What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don’t need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
80 Comments
- Julikaefer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+62For non-US readers:
20 500 US gallons = 77 600.9419 liters
180 mph = 289.68192 km/h
500 feet = 152.4 meters - lumbergh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33What the heck number is "20,5000" ?? And that's in the article, too...
- veritech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20thats funny cause as a british person, i measure in liters, miles and metres.
imperial/metric mashup - troon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22@veritech
As a British person, you should spell it "litres" if you insist on using metric. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Video:
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/boeing_747_water_tanker.wmv
http://media.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/video/promo.wmv - paradoxic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12It's Florida arithmatic my son :-p
- JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15not really
a canadair plane can refill at nearby lakes in one minute. helicopters can refill at nearby lakes or even swimmingpools. this thing just drop the load and thats it. the pilot needs to go back to airport and i am sure it will take hours to refille the beast.
also, forest fires spread in huge zones. sure the supercargo can kill a fire at one spot, but it won t stop nothing overall. and it lacks the manoeuvrability of a plane like the canadair, unless the pilot is a stunt and has pretty good reflexes.
so this supercargo is useless in practice. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yes, it takes longer to refill, but it carries 7 times as much, and can dump portions of its load over multiple spots, whereas a conventional tanker dumps its whole load all at once. Also, it's obviously impossible for a conventional plane to drop 20,500 gallons in a single go.
As long as you can fill this thing up in the time it'd take a conventional plane to make, say, 4 or 5 runs, I don't see how this *isn't* more useful. It flies faster too, which means it can get to the fire faster.
Hell, you can fill up a 5 gallon bucket a hundred times faster than you can fill any fire-fighting plane, but that doesn't make it a better firefighting tool :p - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13For British readers: Your drought is over.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I like how they apparently intend to use an entire fleet of these to needlessly shower mid-town Manhattan in tens of thousands of gallons of water. WTF, mate?
- mrscotter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The "photo simulations" pics from that page are hilarious!
- tmcpheeters, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/gallery.html
- markperia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6talk about bad photoshopping (the pics on the gallery not the article itself)
- DVRDude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Looks useful for quickly filling the neighborhood pool.
- jtablerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8from their FAQ (http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/faq.html):
How much does the Evergreen Supertanker drop?
The Supertanker has 24,000 gallons of tank space onboard. This represents more than seven times the drop capability of the largest current aerial firefighting aircraft in use today, the P3. The Evergreen Supertanker also has the capability of performing segmented drops in quantities greater than or equal to the P3. - neffrix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6maximum payload for a freighter 747 is 248,300 lbs (112,630 kg)
205,000 gallons of water at 8.33 lbs per gallon is 1,707,650 lbs (774,577 kg)
20,500 gallons of water at 8.33 lbs per gallon is 170,765 lbs (77,457 kg)
20,500 gallons is the most realistic number - binarypower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/photo_pg/crew_02.html < I like the picture of the guys just pressing random buttons =)
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Note to all the naysayers: has it occured to you that perhaps the developers of this configuration did some etensive studies before they spent the tens of millions of dollars to acquire and modify a 747 for firefighting operations? Maybe, they had to convince their shareholders and bankers? Perhaps, they even had to convince the FAA, the forest service, and several other agencies who employ professional engineers of the feasibility of their plan?
But no... It couldn't possibly work, since some guy on digg.com (who knows nothing about the pumping capacity of aircraft refueling sytems, for instance) insists that it would take hours to refill the tanks, and some other guy can't realize that manuverability isn't the prime consideration when you're dropping 25 times the water that a smaller plane can handle.
-jcr - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4More likely they just cut and pasted it from the original article where it is also mistyped. So much for proof reading at the Tallahassee Democract.
- veritech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5my excuse is i grew up in the caribbean, so written and verbally i'm a mashup.
Plus it's nice to hit the front page again, sad that it's over this, considering some of the more informative thing's i've posted, oh well beggars can't be choosers. back in the top 500 users hopefully. Digg on - BinaryCortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It may take a while but it can lay down 5 miles of water at a time in a straight shot, or it can do segmented drops. It holds about 25 times more than the largest water bomber in existence currently. So the real question is how long will it take the little plane to make 25 runs compared to its 1.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Unless it didn't drop all the water at once, but made ten runs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Is it 20 500 gallons or 205 000 because 205 000 gallons make more than 770 000 liters it is more than the max weight of the biggest civil plan the A380.
- mikewhite314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe it is reasonable to assume that 500 feet includes more than 1 significant figure. After all, it's not as if they're going to write 50*10^1...
- DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know, if this were some lunk-head in the back yard modifying a chevy pickup truck with a dozen super soakers duct-taped to it, I could see the point in all the naysayers here on digg slamming it. But, like you say, this is a major company that is not about to spend millions on this idea unless they calculated the cost of fuel, turnaround times, maintenance costs, storage costs, etc.... down to the last penny, then re-checked all their math a few times, then hired outside consultants to double check the feasibility, then checked with accountants about equipment depreciation, then checked with the FAA about runway capacities in fire-prone areas, then checked with their potential customers about interest in the project, etc, etc, etc.
Its funny reading comments from 10 year-olds who have never had a job, yet are making critical judgments about business decisions involving millions of dollars by companies with decades of experience. - DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Loser' in what respect? Its not there to haul passengers, its there to put out fires, and as such, will be worth every dollar spent on it if it can save crops, houses, national parks, old growth forest stands, etc. Also, the cost of the plane, and its operation, maintenance, and storage would be offset by the fact that the state only needs a few of these planes versus a dozen of the smaller ones. Keep a few of the 'scooper' type planes to grab water from local lakes, and invest in these planes to deliver the fire retardant, sounds like a pretty good plan to me.
- raindog469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you say it out loud, it's "twenty five thousand". I would bet the amount of water they dropped was actually 25,000 gallons and someone just transcribed it wrong off of a tape.
- Rotkiv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3something's wrong with that number
- binarypower, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Maybe 20 containers holding 5,000 gallons?
- rbabiak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmm i don't think crashing a 747 full of water into a forest fire will help much.
But considering how Weird winds get around a forest fire, i think it will happen sooner or later.
If i remember the number right from discovery 4 or 5 planes a year crash into forest fires during water bombing flights because the forest fire creates weird winds around them that can cause a plane to suddenly lose lift. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok, I'll accept that it takes two hours today. That doesn't mean however, that the time couldn't be drastically shortened when this system becomes operational. If they're refilling from trucks, that sounds to me like they're limited by what the trucks can pump, not what the aircraft can recieve.
-jcr - TheSpider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I had the pleasure of seeing this plane very close at the Mid-America Airport outside of St.Louis. I was told by a tec there that only two aircraft like this exist. (Did not see the demo, just the aircraft. It was un-usual for an air plane of that size to be there.) They also said it takes about 2 hours to fill the plane from multiple trucks.
- BSpolice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh good. Now we don't have to live in fear of those wildfires in large, flat, open spaces within range of a large airport with the necessary pumps to fill up this plane's tanks. I think we can all sleep easier.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I question how easy this thing is to fill up. Conventional water-bombers can skim over a small lake and fill up on-the-fly.
Something tells me that won't be possible with a 747 - Teaboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm British and all measurements are always listed in cm/inches, metres/feet, gallons/litres, but I never see km mentioned, it's always miles.
- loki1983, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wonder how much a 747 weighs w/o the water in it. think it's making the plain at least 50% heavier full?
- aurigus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hilarious!!!
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/photo_pg/sim_02.jpg - DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If I read their web site correctly, this plane wasn't designed to deliver water, it was designed to deliver fire retardant, a substance that is better than water at cooling off surfaces and blocking oxygen. Its that pink stuff you see them dropping on fires. You can't skim across a lake and pick that stuff up, so all those planes were filled at a runway somewhere.
- DWatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1'within range' is not an issue with a 747, since they can fly non-stop cross country. And they do that at a speed of 600mph. I'm thinking both range and turn around time is not an issue for this plane.
- ErniePC12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, that's a ton of water. I'm sure that could make a dent in a good forest fire....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They need something like a Formula One refueling system. Just bangs out the water quick-smart.
Or a hot-swappable water container, like an ink cartridge! - Luanialus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As a constituent of that fine newspaper here in Tallahassee, I can assure you that's not the first or the worst of this paper's mistakes :-)
- funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Do they really drop water on forest fires? I thought they dropped some compound that smothers the oxygen?
- Thorpe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These videos look awesome. Thanks!
- sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fly one of those over some snobby Hollywood figure who is throwing his/her private 200 snobbies outdoors Wedding.... woooooooosh..... it's a party alright!
- fatlip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good, they can use this when those firescreens a few stories down get out of control
- zmigliozzi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ya and the first reply the guy only did 20 500..... im guessing numbers and math is everyones strong points... haha
- BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+920 diggs to the homepage?...those are some suspicious looking diggers...
- daggerhart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1soo.. how many total gallons of jet fuel would it take to do this?
- cal0001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1776,009.42 liters to that would be a hell of a lot of water
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 