Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Real proud of this company from my hometown. Those of you who follow airshows, and in general the world of aviation; this company owns the Martin Mars Flying Tankers, the world's largest water bomber, featured at the last Oshkosk airshow. They recently purchased several C-130' and now six 727's to convert to water bombers. Read some more here.

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/coulson-aviation-lands-first-fireliner/

 

I sure would love one of the modeling community members to make liveries for these planes, and a redo of the Alberni airport, given the national/international value these guys add to the global community. A welcome addition to anyone's hangar!

 

 

Edited by GregJ
Error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4000 gallons? That is by far not the largest water bomber. The Globalsupertanker.com features five times as much, 20000 gallons...

I agree they all are impressive though...;D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rongor said:

4000 gallons? That is by far not the largest water bomber. The Globalsupertanker.com features five times as much, 20000 gallons...

I agree they all are impressive though...;D

 
1

 

Rongor - You misread, or I mistyped...My intention was to advertise that The Martin Mars Flying Tanker is the Worlds Largest; with a 200-foot wing span - http://www.martinmars.com/

 

Moreover, that the Coulson company is quickly becoming the leader in this field. 

 

From a capacity perspective - you are correct 20,000 gallons from the 747 to the Martin Mars 7200 gallons of water/600 gallons of foam - however, the versatility factor of that plane is super limited as are the locations from which it can be used.Airport size, loading facilities, crew size etc. all play a role in how well a function is to be carried out. 

Edited by GregJ
error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, GregJ said:

...

From a capacity perspective - you are correct 20,000 gallons from the 747 to the Martin Mars 7200 gallons of water/600 gallons of foam - however, the versatility factor of that plane is super limited as are the locations from which it can be used.Airport size, loading facilities, crew size etc. all play a role in how well a function is to be carried out. 

I'm not sure I see a huge difference in "versatility" between the two.  Yes the 747 needs a large runway, but it can fly there pretty fast and carries almost three times the water/retardant volume.  A Martin Mars needs a body of water big enough to land on, is slower, and carries less volume.  Apple & orange.

 

The volume per hour of water/retardant dropped on a fire is probably a good measure of effectiveness.  (Though volume per drop definitely matters too.)

Aircraft speed, capacity, turnaround time, endurance, and operating cost are known quantities, but distance from a usable water source to the fire is always different.

 

A helicopter with a Bambi bucket might be slow and only carry 1,000 gallons, but if there is a usable water source near the fire, it could deliver more volume per hour onto the fire than a plane which was faster, carried more, but had a slower turnaround time due to the distance.

 

I also find discussions of "largest" aircraft interesting.  Which value determines "largest" again?

Martine Mars: 200' wingspan,118' length, 48' height, 165,000 lbs Max T/O weight

747-400:        196' wingspan, 232' length, 63' height, 875,000 lbs Max T/O weight

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'm only the messenger of the fact. Largest, wingspan, is correct. Volumetric differences aside, Martin Mars has an impeccable, and historic record. It deserves it's credit, and as a proud hometown promoter of the plane, your argument is silly. Get your Google on, and do some research into history, success rates, turn around times etc. The Mars is capable of landing on many bodies of water, and there is research that shows where it has landed, the radius it can cover successfully, and that reach is far more impressive than a Bambi bucket. There are tools to be used, and each adds their value, to be sure, the Bambi has it's place as a support function, but can't be considered a competitive product in the arsenal. There is plenty of footage of the Martin Mars dropping successful loads in environments that the 747 couldn't even attempt, the dispersal rate of release would be ineffective. The other part of my post reflects the versatile nature of the C-130's, and the 727's, short runways, unique tanking systems, firecrew support, to include the potential for parachute deployment, in addition to immediate suppression capabilities....no other org is doing this in this capacity. The safety record of Martin Mars, is the envy of the industry, is globally recognized, and will no doubt, be transferred to new models of delivery, as a part of the quality management Coulson's achieves.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my post, I am not trying to disparage the Mars and I have nothing against it.  I'm sure it would be fun to fly in FSX/P3D too. :)

I was just pointing out that your characterization of a 747's "versatility" being "super limited" could also apply to a Mars (or any other seaplane) depending on the location of the fire.  Many places do not have appropriately sized lakes anywhere near them, which can be just as limiting as no appropriate runways.

 

Your comment, "the Bambi has it's place as a support function, but can't be considered a competitive product in the arsenal", shows that you've missed the point about location.  Depending on where the fire is in relation to where different aircraft can get water/retardant, a Bambi bucket can be a competitive product.  I'm not saying it always is, or often is, but in certain locations it can be the best tool.  I fought a few fires in Hawaii with a UH-3H & Bambi bucket, where we were a better "product in the arsenal" than a fixed wing, land based plane and where a seaplane was not an option at all.  Hawaii has no lakes to land on and sea states, plus not wanting salt water for fire suppression, ruled out seaplanes entirely.

747, B-25, Mars, CL-215, CH-47, Bell 206, ... the "best" aircraft for a particular fire can still depend on where the fire is in relation to where each aircraft can get water/retardant.

 

If there is a fire, with no lakes or long runways in the area, a B-25, C-130, or Air Tractor refilling from a tanker truck at a small local airfield, or a helicopter dipping out of a small river/lake close to the fire, can get more volume per hour on the fire than a large jet or seaplane flying from very far away.

If there is a fire near a big lake, the Mars may have a huge advantage.  If the lake is too small, a CL-215 might be better.

If there is a fire near a big runway and no lakes around, the 747/727/B-25 get to compete for volume per hour based on their speed and turn around times.

 

You'll have to point out what exactly was "silly" in my previous post.  I guess I'm missing it.

With regard to "silly" comments, calling the Mars "the world's largest water bomber" based solely on wingspan was silly IMHO.  Where does best 1 out of 5 win?

Unfortunately for the Mars, it appears to not have the largest wingspan either.

I feel silly to report that my previous 196' wingspan value was for a standard 747.  The current jet is a converted 747-400F which has a 211' 5" wingspan.

So instead of the 747 being larger than the Mars in 4 out of 5 categories, it is larger in 5 of 5.  

11' 5" wider wingspan, 114' longer, 15' 8" taller, 710,000 lbs more T/O weight, and 13,300 gallons more water capacity.

Again, nothing against the Mars or its effectiveness as a large water bomber, it just isn't "the world's largest water bomber". 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, h3pilot said:

If you read my post, I am not trying to disparage the Mars and I have nothing against it.  ...I did read your post and I referred to your argument as sill as a result of the comment itself. Do the research - I'm just the messenger with regard to how the classification of World's largest" is derived.  

I'm sure it would be fun to fly in FSX/P3D too. :)It is indeed, and I hope someone will remodel it to be more accurate given the Garmin/flight upgrades it currently has to include night vision and hot spot detection.

I was just pointing out that your characterization of a 747's "versatility" being "super limited" could also apply to a Mars (or any other seaplane) depending on the location of the fire.  Many places do not have appropriately sized lakes anywhere near them, which can be just as limiting as no appropriate runways. Look - its' the oceancnbuqomueaanl9d.jpg?w=475&h=356&crop=1&q

No limits, if there is an ocean or a lake of

 

Your comment, "the Bambi has it's place as a support function, but can't be considered a competitive product in the arsenal", shows that you've missed the point about location.  Depending on where the fire is in relation to where different aircraft can get water/retardant, a Bambi bucket can be a competitive product.  I'm not saying it always is, or often is, but in certain locations it can be the best tool.  I fought a few fires in Hawaii with a UH-3H & Bambi bucket, where we were a better "product in the arsenal" than a fixed wing, land based plane and where a seaplane was not an option at all.  Hawaii has no lakes to land on and sea states, plus not wanting salt water for fire suppression, ruled out seaplanes entirely. - perhaps in that case, but as above, seawater has been used in the past for fires on the west coast. This plane was built to land on the ocean as well. 747, B-25, Mars, CL-215, CH-47, Bell 206, ... the "best" aircraft for a particular fire can still depend on where the fire is in relation to where each aircraft can get water/retardant. I don't disagree with you.

 

If there is a fire, with no lakes or long runways in the area, a B-25, C-130, or Air Tractor refilling from a tanker truck at a small local airfield, or a helicopter dipping out of a small river/lake close to the fire, can get more volume per hour on the fire than a large jet or seaplane flying from very far away.

If there is a fire near a big lake, the Mars may have a huge advantage.  If the lake is too small, a CL-215 might be better. The CL 125 has proven to be at a disadvantage due to it's safety record. If there is a fire near a big runway and no lakes around, the 747/727/B-25 get to compete for volume per hour based on their speed and turn around times. See the attached pdf...not one plane/helicopter in the world can complete the turnaround/GPH drop rate that the Mars can...PERIOD

 

You'll have to point out what exactly was "silly" in my previous post.  I guess I'm missing it.

With regard to "silly" comments, calling the Mars "the world's largest water bomber" based solely on wingspan was silly IMHO.  Where does best 1 out of 5 win?

Unfortunately for the Mars, it appears to not have the largest wingspan either.  https://www.google.com/search?q=lakes+martin+mars+B.C.+firefighting&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=MArtin+MArs+Worlds+Largest+aerial+firefighting+plane

I feel silly to report that my previous 196' wingspan value was for a standard 747.  The current jet is a converted 747-400F which has a 211' 5" wingspan.

So instead of the 747 being larger than the Mars in 4 out of 5 categories, it is larger in 5 of 5.  

11' 5" wider wingspan, 114' longer, 15' 8" taller, 710,000 lbs more T/O weight, and 13,300 gallons more water capacity. Perhaps true...but where and when exactly has this flown, to compete with the record of the Mars? Never!

Again, nothing against the Mars or its effectiveness as a large water bomber, it just isn't "the world's largest water bomber". http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/aviation/oshkosh-worlds-largest-water-bomber-airplane-martin-mars/

 

I won't argue - I just emphasize my points with the facts that are out there, the track record of success and the capabilities of the planes I grew up with. Happy flying.

 

Martin_Mars_specs.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, GregJ said:

not one plane/helicopter in the world can complete the turnaround/GPH drop rate that the Mars can...PERIOD

No, not "PERIOD".  At a minimum you need the caveat, PROVIDED THERE IS A LARGE LAKE WITHIN A CERTAIN RANGE.

BTW, the specs on your pdf do NOT equate to a realistic turnaround/GPH drop rate.

The claimed 37 consecutive drops in a 5.9 hour flight equates to 6.27 drops per hour, or one drop in under 10 minutes.  AMAZING!  Or should I say wishful thinking?

 

Let's be clear, I am not a water bomber expert, but based on the data you provided in the pdf, the Mars' drop cycle should be something like:

Descend to lake at 115 mph, pick up water at 92 mph, accelerate in ground effect to climb speed, climb at ?mph & ?fpm to clear terrain between the lake and fire, turn toward fire, accelerate and fly to fire at 190 mph, descend at ?fpm to drop altitude, line up, decelerate to 138 mph and drop water, climb again, turn around, accelerate to 190 mph, return to lake, and repeat.  All in under 10 minutes?  

Would you believe that I am skeptical?

First of all, you've got a couple minutes just making two 180 degree turns (2x180s is the absolute minimum to complete a pick-up/drop cycle for a fire perfectly lined up with the lake), at least a couple minutes climbing and descending on each end (climb rate based on DA and a full tank?),  over a minute picking up water (Videos I've seen show additional time spent flying just above the water, I assume accelerating in ground effect to desired climb speed before starting climb), another minute to run in and drop (water appears to take under 30 seconds to empty).  That's already over 8 minutes with NO, that is ZERO, transit time to the fire.  That leaves less than one minute of transit time in each direction to the fire, to stay sub-10 minutes to meet the rate claimed in your pdf.  Does that seem realistic to you?

Unless the fire is right next to an adequate lake, with basically no terrain to climb over, a sub 10 minute turnaround is impossible, and clearly unrealistic for virtually every real world fire.  

 

1 hour ago, GregJ said:

perhaps in that case, but as above, seawater has been used in the past for fires on the west coast. This plane was built to land on the ocean as well.

As a retired USN pilot, I am aware that the Mars was developed for the USN as an ocean capable seaplane.  Again, my point is that all seaplanes have an operational sea state limit and there are also times when environmental or economic reasons will preclude dropping sea water (since it can harm vegetation and the soil).  I simply cited a real world example of some fires (where I was a pilot) where a Mars would not have been used, even on a low sea state day.

 

2 hours ago, GregJ said:

The CL 125 has proven to be at a disadvantage due to it's safety record.

The CL 125 was just an example of a smaller seaplane.  Again, location of water usable by the aircraft is the point.  If a lake is too small for a Mars, the Mars must fly farther to an acceptable lake.  If another plane (Catalina, Neptune, whatever) can use the closer, small lake, it might be able to deliver more GPH because it doesn't need to fly as far and can thus get in more drops.

 

2 hours ago, GregJ said:

Perhaps true...but where and when exactly has this flown, to compete with the record of the Mars? Never!

No "perhaps", just plain true.  The Mars is NOT "the world's largest water bomber".

No offense, but I really don't care about the 747 competing with the Mars's record and I haven't made any comments about either plane's record.  

Wiki lists some 747 water bomber ops and YouTube has video of it in operation, so your "Never!" doesn't appear to be correct.

 

Clearly you are a Martin Mars fan that I have inadvertently offended.  That was not my intent.  Again, I still have nothing derogatory to say about the Mars or its record and don't claim that any other plane is "better".  I initially posted to point out the fact that the Martin Mars isn't "the world's largest water bomber", as you claimed, and to express my opinion (based on a little experience) that the Mars is not the best aircraft for every fire.  With regard to your pdf, I'll simply reiterate that the claimed drop rate seems to be very wishful thinking on the company's part. 

Sorry I type so much.  Happy flying!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/105886-737-s-in-FSX-P3D

 

This link contains a texture for a fsx ai aircraft, but it is possible to add other aircrafts air file, panel and sound to make a "bitsa" freeware B737-300 in the new Coulson livery.

 

The creator of the texture is also working on a Couldon C-130 model.

 

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you seem to want to do is refute known and associative facts. Perhaps instead of being a downer, give Coulson's website a look.

I am happy to share all known documentation, regarding suppression rates, gph, etc., I have access, due to a FOI and a current investigation into the Martin Mars contracts, and awarding there of to ConAir, they are public documents, and outline all facts surrounding the Mars, and her competitors.

I've been a part of this planes history, so to speak, and am an avid follower of her record, watched her land, scoop, and drop, and land again in the described time.

I see you are were stationed at Whidbey, thus, it's a day's drive to head on over, and see both Hawaii, and Philippines for real, gather more information and pictures for yourself.

When you are done, perhaps your argument might be somewhat diminished based on the facts presented to you in person. Or go to http://bit.ly/2si7YYv for CNN's report on her, prior to going to Oshkosh.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GregJ said:

All you seem to want to do is refute known and associative facts. Perhaps instead of being a downer, give Coulson's website a look.

All you seem to want to do is ignore the actual facts and toot the Mars & Coulson's horn.  Is something that I have posted incorrect?  

I don't mean to be a downer, but the 747-400 water bomber is, in fact, larger than the Martin Mars.  Nothing on Coulson's website will change that, even if they add 11' 6" to the Mars' wingspan, it still soundly looses 4 out of 5 in the size race.  The Mars may be a fantastic and efficient water bomber and Coulson may be a great company, but that doesn't change the relative size of airplanes.

 

2 hours ago, GregJ said:

watched her land, scoop, and drop, and land again in the described time.

Must have been cool to watch.  I suspect there was minimal altitude change involved and the drop site was within 1-2 minutes of the lake.

I stand by my opinion that the claimed 37 drops per hour is not representative of the average drop rates achieved while fighting actual fires.  It would be interesting to see what the actual average rate is over a fire season.  Note I didn't say that 37 drops could not be done, only that being limited to a couple minutes of transit time didn't seem realistic.

 

2 hours ago, GregJ said:

and see both Hawaii, and Philippines for real, gather more information and pictures for yourself.

I have lived in Hawaii and been to the Philippines multiple times.  I don't understand what information I am supposed to gather or what it has to do with the Mars' size or water drop cycle.

 

2 hours ago, GregJ said:

When you are done, perhaps your argument might be somewhat diminished based on the facts presented to you in person.

I'm not sure what you think would change.  Facts in person are no different than written facts.  Measurements are measurements.  Airspeed, turn rates, and climb/descent rates are based on physics.  Even if you showed that my rough estimates of drop cycles are off by a couple minutes, that's still only about 3 miles of transit distance.  That is not enough to change my opinion that the claimed drop rate is unrealistic with regard to fighting actual fires.

 

I suspect I'm waisting my time and yours and we're certainly not discussing Orbx.  It was interesting learning more about the Mars (& 747) though.

The Martin Mars may be great.  Coulson may be great.  The 747 is larger.  As good as it may be, the Mars is not the best aircraft for every wildfire.  IMHO, no single aircraft is the best for every wildfire.  Orbx scenery is great, though I wish you could put the wildfires out!

I'm out! :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Philippines and Hawaii refer to the names of the Martin Mars planes; some research would have uncovered that.

Moreover, did you know that the Phillipines Martin Mars was scheduled to be a Museum plane at Pensacola? Why? Because it's truly historical...and representative of the fact that the lifespan, and versatility of the plane itself deserves reward and recognition.

 

I'd rather not argue anymore - 3we all have A$$holes and opinions... I guess. My OP was merely to mention the news and the historical facts - perhaps dues to certain changes based on configuration and implementation the Martin Mars may not hold wing span length as it's record holding fact....but will retain it's record of putting out more fires, with a safety record that is near impeccable in comparison. That's in part why Coulson's has international contracts and and multi vehicle fleets, not just one 747.

Yeah, I toot their horn, they deserve it...it would seem my biases and yours clash and thats ok.... I am proud of her, all she has done and the fact that my home town, province and surrounding countries i.e. U.S. and Mexico were safer for her dedication and responsiveness to fighting fires that kill communities and individuals - we are all safer - and perhaps now, a bit more knowledgeable - however we gather our facts and do our research. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics - right?

 

Happy contrails.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...