC-7. Stay tuned for more.

Note: double click on the manual page to enlarge the view for easy reading.

Up close and personal with DC-7 tankers: specifcations

This is the first of two articles on specifications of Butler's DC-7's. Tomorrow I will post an article focusing on the power plant (engines) specifications.

Weights of aircraft

Gross weights: The weights of Butler's DC-7's are 113,000 pounds gross with 100/130 avgas. The actual design gross weight was 122,000 pounds gross with 115/145 avgas (no longer easily available). According to Larry Kraus: "the difference is due to reduced horsepower available with the lower power settings allowed with 100/130 avgas. Our take-off power with the higher octane115/145 avgas was 3,250 power per engine. It is 2,880 with the reduced power settings".

Landing weights: Landing weights for Butler's late models DC-7's (T-62, T-66) is 100,000. Larry says that T-66 (a DC-7B) "had some structural reinforcement around the landing gear and also for the flaps. The landing weight for Tanker 60 is 102,000. That airplane has the same power reduction as the straight seven's, so the maximum take-off weigh for Tanker 60 is also 113,000.

Normal take-off weight loaded with retardant: 108,000 pounds.

Turning diameter (on the ground)

I have seen references to the turning radius in specifications of various tankers, so I asked Larry about this. It turns out that the spec that I had from one of the USFS documents (72 feet 8 inches or a diameter of 145 feet 4 inches) was close. I was interested in his comparison of the turning diameter of the DC-7B with the turning diameter of the C-118A (the military equivalent of the DC-6B). He sent me a copy of the turning radius page from the only DC-manual that he has available along with a manual page showing the equivalent information for the C-118A because it shows that the outer wing tip clearance is 74 feet. I want to point out here that the simulator that Larry and his co-pilot use is a C-118A simulator. This is what Larry had to say about turning radii:

This is close to what the USFS info gave for the DC-7. As you can see, it all depends on what you use as a basis for the turning radius.The reason for the slightly larger radius for the DC-6 vs the DC-7,even though the DC-7 is slightly longer with the same wingspan,has to do with the nosewheel steering limits.The DC-7 nosewheel turns 71 degrees either way and I think that the DC-6 only goes 67 degrees.

 

As you can see, the turning diameter of the DC-7B is 142 feet 5 inches and the turning diameter of the C-118A is 148 feet 2 inches

And in an earlier e-mail he spoke about the tight turning radius of a DC-7:

It's tight enough that the airplane doesn't pivot around a locked wheel on the inside of the turn.The inside wheel actually turns backwards.It still amazes me sometimes how tight of a parking spot you can get the DC-7 out of using maximum nose wheel steering.

Fuel Capacity

I'll let Larry explain the fuel capacity of Butler's DC-7's:

The DC-7 and DC-7B with the larger capacity fuel system (top in the above page from the Douglas manual) can carry 5512 gallons of fuel.That's the capacity on Butler's 7's.Our normal tanker fuel load is between 500-600 gallons per engine in the main tanks and 50-75 gallons per engine in the alternates.That allows between 3.5 and 4.5 hour flying.Our oil tanks also hold 46 gallons of 60 weight oil each.Avgas weighs 6 pounds per gallon and oil is 7.5 pounds per gallon.

Retardant Capacity

Butler's DC-7's can carry up to 3,000 gallons of retardant.


Dimensions

I think that this Douglas manual page that Larry sent me showing the dimensions of the DC-7 is self explanatory so I attach it below without comment.

Note: Double click on the manual pages to enlarge the view for easy reading

Up close and personal with DC-7 airtankers: Introduction

 

 

I want to begin by introducing Butler's three DC-7 airtankers: T-60, T-62, T-66. Tankers 62 and 66 are straight DC-7's originally built for United Airlines. Tanker 60, on the other hand is a DC-7B that was built for Eastern Airlines. Larry's tanker, since 1983, is T-62. His co-pilot is Ron Carpinella. A two-person crew, pilot (aka PIC or pilot-in-command) and a co-pilot flies Butler's DC-7s, there is no flight engineer. While each crew has a primary tanker, they do flew each of the three DC-7 tankers. The picture below is the original data plate from Douglas Aircraft for the plane that eventually became T-62. Butler has contracts with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and with CAL Fire for its DC-7's. As I understand it, specific tankers are committed to specific state contracts. In 2009, T-62 and T-66 were on ODF contracts, where tanker 62 was based in Medford and tanker 66 was based in Redmond. Tanker 60 spent three weeks in 2009 based out of Chico CA on a call when needed (CWN) contract.

The first DC-7 flew commercially for American Airlines in November 1953. Passenger capacity ranged from 74 to 99 in the DC-7's and DC-7B's. I was interested to learn from Larry that "the wingspan was exactly the same from the DC-4 through the DC-7B,although the wing structure changed considerably between models.The fuselage length grew a great deal from the DC-4 through the DC-7 as well.

The heavier DC-7C was slightly longer allowing for an extra row of seats, increasing the passenger capacity to 105. The DC-7C also had longer wings allowing for a larger fuel capacity. By the mid- to late 1960s most major U.S. Airlines had replaced their DC-7 with newer jet planes on their coast to coast and international runs. For more on the history of this magnificent aircraft go here.


 

Early on in my writings on aerial wildland firefighting, someone sent me links to a two-part video starring the DC-7 airtanker. Watching these videos only wetted my appetite to learn more about aerial wildland firefighting. These videos were put together by Bob Webb, one of Larry's former co-pilots who has since moved on from Butler and is now a PIC in his own right. Being an aficionado of aviation history, I enjoyed the images showing historical pictures of various commercial DC-7 airplanes. You will also a couple of images of one of Butler's DC-7 tankers when it was used by United Airlines.  For the last several minutes of part 1, you experience retardant drops from the pilot's point of view (aka the left seat). There is also some incredible footage of a thunder storm. Allow about thirteen minutes to watch this video. It is an incredible video! It may be found here. Note on May 13, 2013, the original link for this video was on Patrick's Aviation, a few months ago I noticed that it was no longer around, but only recently did I find this same video on youtube, but without the audio. Still, you get the pictures and video.

Overview: up close and personal with a DC-7 tanker

Over the course of the last several months, I have run into various references about the Douglas DC-7 air tankers on the web and in books and magazines. Over the summer I saw an article, probably from an Oregon newspaper with a photo of a DC-7 tanker then under contract to Oregon. Recently, I again saw references to DC-7 tankers being under contract to California, this time through an electronic bibliographic database that I accessed through my local public library. Now, I have always had a fondness for the various aircraft in the Douglas DC series, so I asked one of my airtanker pilot friends about these DC-7 tankers. I was lead to Butler Aircraft and then to Larry Kraus, a veteran tanker pilot who has been captain of one of Butler's three DC-7 airtankers.

I have been corresponding with Larry Kraus for the last several days. Thank-you Larry!! This correspondence plus this thread on Butler's tankers, started by Larry on the Warbird Information Exchange forums, form the basis for a series of articles on the DC-7 tanker. Please sit down and join me as we get up close and personal with these beautiful and historic tankers.

Upcoming topics include:

Dec. 7: introduction to Butler's DC-7 tankers and a little history
Dec. 8: specifications - pt. 1
Dec. 9: specifications - pt 2:
Dec. 10: engine maintenance pt 1 and pt 2
Dec. 11: shots of the former passenger cabin of T-62, ballast
Dec. 12: former passenger cabin continued, floating beam
Dec.14: the cockpit
Dec. 16: retardant drop cockpit controls and the drop sequence
Dec. 18: more on the drop sequence
Dec. 21: action shots pt 1
Dec. 23: action shots pt 2
Dec. 30: my reflections

Edited to add a revision I made at Larry's request on March 1, 2010: revisiting ballast, weight and balance, and fuselage stations

K-MAX around the world

Kaman K-MAX

When I was coming up with the list of type 1 helicopters that I just finished writing about, I came upon the Kaman K-MAX. If you have watched the video that I have embedded from the July 2009 airshow in Binghamton NY, then you have seen that the K-MAX has no tail rotor. The K-MAX is a different kind of helicopter using something that is known as synchropter technology where there are contra-rotating, inter-meshing rotor blades. In this design, a tail rotor is not necessary.

The K-MAX is designed for heavy lifting, where it is rated to lift 6,000 pounds with its cargo hook. For specifications, go here. A couple of videos, including a ten minute video introducing the K-MAX, "K-MAX around the world" may be found on this Kaman K-MAX web page. This same video may be found on you tube, I'll make a post embedding that video a little later.

The fire fighting version of the K-MAX is known as the FIREMAX. The FIREMAX has a 700 gallon fixed tank, and I believe that it also has the capacity for bucket operations although I'm not sure how large the bucket is.

Aviastar has a page with information about the K-MAX at this location.

Sikorsky S-64/CH54

Direct link to video


Direct link to video


Direct link to video

I have written extensively about the Erickson Air Crane, so you may recall that Erickson purchased the manufacturing rights and type certificate for the Sikorsky S-64E and S-64F from Sikorsky in 1992. You may also recall that the S-64 is the civilian version of the military CH-54. In addition to manufacturing "new" Aircranes, Erickson refurbishes military CH-54 for civilian use.

Some photos and specifications of the CH-54 may be found here. Wikipedia's entry on the CH-54 may be found here.

As I end this series on type 1 helicopters, I wanted to mention that there are some S-64 "Skycranes" that are flying that are not Erickson Aircranes. Most of these are refurbished military CH-54's. One of these Skycranes is shown in the video.

Edited and updated on November 20, 2017: the video that I originally embedded here is no longer available, so I have embedded three short videos of the CH-54, two are stock footage from Vietnam and the last is from a 1991 airshow. In addition, I have removed two dead links and replaced the links with what I hope is similar information.

Helicopters: S-58

One of the most successful helicopters ever built is the Sikorsky S-58/H-34. The military version is the H-34 Choctaw, serving in the armed forces of over 25 countries. This piston-powered helicopter was first flown on March 8, 1954. Sikorsky developed a turbine conversion kit for the S-58, the S-58T, which first flew on August 19, 1970. There are very few of these models still flying today, and as I understand it, most are used in firefighting and construction operations. I think, but am not quite certain, that the S-58 qualifies as a type 1 helicopter for firefighting, so I am writing about it now.

California Helicopters specializes in refurbishing S-58 and S-58T helicopters. They have a webpage with photos and specifications and another page with weights, performance and design specs.

Desiree Horton, a helicopter pilot who writes The Adventures of a Chopper Chick! weblog has (or still does?) fly the S-58. She summarizes the history of the S-58 here..

Wikipedia has a page on the H-34/S-58 that includes some photos and information on the different variants.

Type 1 helicopters: S-70

The military counterpart of the civilian Sikorsky S-70 helicopter is known as the UH-60 "Black Hawk". The first prototype of the UH-60, a design replacement for the Bell UH-1 or Huey series of helicopters, entered service in October 1974. It entered service in the U.S. Army in 1979.

In addition, there is a nice write-up (with some pictures) of the many variants of the UH-60 and the S-70 here, note that this is a MS Word document. The many variants make direct comparisons difficult.

The firefighting version of the S-70 is known as the Firehawk. The Firehawk can be fitted with a removable 1,000 gallon fixed tank. Existing Black Hawk's can be converted to the Firehawk configuration or the Firehawk can be built as a new model. The LA County Fire Dept has an air operations webpage with pictures of one of their three Firehawks and a description of the fixed tank system.

Type 1 Helos: Croman Helos

Last year I embedded some footage of a Croman Sikorsky S-61 here. That video has been removed by the user. For those of you who have found your here, enjoy this footage of Croman Helos shot in 2008.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Type 1 helicopters: Sikorsky S-61

The Sikorsky S-61 is the civilian version of the SH-3 sea king. The first operator of the S-61 was Los Angeles Airways, using them for passenger service starting on March 1, 1962. Passenger capacity is up to 30 passengers depending on the variant (there are six variants).

Some nice pictures and a video of the S-61 may be found here

Specifications for the S-61 (Frawley, Gerard: The International Directiory of Civil Aircraft, 2003-2004, page 194. Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, 2003 cited by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-61)

Typical Specifications (exact specifications depend on the variant)
Crew: 2 pilots
Capacity: up to 30 passengers
Length: 58 ft 11 in (17.96 m)
Rotor diameter: 62 ft (18.9 m)
Height: 17 ft 6 in (5.32 m)
Disc area: 3,019 ft² (280.6 m²)
Empty weight: 12,336 lb (5,595 kg)
Loaded weight: lb (kg)
Maximum takeoff weight: 19,000 lb (8,620 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric CT58-140 turboshafts, 1,500 shp (1,120 kW) each

Performance
Maximum speed:166 mph (267 km/h)
Cruise speed: 120 kn (222 km/h)
Range: 450 NM (833 km)
Service ceiling: 12,500 ft.
Rate of climb: 1,310-2,220 ft/min (400-670 m/min)

Croman Corporation has S-61's with 1,000 gallon fixed tanks used for firefighting operations. Croman has a page with pictures and videos of their firefighting S-61's.

Type 1 helicopter loading retardant from dip tank

I came across this video on you tube the other day. I a am pretty sure that this is a type 1 helicopter, possibly one of Columbia Helicopters tandem helicopters loading retardant from a dip tank. The helo was fighting fires in 2008 (I believe) in or near Tahoe National Forest in CA.

Type 1 Helicopters: fire fighting with Columbia Helos

To be honest, I am not quite sure which one of Columbia's tandem rotor helicopters is the star of the video, the Boeing Vertol 107 or the Boeing 234 Chinook. But you will get an idea of the fire fighting capabilities of Columbia's heavy lift, tandem rotor, helicopters. The video is shot from a camera on the pilot's helmet. In addition, you will hear audio feed of radio communications.

In addition, you might want to go and watch this video from Columbia. Here you will see more footage demonstrating the bucket operations.

Enjoy!

Type 1 Helicopters: Boeing Vertol 107

direct link to video

Columbia helicopters has a smaller tandem rotor helicopter, the Boeing Vertol 107. This is the civilian version of the CH-46 Sea Knight. Some pictures and a video of the CH-46 may be found here. Go to this location for the wikipedia entry for the CH-46 Sea Knight. I think that the tandem helicopter shown in the video that I embedded here is the Boeing Vertol 107.

Columbia purchased the type certificate to the Boeing Vertol 107 in December 2006. The 107 can carry a 1,100 gallon bucket. Spend a little time exploring the Columbia Helicopter webpage and you will find some photos of the Boeing Vertol and a video gallery featuring the Boeing Vertol 107 and its bigger brother, the Boeing 234 Chinook.

Specifications for the Boeing Vertol 107 may be found here.

Update on October 6, 2014:  The video that I originally embedded here of a Boeing Vertol 107 on wildland fire operations is no longer available. I found a video on the start up and departure of Vertol 107 that I thought you'd enjoy.

Ortega Fire: kudos to aerial firefighters.

I spent about an hour yesterday afternoon watching live streaming of the Ortega Fire burning in southern Riverside County, CA (south and east of Los Angeles. To see a map of this rugged area near the Cleveland National Forest, go here. The fire started late yesterday morning when a tractor knocked down an electric pole with a transformer, sparking the fire.

A couple of things that I want to point out. As I was watching the live streaming, I heard someone say (I assume the news helo reporter) that the winds were light or nonexistent. On the downside, they talked about high levels of fuels (vegetation) "fueling" the wildfire. Another downside, while there were a lot of ground crews fighting the fire, the steep terrain meant that the ground crews had a difficult time getting in and fighting the fire safely. This is the type of fire where aerial firefighting air craft can make all the difference.

Fortunately, there were aerial resources available and fighting the fire from above, two S-2's that I believe were from Hemet-Ryan, and four helicopters including one helitanker.

I have to say that I watched with awe as the fire grew during the time I was watching the live feed. I watched as embers blew down from the top of the ridge to an area down slope. The fire made a quick run up the mountain, impressive. I am told that I was watching something known as the chimney effect. And I watched the helos and the air tankers make drop after drop. See this news report from myfoxla for more information.

The good news is that what was reported as 10% containmentlate yesterday afternoon is now 75% containment. I understand that the latest estimate has firefighters containing this fire by around mid-day today.

Type 1 helicopters: Boeing 234 Chinook

A while back, I was visiting a friend who had spent some time in the military and was familiar with some of the helicopters then in use by the military, including the CH-47 Chinook helicopter. At some point the subject of my blog came up, he briefly mentioned the afore mentioned chinook helicopter, and suggested that I check out Columbia Helicopters.

I did so, and found that Columbia Helicopters uses the civilian version of the CH-43 Chinook, the Boeing 234 Chinook, for fire fighting operations. That was when I decided to spend a little time writing about the Boeing 234 Chinook and other type 1 or heavy firefighting helicopters. According to the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (chapter 6), a type 1 or heavy helicopters is defined as:

having at least 15 passenger seats or 5,000 lbs payload, 700 gallon retardant/water capacity, and maximum gross takeoff/landing weight of at least 12,501 lbs.

In the video you will see two of Columbia's heavy lift helicopters in action, the Boeing 234 Chinook and the Boeing 107 Vertol. I will be writing about the Boeing 107 Vertol in a later post. As you can see from the above video, both are tandem rotor helicopters.

The wikipedia entry on the CH-47 Chinook may be found here. More information, including some photos of the Boeing 234 Chinook may be found here.

Columbia has three variants of the Boeing 234 Chinook, the utility, combi, and the LR:

234 utility specifications
234 combi specifications
234 LR specifications

If you go the main page of the Columbia Helicopters web page (sorry that I can provide a direct link, and click on the operations menu and then on flight operations you will find their "fighting wildfires" page. You will see that the Boeing 234 Chinook carries a 3,000 gallon bucket, has a foam tank and is capable of carrying what Columbia calls long-term retardant.

I'd like to thank my friend and aviation historian, T, for his assistance in helping me find the links that I have included here and for the links in upcoming posts.

A quick note

In case any of you are wondering, I do not live anywhere near the flood affected areas. The storm system that has ravaged the southern areas of the Jersey shore and has also ravaged areas south of us is supposed to be pulling away from Jersey today. I understand from the weather channel that areas south of us, for example Norfolk VA were hard hit with flooding and rain fall in the double digits.

update on northeaster off northeast coast

The storm continues to slowly move up the mid atlantic and northeast coast. Myfox Philly has a map of wave heights as reported by buoys and ships. Impressive wave heights. I noted some buoys reporting 15 to 20 foot wave heights. Here is a slide show of some images of the flooding.

The Press of Atlantic City has a web page with reports of the storm and videos, it may be found here.

I understand that the NJ Forest Fire Service has been helping out with evacuations from Wildwood. See this thread on wildland fire for more information.

Coastal Flooding in southern New Jersey

I want to pause and write about the northeaster that is slowly moving its way up the eastern seaboard.

This storm -- the remnants of Tropical Storm Ida -- has been affecting southern NJ, Delaware and environs for a couple of days with rain, high winds (gusts ranging from 40 mph to 59 mph), and severe coastal flooding. For those of you who are interested, the latest advisories from NOAA may be found here. In the event that the link expires, I am copying the flood advisory below.

A fishing boat, the Sea Tractor was lost in rough seas from this storm off of Cape May, NJ on Wednesday night. The Coast Guard has suspended the search. For more information, see this article.

Coastal Flood Warning


COASTAL HAZARD MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOUNT HOLLY NJ
239 PM EST FRI NOV 13 2009

DEZ001>003-NJZ012-013-016-020>023-027-140500-
/O.CON.KPHI.CF.W.0004.000000T0000Z-091114T1500Z/
NEW CASTLE-KENT-INLAND SUSSEX-MIDDLESEX-WESTERN MONMOUTH-SALEM-
OCEAN-CUMBERLAND-ATLANTIC-CAPE MAY-SOUTHEASTERN BURLINGTON-
239 PM EST FRI NOV 13 2009


...COASTAL FLOOD WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 AM EST
SATURDAY...


A COASTAL FLOOD WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 AM EST
SATURDAY.


HIGH PRESSURE TO OUR NORTH AND LOW PRESSURE TO OUR SOUTH WILL
MAINTAIN A NORTHEAST TO NORTH WIND ALONG THE COASTS OF NEW JERSEY
AND DELAWARE INTO THE WEEKEND. THE FLOW WILL KEEP WATER FROM
DRAINING AWAY FROM THE COASTLINE AND TIDAL DEPARTURES WILL REMAIN
QUITE HIGH. WATER WILL BE TRAPPED IN THE BACK BAYS OF NEW JERSEY AND
DELAWARE FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR TIDE CYCLES.


WHILE THE HIGH TIDE EARLY THIS MORNING WAS LIKELY THE HIGHEST OF
THE STORM... MODERATE TIDAL FLOODING IS EXPECTED AGAIN DURING THE
HIGH TIDE CYCLES LATE THIS AFTERNOON INTO THIS EVENING AND EARLY
ON SATURDAY MORNING. AS A RESULT... THE COASTAL FLOOD WARNING
CONTINUES INTO SATURDAY.


FOR SANDY HOOK... NEW JERSEY ON THE BAY SIDE... THIS AFTERNOON`S
HIGH TIDE IS AT 451 PM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND 7.5 FEET
MLLW. THE HIGH TIDE EARLY ON SATURDAY MORNING OCCURS AT 526 AM
WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND 7.5 FEET MLLW.


FOR SEASIDE HEIGHTS... NEW JERSEY ON THE OCEANFRONT... THIS
AFTERNOON`S HIGH TIDE IS AT 421 PM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND
7 FEET MLLW. THE HIGH TIDE EARLY ON SATURDAY MORNING OCCURS AT
456 AM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND 7 FEET MLLW.


FOR ATLANTIC CITY... NEW JERSEY ON THE OCEANFRONT... THIS
AFTERNOON`S HIGH TIDE IS AT 437 PM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND
7 FEET MLLW. THE HIGH TIDE EARLY ON SATURDAY MORNING OCCURS AT
509 AM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND 7 FEET MLLW.


FOR CAPE MAY... NEW JERSEY ON THE OCEANFRONT... THIS AFTERNOON`S
HIGH TIDE IS AT 511 PM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND 8 FEET MLLW.
THE HIGH TIDE EARLY ON SATURDAY MORNING OCCURS AT 543 AM WITH A
FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND 8 FEET MLLW. WATER LEVELS IN THE BACK BAYS
WILL LIKELY RUN FROM ONE HALF TO ONE FOOT HIGHER THAN THOSE ALONG
THE OCEANFRONT.


FOR LEWES... DELAWARE ON THE BAY SIDE... THIS AFTERNOON`S HIGH
TIDE IS AT 551 PM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT OF 7 TO 7.5 FEET MLLW.
THE HIGH TIDE EARLY ON SATURDAY MORNING OCCURS AT 621 AM WITH A
FORECAST HEIGHT OF 7 TO 7.5 FEET MLLW.


FOR REHOBOTH BEACH... DELAWARE ON THE OCEANFRONT... THIS
AFTERNOON`S HIGH TIDE IS AT 450 PM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT OF 7 TO
7.5 FEET MLLW. THE HIGH TIDE EARLY ON SATURDAY MORNING OCCURS AT
522 AM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT OF 7 TO 7.5 FEET MLLW.


FOR REEDY POINT... DELAWARE... HIGH TIDE OCCURS AT 822 PM THIS
EVENING WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT AROUND 8 FT MLLW. THE HIGH TIDE ON
SATURDAY MORNING OCCURS AT 850 AM WITH A FORECAST HEIGHT OF 7.5 TO
8 FEET MLLW.


CONDITIONS ARE FORECAST TO IMPROVE GRADUALLY LATE IN THE WEEKEND.


PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...


A COASTAL FLOOD WARNING MEANS THAT FLOODING IS OCCURRING. COASTAL
RESIDENTS IN THE WARNED AREA SHOULD BE ALERT FOR RISING WATER AND
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY.


DO NOT PARK YOUR VEHICLE IN A LOCATION THAT IS PRONE TO TIDAL
FLOODING. ALSO... AVOID ROADWAYS THAT ARE PRONE TO TIDAL
FLOODING.

Importance of safe aerial operations

I had hoped to be able to begin writing today about some of the other weather conditions and visibility limitations that can ground fire fighting aircraft. This would be a nice follow-up to my recent posts about winds. My idea was to begin by writing about fog, so I have spent some time over the three days or so reading more about fog and then look at other weather conditions and visibility limitations that can ground air tankers.

As sometimes happens, I found that I need more time before I am ready to write about fog, other visibility limitations that can ground air operations. I have written about winds grounding aerial fire fighting operations, and I suspect that there are other weather related conditions that can ground air operations. Thunderstorms come to mind, and perhaps there are more.

But while I do need more time before I can write about some of these issues in more detail, I do want to emphasize the importance of safety. Tankers and helicopters will not fly when conditions are present -- high winds, turbulence, fog, thunderstorms, other visibility restrictions, etc. -- that will jeopardize safe aerial firefighting operations.

While I am learning more about fog, inversions, thunderstorms and the like, I will continue to write about other topics. For example, I have promised some friends that I will write more about some of the different types of helicopters used in firefighting. I will begin doing so on Monday.

In the meantime, I want to leave you with this thought:

Lives are not replaceable.

Air Operations on Sheep Fire (Oct. 2009)

Aerial firefighting operations can be grounded reasons other than high winds and turbulence. One example is fog. Another example is thunderstorm activity. I had hoped to write something in a little more details about fog today. Unfortunately, that post will have to wait.

In the meantime, enjoy this video. It was shot by Nick Mitchell at the Sheep Fire that burned outside of Los Angeles in early October. According to Nick's blurb on youtube, the video was shot before air operations were grounded due to 50 mph winds on nearby ridges.

Lives are not replaceable

I have been giving considerable thought to one of the last sentences in my post of November 6.. Recall that I ended with:

Strong winds and bad turbulence are dangerous to all aviation interests, include aerial firefighting operations, leading to grounding of aerial fire fighting operations. So, if you are living near a wildfire AND the winds are strong AND you don’t see tankers and helicopters making retardant or water/foam drops on the fire there is a reason. They are not flying because it is not safe to do so.

I gave careful consideration to what I can add given that I am not an aerial firefighter. Nor am I resident of the wildland/urban interface in parts of America that are especially vulnerable to wildland fires such as southern California, the southwest, the northwest, etc. Nor am I a (ground) wildland fire fighter. For that matter, I am not a structure firefighter nor am I a first responder (e.g. EMT).

But I have been writing about aerial wildland firefighting for about ten or eleven months now, and I have learned a lot of things, including (and not limited to) reasons tankers don't fly. That is:

• Lives are not replaceable.
• Pilots and crews care about what they do, and they are good at it. They want to help the wildland firefighters on the ground protect your home, AND they want to do so safely.
• Lives are not replaceable.
• Strong winds, rotors and turbulence WILL overpower an airplane. Flying in strong winds and turbulence including but not limited to downdrafts and rotors puts pilots and crews at great risk for fatal crashes.
• Lives are not replaceable.
• Pilots want to be safe, they don't have a death wish. And they want you to be safe.
• Lives are not replaceable.
• Not only does a tanker crash put the lives of the pilot and crew in jeopardy, it puts the lives of all those on the ground in jeopardy as well. This includes you, your family, and your neighbors.
• Lives are not replaceable.
• Perhaps wildland firefighters on the ground can save your house, but they won't be able to save your house if a tanker crashes into it.
• Lives are not replaceable.
• Post-crash fires might exacerbate an already bad situation, perhaps increasing the size of the wild fire.
• Lives are not replaceable.

In summary, there are certain rules with regard to sustained and gusting winds and turbulence that tanker pilots must deal with.The most important one being, If the winds are blowing strong enough that aircraft are likely to be destroyed, they won't fly. But also, if winds are blowing strong enough that retardant will be blown away before it hits the ground, they don't fly.

Lives are not replaceable.



postscript: I read in one of the Interagency Online Aviation Training Modules that what is good for an airplane is also good for a helicopter. And what is bad for an airplane is bad for a helicopter. So, I assume (for the time being) that what I wrote above applies equally to airplanes and helicopters. I hope to look into how downdrafts, rotors, and turbulence affect helicopters flying fires in the coming weeks and will write about what I find here.

Why tankers don’t fly: safety concerns and high winds

If you have been following recent LA Times articles, see for example this article , or Bill Gabbert’s blog then you know valid concerns have been raised regarding tankers and helicopters not being deployed to the Station Fire in the early morning hours of the second day of the Station Fire. These are legitimate concerns that should be addressed, however I am not addressing them here. Rather, I am concerned with high winds as a reason why tankers and helicopters don’t fly.

Knowing that many fires out west are in or near mountainous terrain, I got interested in learning more about winds and turbulence that occur in mountains and how they affect aviation interests. I went first to one of my general aviation books -- The Complete Pilot by Bob Gardner. Here I read about what is known as mechanical turbulence. If I understand mechanical turbulence correctly, mechanical turbulence occurs when a building or a mountain disturbs that the flow of the wind current, sometimes creating strong downslope winds on the lee side of the building or mountain. These winds are also known as down drafts or bad air. Strong down drafts (see the picture above) can have more down power than airplanes have climb power. A pilot caught in such a down draft may not be able to fly out of the downdraft.

The picture below illustrates something known as rotor winds, a pilot unfortunate enough to tangle with these winds is flying into winds that are likely to overpower an aircraft with often fatal consequences.

There have been fatal tanker crashes while flying fires where down drafts and/or rotor winds may have been a major factor in the crash including a fatal crash out west in the late 1990s and one or two fatal crashes in the 1970s (also out west).

Wind and turbulent conditions can be forecast by meteorologists. Strong winds and bad turbulence including but not limited to rotors and down drafts are dangerous to all aviation interests, including aerial firefighting operations, leading to grounding of aerial fire fighting operations. So, if you are living near a wildfire AND the winds are strong AND you don’t see tankers and helicopters making retardant or water/foam drops on the fire there is a reason. They are not flying because it is not safe to do so.


REFERENCES

For more information about mountain wave turbulence, please go to this web page from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, they are the source of the images that I have included here. I like that document, not only for the wonderful graphics but for a short and succinct explanation of mountain wave turbulence. While written for the Australian audience, I certainly got a lot out of it. Sparky Imeson, who wrote a book about mountain flying writes about mountain waves and rotor winds here. Sadly, Sparky died when his plane crashed earlier this year. His family is keeping up his web page on mountain flying. He has numerous articles on many other subjects related to mountain flying and I highly recommend them.  If I am correct, I believe he gave presentations on mountain flying at training sessions for air tanker pilots. I myself have spent at least a couple of hours on his website, and find myself frequently referring to it.

Good Drop, Effective Drop

When I started working on this article on the factors that make for an effective retardant drop, I was thinking about things like drop height (altitude), drop speed (aircraft speed) and winds. Then as sometimes happens, I set the draft aside for a few days. During this period I took some time to go through some files that I have accumulated over the last several months, along with some correspondence with a couple of my tanker pilot friends. The result, thanks to my reading (listed at the end of this article) and my correspondence with a couple of my tanker pilot friends is what you see here.

As I read through my files and reviewed some of my correspondence, what was driven home to me is that a good drop is when the crew completes the drop in a safe manner and returns home.

What makes for an effective drop then? Well, I have already talked about two factors: the tank system (some examples of tank systems currently in use may be found here, here, and here) and retardants . Other factors include the right altitude (height at which the retardant is dropped), correct airspeed, and calculating the drift of the retardant due to winds.

To set the stage, it is important to say what an ideal drop is, that is what is the tanker pilot aiming to do in making the drop? I understand from my reading as well as e-mails with a couple of tanker pilot friends that the goal in making an ideal drop is that retardant has no forward speed and rains down on the vegetation.

One of my tanker pilot friends tells me that one of the reasons that you want to eliminate forward speed of the retardant  is to (hopefully) eliminate shadowing. As I understand it, shadowing means that all the retardant is plastered against the side of the tree, bush, even grass facing the drop while the backside is left untouched by retardant. Eliminate forward speed of the retardant and shadowing of the retardant is eliminated.

In addition, retardant drops at forward speeds can be very dangerous to ground crews who have not moved away from the drop zone. Fortunately, Incident Command will usually be able to clear ground crews from the drop zone to avoid these situations.

My tanker pilot friend made a couple of more pertinent points on retardant drops. First, he told me that dropping retardant at too high an airspeed (aka drop speed) can shear the retardant load apart so that it disperses too much leaving gaps in the coverage. Two, dropping to high, especially in high winds means that pilots won't be able to predict where the retardant will land.

Finally, he went on to say that if it is safe to do so in these high wind conditions, pilots might be able to make a retardant drop from a lower altitude so that some retardant line can be built. There might be gaps in the line, and the pilots may not be able to predict the coverage level, but at least there will be some retardant line that will slow the fire until the ground crews can get there.

As I was doing my background reading for this article I was impressed by the problems of making retardant drops in high winds. That is, when making drops in high winds, not only does the pilot/crew risk not knowing where the drop will end up, they are flying in very extremely dangerous conditions.

References:

I am including links to some of the USFS documents that I read while doing background research for this article. Before you read the documents below, I should caution you that some of the numbers cited are under ideal conditions in the laboratory, so to speak. Aircraft performance in actual drop conditions on the fire line will be different.

Lavalette, Greg. Safe Drop Height for Fixed-Wing Airtankers. 0057-2317-MTDC. Aviation Tech Tips (March 2000). US Forest Service, Technology and Development Program, Missoula Technology and Development Center, Missoula, MT.

Suter, Ann. Aerial Delivery Systems User Information: Wind Speed and Drop Height. ug-7. Wildland Fire Chemical Systems - MTDC. February 2005. US Forest Service.

Suter, Ann. Aerial Delivery Systems User Information: Drop Speed. ug-13. Wildland Fire Chemical Systems - MTDC. February 2005. US Forest Service

Additional Aerial Delivery Systems User Information documents, Safe Drop Height for Fixed-Wing Airtankers, and other documents relating to testing aerial delivery systems may be found on this USFS webpage.

What's next and review

I am resuming with two articles I have been working on for a couple of weeks: (1) what makes for effective retardant drops and (2) more on how winds affect and interfere with aerial firefighting operations. Look for the first of these articles later in the day on Wednesday with the second article coming sometime on Friday. Recall that I wrote here that I had to take some more time to do some background research. If you want to refresh your memory on what I was writing about you might want to go back and read these posts:

• October 19: Engine failures with happy endings
• October 21: 40-year veteran air-tanker pilot speaks
  

Memories: Hemet-Ryan AAB 1964-1971

I'd like to thank TL Stein for his permission to post this video. The video is in memory of his Dad, Chief Thomas W. Stein. Chief Stein shot the footage over the course of seven years (1964-1971) during his career with the California Department of Forestry. TL Stein shares his feelings about this video:

When aerial firefighting started out, it was an entirely new concept and science.  For 30 years, people had experimented with various ideas until what we know as the "retardant tank" was made the solution.
 
What is seen in the video, is basically the way it was in it's first 10 years of life.  The planes, the people...pioneers with an idea and a concept.  I'm proud my father was a part of this history and this is the major reason it's important to me to be sure it is documented as best I can.

Plan on spending about 12 minutes to watch the video, you will see some vintage air tankers and get a feel for what life was like at an air attack base in the late 1960s. History helps to form the present. To appreciate what air tanker and helicopter pilots did 45 years ago is to appreciate what they do today. 

Enjoy!

Another video from fire pirates

Here is another fire pirates video that I found on youtube. Enjoy

Postscript (10;30 AM): Opps. Just realized that I accidently posted the same video twice. I have just corrected this post with the second of two fire pirates videos from you tube. The first fire pirates video may be found here.