Calif politicians are too stupid to do the logical thing about fires

Logical1 said:

It is a I told you so. About a year ago I suggested that the 4 western states with heavy forest and brush, buy up a fleet of 10 to 20 out of service 747s.

More and more airlines are taking their 747s out of use and going to 777s. Calif, Oregon, Washington, an Nevada could go together and buy up those planes. Then instead of one or two air bombers, when a fire first starts fly a squadron of fully loaded 747 water bomber over the fire and douse it before it get big.

Click to expand...

Lord Tammerlain said:

747 are not really designed to carry and drop water. Water bombers that can scoop water from large lakes or the ocean are much better

Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:

If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:

If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

Click to expand...

Logical1 said:

It is a I told you so. About a year ago I suggested that the 4 western states with heavy forest and brush, buy up a fleet of 10 to 20 out of service 747s.

More and more airlines are taking their 747s out of use and going to 777s. Calif, Oregon, Washington, an Nevada could go together and buy up those planes. Then instead of one or two air bombers, when a fire first starts fly a squadron of fully loaded 747 water bomber over the fire and douse it before it gets big.

BTW a 747 has a payload of 250,000 pounds. So say if 15 747 water bomber flew over a fire that was just reported, they could bomb the fire with 1875 TONS OF WATER.

Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:

If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:

If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

Click to expand...

Logical1 said:

The 747 could be modified to have water tanks on board. Few if any water bombers started out that way.

Large water bomber are filled, they do not scoop water out of a lake.

Click to expand...

The calls for investment in more and bigger aerial water bombers rather than in effective pre-emption of bushfire damage is a classic demonstration of misinformed people making foolish proposals. Every experienced fire fighter in Australia (and in the USA and Canada) knows that water bombers can never control an intense forest wildfire.

Consider these factors:
* Firstly, because of atmospheric turbulence and smoke, water bombing aircraft cannot get at the seat of a rampaging forest fire; they must stand off from the head, and then the drop is evaporated by radiant heat well before the flames arrive;
* Secondly, in tall, dense forest, the water drop often cannot penetrate the canopy in sufficient volume to make a difference – it is intercepted by the tree crowns. This occurred over and again in the recent fire in ash forest in the Otway Ranges in Victoria – the water simply did not get to the ground.
* Thirdly, water bombers cannot (or do not) operate at night and under high winds, the very conditions when the most damaging forest fires occur. Three of the last four towns to burn in WA, and both towns that burned in Victoria in 2009, burned at night.
* Fourth, water bombing is extremely dangerous for aircrew as the aircraft are operating at low altitude, in uncontrolled airspace with poor visibility. It is only a matter of time before there is a shocking accident and an aircrew fatality.
* Water bombing can also be dangerous to people on the ground. If the drop from a Very Large Air Tanker is made from only marginally too low, the huge tonnage of water is capable of smashing houses and vehicles and killing firefighters;
* Fifth, water bombers use vast quantities of fresh water, probably one of the most precious resources in Australia, especially in Western Australia where the current drought is over 30 years in duration and reservoirs and ground water aquifers are drying up. Sea water could be used, provided the tankers have access to it, but dropping salt water onto catchment areas or farms would only add to the problems caused by the fire.

Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:

If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

Yes they should be out there everyday with rakes like Trump said...:lamo

Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:

So what's your prevention idea?

Or do you not have one and all you have is to toss out Anti-Trump spitballs?

Click to expand...

Logical1 said:

It is a I told you so. About a year ago I suggested that the 4 western states with heavy forest and brush, buy up a fleet of 10 to 20 out of service 747s.

More and more airlines are taking their 747s out of use and going to 777s. Calif, Oregon, Washington, an Nevada could go together and buy up those planes. Then instead of one or two air bombers, when a fire first starts fly a squadron of fully loaded 747 water bomber over the fire and douse it before it gets big.

BTW a 747 has a payload of 250,000 pounds. So say if 15 747 water bomber flew over a fire that was just reported, they could bomb the fire with 1875 TONS OF WATER.

Click to expand...