Get ready for a new kind of firefight in Western skies this summer, with a 747 jumbo jet taking on a hulking DC-10.
Evergreen International Aviation of McMinnville is betting about $40 million on the 747. That's how much the company known for flying cargo airplanes around the world has spent equipping a 747 to spew retardant on raging wildfires.
But the Evergreen Supertanker is facing off against another new firefighting giant: a DC-10 backed by an Oklahoma air-charter company and fitted with a tank built by Erickson Air-Crane of Central Point.
Both jets are new to the fire lines, and both are zeroing in on millions of dollars worth of federal and state contracts for air tankers to battle Western blazes every fire season. Both Evergreen and the Oklahoma company, Omni Air International, are sending their aircraft up at a time when federal agencies want to replace an aging air tanker fleet beset by crashes in recent years.
"We certainly have the door open to new ideas, and these are the first two serious ones we've seen," said Rose Davis of the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise.
The two planes are hurtling their way through tests required to get a green light from a federal panel called the Interagency Airtanker Board, which clears new aircraft for federal contracts. They also need approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. Omni's DC-10 has that, but Evergreen's 747 still needs it.
Evergreen, long linked to clandestine missions for the government, has been working on its supertanker for more than two years. It hit a snag last month when it postponed a demonstration tour through 11 states to fine-tune the system that sprays retardant from the plane's underbelly.
But federal authorities said there's a good chance both jets could be cleared for duty and hired under trial contracts this summer.
"We have every reason to believe we'll be on fires this season," said Sam White, vice president of Evergreen's Washington, D.C., office.
The modified 747-200 carries 24,000 gallons of fire retardant in a tank inside its cargo hold, while the DC-10 hauls 12,000 gallons of water in a tank strapped to its underside. Both outdo conventional air tankers, which haul up to about 3,000 gallons a flight.
"Instead of going out there and making one drop, you can go out there and make four or five drops," said Jack Maxey, chief pilot for the DC-10, which is operated by a company, 10 Tanker Air Carrier, allied with Omni. "This would be another tool in the toolbox of how to fight fires."
It also promises to be a pricey one. Current propeller-driven air tankers cost roughly $3,000 to $6,000 an hour to use, and the jets would likely run much more. Firefighting authorities said they would balance the higher cost with the extra capacity of the planes and the value of whatever it is -- homes or timber, for instance -- that they're trying to protect.
"I think there is a place for a very large air tanker in the fleet," said Dennis Lamun, a member of the Interagency Airtanker Board and an aviation official with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. "But it's got to be cost-effective no matter where you use it."
The pluses of the big planes include their capacity, longer range -- 500 miles for the fully loaded DC-10 -- and speed -- the 747 can fly close to the speed of sound. They could reach remote fires faster and hit flames with more retardant or water before returning to their base to reload.
"The distance from the fire becomes much less significant," White said.
The 747 shoots retardant under pressure, controlled by the crew, while the DC-10 carries water in three compartments that can be opened one at a time. The two aircraft play slightly different firefighting roles: while the DC-10 dumps water onto flames, the 747 sprays retardant to create flame-resistant fire lines that help block the spread of the blazes.
Erickson Air-Crane adapted tanks from its S-64 Aircrane Helitanker, a firefighting helicopter, for the DC-10, spokesman Dennis Hubbard said. "It's a new direction in firefighting, that's for sure," he said.
Evergreen says its supertanker could also be used for cloud seeding or homeland security efforts, such as chemical decontamination, and could serve as an airborne command center. Boeing began studying the idea of using a 747 for firefighting, then Evergreen later took the lead.
The idea for using the DC-10 started with Sanford Burnstein, chairman of Omni. The plane is a former commercial passenger jet, but once the company looked into readying it for firefighting, "it seemed like it would work," Maxey said.
Although the DC-10 is too big to fly through canyons like some smaller air tankers do, "it's a lot more maneuverable than people think," he said.
Either the 747 or DC-10 would be a strong addition to the current fleet, especially in extreme fire conditions when firefighting forces are overwhelmed or stretched thin, said Walt Darran, a former American Airlines pilot who flies air tankers for the California Department of Forestry.
But he emphasized that they would complement -- not replace -- the existing fleet of firefighting aircraft. Forces still will need the versatility provided by smaller air tankers and helicopters, which can maneuver where the big planes cannot.
The federal government has 16 civilian air tankers on contract for the coming fire season, with openings for four more that could be filled in part by the new jets, Davis said. That's down from the roughly 40 ready to fly in 2002, before many were grounded for safety reasons.The Oregonian
