DC-7 Tankers in Action (part 3A)

I continue with these articles on DC-7 tankers in action, focusing on the youtube video (from the Dixie Gulch Fire) that I posted on March 4 and again on March 5. I continue today with three posts (part 3A, part 3B, and part 3C) with some stills captured by Larry Kraus from video shot by Bruce Smith (Air Attack) from the back of the ASM assigned to the fire.

Larry says that these two pictures show

tanker 66 dropping a couple of doors as the second run with his first load on the Dixie Gulch Fire.

Note what appears to be the small airport in the second photo.

 

 

DC-7 Tankers in Action (part 2)

Larry found his logs from the day of the fire in the video that I will share with you in a moment. But first, a word on (DC-7) T-66. The pilot-in command of T-66 is Brian Lash. Now it was Brian's day off on the day of the Dixie Gulch Fire, so the pilot of T-66 that day was Gene Teske flying with Rick Langstrom (Brian's co-pilot).

Here are the pertinent entries from Larry's log for Sunday the 13th:

Took 2 loads to the Dixie Gulch Fire-Near the fire from yesterday-Coverage 8 full load twice-Went well with ASM A4- T66 came in from Redmond for 2 loads (Gene Tesko/Rick Langstrom)-Later T10 (Chris Holm) and T05 (Skip) loaded at Medford for fires by Klamath Falls-First T66 had to move out of loading pit-Later T62 had to move (with Medford Air's tug to Ericson ramp))-Fly T62 for 45 minutes total-

Larry provides some more specific information about how he was flying T-62 during the drop shown in the video. But first, I went to pause and spend a little time with some terminology that Larry will be using. Flaps are on the wings of most aircraft, we'll get to them in a little more detail in a minute. BMEP refers to power settings of the engines. In this case, the tachometers on the DC-7 indicate engine rpm. Larry spent a little time the other day providing some more details on these terms as applies to his DC-7, T-62:

As to BMEP, about the best explanation that I can give is that it gives a real-time accurate indication in the cockpit of the horsepower being developed by the engines.

On the DC-7 the tachometers actually indicate the engine rpm. The reduction gears in the engine nosecase reduce the propeller rpm by a factor of 16:9, so the prop turns at a bit over half of the engine RPM. This is partially because the prop tips become supersonic above these reduced speeds and drastically lose efficiency. If my math works, the prop speed on take-off is 1631 rpm with the engine rpm of 2900. This is still a rather impressive 27 revolutions per second for the prop and 48 for the engine.

Wing flaps allow the wing area and camber (curvature) to be altered to make it more efficient for either high or low speed flight. For take-off, the DC-7 uses 20 degrees of flap. The wing flaps extend aft increasing the wing area and deflect downward at a 20 degree angle to increase the camber of the wing.Once the landing gear has been retracted and the airplane has gained enough altitude to safely allow for any settling resulting from the loss of lift, the flaps are fully retracted to allow an increase in speed.

Larry sent along two pictures of T-62, one with the flaps extended and the other with the flaps retracted.

Larry goes on:

With the flaps retracted (to zero degrees) there is slightly less wing area and the wing has less camber which allow for higher speed mainly due to less drag. For landing or the final part of the drop pattern we end up with the flaps fully extended to 50 degrees. This is a high drag position that helps to control the airplane's speed. With the flaps on the DC-7, the first 20 degrees is all lift, 30 degrees is slightly more lift, but with some additional drag. Above 30 degrees any increases in flap angle are mostly drag.

For those of you who are interested in some more specifics on the flaps of the the DC-7, Larry says that

the flaps on the DC-7 are double slotted flaps, but the upper slots on the DC-7 are just airfoil shaped deflectors that are the full span of the flaps, but only have a chord of about a foot. In the picture of a double slotted flap from how stuff works, the slots are larger than the rest of the flap.
Here are two links that Larry sent me to share for those of you who want more information about how flaps work, one is from Wikipedia and the second is from How Stuff Works.

With this as background, Larry continues with how he is flying T-62 during the drop in the video:

I had full flaps (50 degrees) out during the part of the drop pattern that is in the video. At least I have full flaps until the retardant starts coming out at which time we normally retract the flaps to 20 degrees (the take-off setting) and go to climb power which is 175 BMEP and 2400 RPM for the recovery and climb out.

In the final part of the pattern we usually have 2400 RPM set and are throttled back to as low as 100 BMEP, which is the minimum that we can set without driving the engine with the prop instead of the other way around. Normally, in the drop pattern, we start out with 20 flaps and 2400 RPM and 130-140 BMEP in order to stabilize at around 140 kts. On downwind for the drop we'll go to 30 flaps and 130 BMEP and maintain between 130-140 kts.Somewhere around base for the drop we'll go to full flaps and whatever power is required to maintain 130 kts.

When I start dropping the retardant I'll call for Climb Power and Flaps 20. This allows the airplane to accelerate without losing lift too quickly. If I need to make an immediate turn or clear a ridge or both, we'll go to climb power and leave full flaps until we can afford to have the airplane settle a bit with flap retraction. It all depends on the situation at the time.

DC-7 tankers in action (part 1)

This is a video that I found on youtube a few weeks ago, I sent Larry Kraus the link and we have been chatting about this video over e-mail. This is the first of three or four articles where, with Larry's help, I spend a little time on what is going in this video.

Before I go any further, as you watch the video you will see a drop by T-66 (also a Butler DC-7 tanker), followed by a drop by Larry in T-62, then a drop by T-66, and finally another drop by T-62. I watched the video a few times and thought that the T-62 footage might be the same drop, so I asked him about this. He says,

I came to the same conclusion on the video showing a single drop for each airplane taken from slightly different camera positions.

Larry spent a little time going through his data and logbooks to identify the fire shown in the video. He sent me the following graphic of a TFR (temporary flight restriction) for a group of fires known as the Queen's Branch Complex, saying"

I attached the TFR map for the Queen's Branch Complex of small lightning caused fires near Medford, Oregon. This might be where the video was shot. The only thing that's confusing to me is that there's no sign in the video of the Alaska ASM that was acting as leadplane, but I suppose that it might have been edited out. If it was edited, that's a shame as it would be even more interesting with the lead.

I will go into some more detail in a later post about how Larry identified that the fire in the video is the Dixie Gulch Fire. For now, take a close look at the TFR graphic, you will see a small airport -- Springbrook -- within the TFR. The Dixie Gulch Fire was located not far from the Springbrook Airport. The key, as Larry told me, is the word

"complex" which indicates several fires being included within the confines of the TFR. The Queen's Branch Fire was the first fire responded to and it's name was used for the TFR.

Larry talks about maneuvering T-62 while making a retardant drop:

As to maneuvering the DC-7 around during drop patterns, there are a few things that must be done. The first is that I have to keep glancing at the airspeed indicator every couple of seconds and my co-pilot (Ron Carpinella in the video) knows to tell me if we get down to 120 kts indicated airspeed if I haven't told him that I was purposely slowing the airplane. Also, the DC-7 has an excellent aerodynamic stall warning in the form of a buffeting that starts in the control yoke at about 5 kts above the stall. If you don't release back pressure or reduce the bank angle when this "nibbling" starts, the whole airplane shakes violently enough to about shake your teeth loose prior to the wing actually stalling.

In the video, I think that you will notice that I keep the nose down during the turns and I'm still about 15 kts above stall speed even after tightening the turn. Part of tanker flying includes leaving yourself an escape route to lower terrain if something starts to go wrong. I try to brief my co-pilot on where that escape route is before we start a run. Of course, it isn't always possible to find good routes to lower terrain, so I keep the best available escape path in mind on all drop runs.

The B-17 was a good trainer for that as you couldn't climb out of most situations and had to plan an escape route that was sometimes a couple of miles long. It also gave me a built in awareness of which way was eventually downhill. For several years in the 1970's, I drove a 1964 VW van with a 40 hp engine. I semi-joked that the VW van and the B-17 were very similar as with either one, you always knew which way was uphill and which way the wind was blowing.

One other item on the video is that the camera angle makes T62 look lower in relation to the terrain that it actually is. That said, we do get low and slow (think 130 kts and 150 ft while loaded) and have to maneuver in tight places close to the ground in areas where the visibility can go to zero for several seconds at a time in smoke. As I've mentioned before,the tanker business is complicated and nothing is ever easy.

I asked him about dropping the nose during his turns, he explains:

As far as keeping the nose down in turns in the DC-7. All of the Douglas 4 (piston) engine transports tend to slow quickly if you let the nose come up with a lot of flap deployed. The approach angle for landing is decidedly nose down in these airplanes and a pilot's natural tendency is to let the nose come back up toward the horizon. You have to learn to fight that tendency when flying these airplanes in either the landing or drop configuration.You are also correct in assuming that keeping the nose down in the turns gives an added buffer against a stall.

We will hear from Larry tomorrow on his drop at this fire. Stay tuned!

Other articles in this series (March 5 to March 12, 2010)

DC-7 Tanker in Action (part 2)
DC-7 Tanker in Action (part 3A)
DC-7 Tanker in Action (part 3B)
DC-7 Tanker in Action (part 3C)
DC-7 Tanker in Action (part 4)
DC-7 Tanker in Action (part 5A), Mud Mountain Fire
DC-7 Tanker in Action (part 5B), Mud Mountain Fire

DC-7 air tanker (T-62): working with leadplane/air attack

Larry Kraus, pilot of T-62, and I spent some time chatting over e-mail about how he works with lead planes when flying fires. The situation that we are talking about is when he flies with an ASM (a PC-7) that often functions as a lead plane. When the ASM is functioning as a lead plane, the ASM flies at low altitudes (under 500 ft above ground level) with the goal of scoping out where the tanker can make a safe and effective drop. When the lead plane crew have determined where the drop should be made, that information is communicated to the tanker (in this case T-62). The tanker follows the lead plane in, following their route and makes the drop where indicated by the lead plane.

But the ASM can have a second function, that of air attack. As I understand it, the primary function (but not necessarily the only function), of air attack is to coordinate aircraft over the incident fire. This would include communications with the incident commander on the ground and communication with aircraft working the fire.

I'll let Larry explain the ASM function in a little more detail:

The ASM can function as an Air Attack if there is no other Air Attack available over the fire. When that's the case,the ASM will orbit the fire at 1000 ft or higher between tankers to allow the Air Attack to get a good view of the fire in order to plan and co-ordinate the attack on the fire by all resources. The Air Attack will normally be in radio contact with the Incident Commander (Fire Boss),with Dispatch and the air resources.

It's not unusual for the ASM to go to a fire as an initial attack resource and decide that tankers are not needed and then remain over the fire as Air Attack, even if there are no other air resources (helicopters,for instance) are assigned. In that case, the Air Attack will be talking to the firefighters on the ground and with dispatch.

When a tanker arrives,the ASM functions as a leadplane.It then reverts to Air Attack when the tanker leaves. If there is a full time Air Attack available over the fire, the ASM can still take over and act as Air Attack if the normal Air Attack needs to go in for fuel or relief.

Vote for Wildland Firefighter Foundation NASCAR design

Ramblings of a chief officer has a nice post with graphics and a link where we can vote for a wildland fire themed NASCAR design. I am somewhat embarrassed for not posting this sooner because I know the person who came up with the design. Anyway, as I understand if the design wins, all proceeds will go to the Wildland Firefighter Foundation. To see this post go here, and follow the link in the article.

The voting ends in 13 days, which I believe should be on or about March 13. You can vote once each day.

And while you are at Ramblings of a chief officer's blog, take a moment and look around at his great site!

DC-7 tanker: revisiting ballast, weight and balance, and fuselage stations

Some of you may remember the series on the DC-7 tanker that I wrote last December, with the help and cooperation of Larry Kraus. Recall that Larry has been the pilot-in-command of T-62 for 27 years. One article in that series was an article that I wrote on ballast.

I am writing this article to follow-up on that article on ballast that I wrote last December with some information that Larry sent me in e-mail a few days ago. But first, let me review and summarize weight and balance.

All airplanes, large and small, have weight and balance limits that are set by the manufacturer and periodically checked by airframe and powertrain (A&P) mechanics. It is crucial that all airplanes must be within these weight and balance limits for safe flight. Every airplane has a center of gravity (CG), the point at which the plane is perfectly balanced. If you will, you could suspend the airplane from a string at the CG and the plane will be level. A plane with weight distributed too far forward will result in a nose down condition and if the weight is distributed too far aft (in the rear) will result in a nose up position. Both conditions can have fatal consequences for the crew.

In order to bring the airplane, in our case, the DC-7 tanker within her weight and balance limits, ballast is secured at carefully designated stations, known as fuselage stations. Fuselage stations are measured from a point known as a datum (aka fuselage station zero).

When I wrote the article on ballast as applies to the DC-7 tanker last December, Larry wanted to show  you a graphic from one of his DC-7 manuals showing the location of the datum and the fuselage stations in the DC-7 tanker. The problem at the time was that the manual that Larry needed was on a laptop that was comatose at the time, so he was unable to share the fuselage station diagram. The only manual that he had was a Douglas manual for a very early DC-6, showing the datum at a different location. Larry's comatose laptop revived, at least temporarily, a few days ago and Larry sent me a copy of the fuselage station diagram for the DC-7 tanker. You might want to click on the image below to enlarge the image for better viewing.

I'll let Larry explain:

It turns out that I was right about the location of fuselage station zero after all.I was sure that it was the front pressure bulkhead in front of the cockpit.As the radome nose on the DC-7 was an option and was several inches longer than the stock metal nose,I couldn't understand how the end of the nose could be the reference point.The early DC-6 must have been different than the later DC-6 and the DC-7.The DC-6 didn't add weather radar until later in production.The only reference picture that I had without the DC-7 manual was a Douglas manual for a very early DC-6.

wrapping up BAER and hydromulching, and what's next

As I sit here in the early stages of yet another snow event affecting the mid-Atlantic region, I have been wondering how I was going to wrap up this series of posts on burned area emergency response (BAER) and aerial hydromulching operations. I'm not sure that I have all that much to say. For I think that the videos that I embedded speak for themselves.

That being said, I find myself thinking that aerial wildland firefighting often times does not stop with tankers dropping retardant or water-foam on wildfires. In some areas where the burn has been severe and/or erosion can be a real problem, aircraft such as the AT-802 and the Erickson Air Crane perform an important role in post-fire rehabilitation. So, as time goes on, I will periodically revisit BAER progress after wildland fires, including but not necessarily limited to aerial hydromulching operations.

As for what's next, I have continued to correspond with Larry Kraus, pilot-in-command of tanker -62, one of Butler Aircraft's DC-7 tankers that will be under contract with the Oregon Dept. of Forestry later this year. I'll be make a few more posts on the DC-7 tanker next week into early the following week. Stay tuned!

Hydromulching: k-max

I enjoyed this short video of the Kaman K-Max helicopter performing hydromulch operations on Starky Slope near Parachute, Colorado. According to the information on youtube, the area being hydromulched is over or near a pipeline owned by Williams Gas. While it appears that this particular hydromulching operation may not be related post-fire rehabilitation, it does suggest that the K-max helicopter can be used in Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) related hydromulching operations

Hydromulching: Erickson Aircrane

This is a slightly shorter version of a video from Erickson Air Crane showing how the "Crane is used in hydromulching operations. The footage shown is of hydromuclhing operations of Griffith Park after a 2007 wildfire. The complete version of the video may be viewed at this location, you will have to scroll down and select the "hydroseeding" video.

Firebreak to be constructed in Barnegat NJ (in the Pine Barrens)

The last large wildfire that burned in the New Jersey Pine Barrens was the Warren Grove Fire that burned over 15,000 acres in May of 2007. In January 2009, I wrote about a couple of trips I took to the Pine Barrens with references to the Warren Grove Fire and posted some photos of how the area has come back after the fire, go here to read this post.

Among the areas affected by this fire were clusters of residences in Barnegat and Stafford Townships NJ. These communities adopted a fire safety plan in November of 2008 that included the construction of firebreaks. Someone recently sent me this article from the Asbury Park Press about a planned firebreak along Pancoast Road on the border of Barnegat and Ocean Townships in New Jersey. I believe that this firebreak may have been a part of the fire safety plan passed in November 2008.

Note that this article may only be freely available until this Thursday, Feb. 25. The article says in part:

A nearly three-mile long fire break to protect adult communities in Barnegat got a green light Friday from the state Pinelands Commission, a step toward what fire wardens say will be a 200-foot wide selective thinning of a dense pine-oak forest along Pancoast Road on the boundary of Barnegat and Ocean townships.

The plan is similar to a project along Hay Road in Stafford, and likewise inspired by the great May 2007 forest fire that forced thousands to evacuate their homes west of the Garden State Parkway. Since then, the commission, the state Forest Fire Service and municipal officials have been working with community groups to be better prepared against wildfires.

The plan was presented last weekend to one community meeting in Barnegat, where a longtime resident told of a 1928 fire that destroyed his family's home, division fire warden Gergory McLaughlin recounted to commissioners Friday at their monthly meeting in Pemberton Township.

In the event of another major blaze, "this fire break is our last ditch attempt to protect those communities and our firefighters," McLaughlin said. ...

The plan is to selectively remove trees up to 200 feet from the north side of Pancoast Road, along 2.9 miles, and create "a more open, park-like forest," and lower the shrub height somewhat but not completely clearing to the ground, McLaughlin said. That aims to reduce the "fire ladder" of flammable low growth that can light the fuse for a fast-moving "crown fire" that burns high in the forest canopy and quickly skips from tree to tree, he explained. State foresters would periodically maintain the fire break to manage its growth density and fuel levels.

(Kirk Moore "Fire-break planned along Barnegat-Waretown line" Asbury Park Press, February 19, 2009, obtained on February 21, 2009 from http://www.app.com/article/20100219/NEWS/100219115/Fire-break-planned-along-Barnegat-Waretown-line).

What is a firebreak? According to the Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) a firebreak is a natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires that may occur, or to provide a control line from which to work.

In an ideal situation, I would of waited a couple of more days to post this to allow myself time to try and find out some more information for you. But if I did that then I risked having an expired link in my article, so I am posting this today. If I am able to find more information on this firebreak, I'll make some follow-up posts.

In the meantime, I'll be making a couple of more posts on BAER and hydromulching so stay tuned.

Hydromulching: BAER for 2002 Hayman Fire (CO)

To wrap up, for now, these articles on BAER and hydromulching, I am posting some information about the Burned Area Emergency Response, in particular hydromulching, after the 2002 Hayman Fire in Colorado, the largest fire in Colorado history. This human caused fire burned 137,000 acres southwest of Denver. Before moving to the BAER efforts, please take eight to nine minutes and watch the video that I embedded, a compilation of photos from the North Fork (CO) Volunteer Fire Department.

A map of the area burned by the Hayman Fire and rehabilitation areas may be found here.

The International Erosion Control Association reports on their efforts in hydromulching in an article with pictures that may be found here. Note that the Erickson Air Crane was used in these hydromulching operations. There is also a picture vegetation returning after seven growing seasons to an area that was burned in 1996.

There is some good information on some specific BAER efforts from the Coalition for the Upper South Platte with details on aerial and ground operations, and some links to some links to some videos (at the bottom of the webpage) that may be found here, and you might want to check out the Hayman Fire burn severity map.

A 2003 article from cyberwest magazine with more information about hydromulching and other aspects of BAER for the Hayman burn may be found here.

November 19, 2015: Many of the URLs that I included when I first wrote the artcile are no longer active. I have crossed out the references to the invalid links.

Angora Fire Recovery Aerial Hydromulch (part 2)

Angora Fire Recovery Aerial Hydromulch

This is the first of a two part video showing aerial hydromulching operations after the Angora Fire. Five AT-802's were used in these hydromulching operations, flying over 3,200 loads of hydromulch. In addition to watching the hydromulching operations you will see some nice footage of the AT-802 in action.

Enjoy! I will post part 2 in my next post.

More on hydromulch: Jesusita Fire

In this video you will find out more about what hydromulch is, why it works, and how it is loaded onto the AT-802.

Hydromulching: Jesusita Fire

The Jesusita Fire burned over 8,700 acres in Santa Barbara County, California in May of 2009. Last fall Santa Barbara County and Los Padres National Forest performed aerial hydromulching operations on areas burned by the fire. Simply, hydromulch -- one component of the Burned Area Emergency Response -- is applied to burned areas to prevent damage from erosion and runoff during the time it takes for new plant life to grow back.

Information on Santa Barbara County's hydromulching, that took place last September may be found here, including an FAQ page with more information on hydromulch, some photos of hydromulch, a map of the Jesusita fire hydromulch areas, and a link to the you tube video that I embedded here.

Information on the USFS hydromulching applications in areas burned by the Jesusita Fire in Los Padres National Forest may be found here.

And speaking of the Air Tractor 802A, you will see in the video that the AT-802 was used for hydromulching. I enjoyed watching these AT-802A's go through their paces.

I'll be embedding some more videos of aerial hydromulching applications later this week, so stay tuned.

November 19, 2015: Unfortunately, all of the links with the exception of the embedded youtube video are inactive (or dead links). 

Burned Area Emergency Response: Mill Flat Fire, Utah

The Mill Flats Fire, caused by lightening, burned over 12,500 acres in southern Utah last summer. 100 percent containment was achieved on September 7, 2009. At the time that I wrote this article, information on the burned area emergency response for the Mill Flat Fire was the subject of a report from KCSG News in southern Utah. Unfortunately, the video has since been removed and is no longer available.

Edited and revised on November 19, 2015

About Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation/Response (BAER)

I was writing about the other day about mudslides in the La Canada area of southern California burned by the Station Fire in late summer/early fall 2009. If you go to this inciweb report on the fire (dated Nov. 10, 2009), you will see a summary of the status of the fire, and reporting that the fire was fully contained on Oct. 16, 2009. You will also see that the report mentions three phases of rehabilitation following a fire:

• fire suppression repair
• burned area emergency response (baer)
• long-term recovery

A summary of these stages of rehabilitation may be found here. The Angeles National Forest is in the area burned by the Station Fire, and has a webpage devoted to the Station Fire Burned Area Emergency Response that may be found here.

Of interest is that fact that while the Station Fire was contained in October of 2009, the fire will not be fully controlled until after the winter rainy season ends. Moreover, the potential for damaging mud slides will exist for three to five years. The burned area of the forest is closed to the public except for residents of the area. For more information on these and other points see this FAQ on the Angeles National Forest Station Fire.

More specific information about what the Burned Area Emergency Response is may be found here.

Stay tuned for more on BAER.

November 19, 2015: I am able to revise a couple of links on this page. Unfortunately, I am not able to revise one outdate link and have crossed out that information. I am never quite certain how long links are available, especially after a few years have passed.

Mudslides in southern California

Wildland fires, such as those that burned in southern California last summer and autumn leave denuded areas, that is all the vegetation that holds hillsides together has been burned off. Until reseeding and mulching efforts on these denuded areas have a chance to take, rains can lead to mudslides. And heavy winter rains while helping to alleviate drought conditions in California have lead to mudslides.

There were more mudslides this past weekend in southern California near La Canada Flintridge, burned by the Station Fire in 2009. The LA CBS affiliate has a nice slide show that may be found here. An LA Times article on the mudslides may be found here.

Thank-you Queen Bee and Moving on

I am, for the moment at least moving on. I am, at least for the time being, finished with my series of articles on "Up close with the AT-802 with the help of Queen Bee".

Before doing so, I'd like to thank all the folk at Queen Bee for your time in the form of e-mails, photos, and a telephone conversation. Thank-you!! I know that we will be in touch again, which I am looking forward to. And when that happens, I'll be writing more here.

In the next period of time, I'll be writing about a potpourri of either wildland fire and/or aerial wildland firefighting issues and/or more general aviation issues. With a little fun stuff thrown in such as the shovel-cam video that I posted the other day.

Up close with the AT-802 with the help of Queen Bee: About flying fires

In my wonderings on the web recently, I found a couple of articles on how the AT-802's are used for flying fires. I think that they are both appropriate for this series, so I am sharing them with you. In the first article (from SWAviator online), a twenty-year veteran fire fighters gets up close and personal with the AT-802. The second article is from The National Agricultural Aviation Association, and you will hear from SEAT Contractors and BLM officials about how SEATs are used with a focus on the AT-802.

Here is another drop from an AT-802, this time on a fire in Croatia.