So I’m sitting here at the gate on a delay at Logan (thanks Newark) reading the Bomber 134 thread and discussing it with the Capt and a C-17 taxis by. Odd for BOS but whatevs.

 

Capt says “Do they use those for firefighting? Seems like those would be awesome for that.”

 

Which got me thinking, with so many ANG units equipped with C-17s, are they going to adapt or develop MAFFS for that airframe?

I would assume the $14k/hr operating cost is a bit steep. I would think 2-3 MAFFS tanks would fit even if they drain fwd most to aft most.

Are the pumps utility hydraulic or electric?

It was hashed around for a while years ago. When Charlotte was planned to go from C-130s to C-17s it had a little more discussion. Operating cost is a big factor with the J model much cheaper. The current and previous MAFFS systems would not work, so you'd have to design new ones which is a huge cost. The company that built the old system (Aero Union) is gone. However, since we print our own money in this country any time it feels like we're running out, anything is possible.

Some folks have done some work on that for RAAF C-17's:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anil_Raj_Ravindran/publication/273124144_Aerial_Bushfire_Quencher_C-17_Conversion_for_Fire_Fighting_Operations/links/54f7a76c0cf2ccffe9db5dcf/Aerial-Bushfire-Quencher-C-17-Conversion-for-Fire-Fighting-Operations.pdf

Referencing @skibum 's comment above, with enough money anything is possible..

 

That’s cool, but can a C-17 fly 100 knots!?!  

That’s cool, but can a C-17 fly 100 knots!?!  

I’ve had rotate speeds be under 100 kts before, really light, but still under 100.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  

17 minutes ago, the g-man said:

I’ve had rotate speeds be under 100 kts before, really light, but still under 100.

Lightweight Vr I'll believe.  With 132k of stuff in the back, low level, in turbulence?  Not so much.

I'm not trying to discredit the paper Clark linked, but when they assume 100kt retardant drop speeds, it makes me question the rest of their assumptions.

Quote

With a nozzle angle of 16 deg., a flow rate analysis confirms that this design can achieve a coverage area of 15.28 m wide at the appropriate saturation level to put out a fire, given a drop altitude of 200 m. This assumes the aircraft flying at 50 m/s (100 knots).

 

I think the salient speed and a truer aimpoint is DC-10s, BAE46s and 747 drop retardant at effective speeds.

The MAFFS may not work at that high a speed. What speed does the C-130 use?

12 hours ago, nunya said:

That’s cool, but can a C-17 fly 100 knots!?!  

Maybe it's Australian knots?

IIRC Herks try to drop at 120

3 hours ago, nunya said:

 Lightweight Vr I'll believe.  With 132k of stuff in the back, low level, in turbulence?  Not so much.

I'm not trying to discredit the paper Clark linked, but when they assume 100kt retardant drop speeds, it makes me question the rest of their assumptions.

Yeah, that speed seemed way low (never flew the 17 but just seemed very aggressive for a plane that big, dropping retardant at a very low altitude over large fires and likely serious turbulence).  

Agree with your skepticism, seems to have some thought to it but take with 2 mg of salt.

Not sure if the Aussies thought about a dual role for this platform but there are kits to make the mighty C-27J a fire bomber...

https://tangentlink.com/far-from-spartan/

Aussie's already have 10.

Edited January 29, 20205 yr by Clark Griswold
me no good grammar & spelling

I can confirm that a DC-10 is unable to fly 100kts. If a DC-10 can be used as a firefighter, the C-17 would be more than suited. For the similar MGW aircraft, look at the difference in the wing chord and angle of incidence. The C-17 is at like 20° AOA sitting still.

Any thoughts on effectiveness of MAFFS? Any increased capes moving from C-130H to C-130J?  Will MAFFS have a significant impact on beddown locations for C-130Js headed to ANG/AF Reserves.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/2019_03_15_19_bp_afue_2019_update_final_web.pdf

 

As a former MAFFS program manager (C141/C17 IP) with my civilian counterpart (Awesome civi with more than a decade of experience) and one subject matter expert (MAFFS IP) 2013-2015 at the ANGRC, C17 wise, probably not a smart move using a higher cost Strategic asset while large aircraft civilian forces exist. They must all be exhausted before Defense Support of Civilian Authorities (DSCA) is in effect.

Also, the C17 probably should NOT have corrosive retardant added to its list precautionary maintenance. It’s basically built around it’s initially solid billet aluminum floor and Bugatti brakes system. With Global Warming Greta, anything is possible - I shudder to think. 

Regarding metal movement or procurement and placement within the Guard Reserve Component. First it’s very politically motivated, just look at where iron sits. Mission Statements and Unit effectiveness plays a significant part as well. MAFFS is part of the gonculator (sp?) in which the Staff plugs and plays the iron layout spreadsheet. Call your Senators/Congressmen. Politically strong states have made their case in very compelling ways behind the curtain/non-disclosure signed. Art of the Deal dictates avenues vs “the most deserving” sometimes which is unfortunate to say the least.

Edited February 9, 20205 yr by AirGuardianC141747