sweeps
Undercarriage Actuator
I don't believe so. Knew a few guys who flew P-2s tankers and they never mentioned it and I have never seen any pics of them, and I kind of nerd out on tankers
Around the ramp at the home field, MZJ
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
I don't believe so. Knew a few guys who flew P-2s tankers and they never mentioned it and I have never seen any pics of them, and I kind of nerd out on tankers
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
Can you grab me a fan blade from that JT9D or CF^, whatever it is, sitting in the dirt on the ground? I've got money
jwp_145
GhostRider in the Sky
Intermountain was a CIA front company, yes? It seems to come up a lot when researching Air America, as does SOuthern.
My best friends grandfather ran intermountain back then. Although he's quite old now, I've had the chance to talk to him several times about what they did and how they did it. He has some pretty neat stories about how they used and tested the Fulton skyhook in operation cold feet. He is still very actively involved in his airline, sierra pacific airlines. They do some pretty cool stuff as well and his son is the chief pilot who is like a second father to me and grew up at mzj when his dad was running intermountain. Interestingly enough my friend who is the chief pilots son has no desire what so ever to fly anything, even with a 737 job handed to him!!!
Yes they were, one of the main ones. Intermountain's former President, is now the President of Sierra Pacific Airlines.
Intermountain's public image was that of aircraft storage, maintenance, and flight operations doing forest fire support dropping smokejumpers as well as aerial firefighting.
Their behind the scenes stuff was all sorts of clandestine crap.
The company motto on their brochures was "Total Air Support for Remote Operations".
Take that to mean whatever application you like......
How is Gar these days?
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
@MikeD Really enjoyed the videos of the tanker version. I never got a true, clear picture (reasons) why she was hardly used here. I remember something about some sort of spec nonsense with the Forestry Department and I couldn't believe she sat on the ground during the terrible fires in Colorado a couple years back. She fought some fires in Mexico, Spain and Israel and a few out west but that's all I know about. There was some company who had partnered with Evergreen and was going to be the third party go between for her scheduling and availability and contracts world wide to be used in fire fighting. Then the whole venture seemed to just piddle out. Do you have a better picture of why she just never made it into full continuous service in that capacity?
It did just seem to peter out, and yet a heck of alot of R&D went into the two 747s converted to the role. The USFS never showed any real interest, in fact the two DC-10s out of VCV are only on a CWN basis (call when needed), not on an on-call contract of any kind. This is pricey and tough to support, and I don't know if the 747, which likely contracted out at a higher rate, just wasn't taken in by the USFS or any of the states for anything longer-term that Evergreen would've found to be financially viable. Which is sad because those planes were extremely capable, and the program had some real promise.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
I've never understood what happened either and figured I had just missed the details somewheres along the way. It seemed to me to be such a viable option for large wildfires on a global basis and the time, money and technology that was spent to that means, was huge. I mean her capabilities were pretty awesome. Somethings just make no sense, I guess and good opportunities go down the tubes.
I haven't really looked into (and certainly perhaps I would not even comprehend/understand all the certs and requirements for firefighting aircraft by the FAA and the IATB) the details but it seems to me it's quite a complicated, lengthy and red tape process. I remember reading something last year about several companies who had received contracts for several types types of aircraft to be used in firefighting, but almost none of them had been able to make much headway even as far as just testing phases and supposedly, the checks alone cost in the millions of dollars. Seems rather counterproductive on some level considering how badly we need these aircraft.
I am grateful that we have Cal Fire out here. They at least keep adding/ updating, doing more contracts for aircraft and this year, because of the drought conditions and a few "early" fires, they started their preparedness and training much earlier. They even have an OV-10 that they usually send up at the beginning of a fire for mapping and observation work. That is pretty cool. They also got a substantial raise in their budget this year from our numbnuts governor as well and they hired a couple of hundred more seasonal firemen which is a happy thing.
Last edited:
Of the newer planes out there, and newer being a relative term, the BAe-146 is one of the newer platforms being fielded for firefighting work. Seems to be working out.
The 747 had nearly twice the water/retardant carrying capability that the DC-10 has; 24,000 vice about 12,000 or a little more. The DC-10 is very effective as a VLAT, but I think the 747 proved that it was too. Why 10 Tanker Air Carrier (the DC-10 operator) got any kind of contract (which they deserve), yet Evergreen and it's 747s got a couple of uses here in the USA at best, is perplexing.
The 747 had nearly twice the water/retardant carrying capability that the DC-10 has; 24,000 vice about 12,000 or a little more. The DC-10 is very effective as a VLAT, but I think the 747 proved that it was too. Why 10 Tanker Air Carrier (the DC-10 operator) got any kind of contract (which they deserve), yet Evergreen and it's 747s got a couple of uses here in the USA at best, is perplexing.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
I don't get it either. The documentary video said it all as far as I could see. Impressive. Cal Fire is all excited because they just got a DC-7 on contract earlier this year.
Last edited:
Stupid politics.
Fire bad. Water/retardant good. What's so freaking hard?
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Seriously? I swear I don't understand all this complicated nonsense or the contracts at all. I need to research that more. I know I had read some b.s. a while back regarding the the Forestry Service (which I keep calling Department- sorry about that) and the Evergreen 747 and a plethora of hoops and issues that seemed to make it all but impossible for her to be used because of all their different requirements and mandates. I'll have to see if I can find something on the net when I have time.
Last edited:
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
Sad. I hate seeing all these 757's sent out to die.
What a sad, terrible place.
Blasphemy! What will they put my beer in?
Similar threads
