Comments on: NSW buys Boeing 737 large air tanker for firefighting

By: Norman BROWNE

Norman BROWNE — Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:37:17 +0000

This is one of 3 solutions

By: Brett Yuile

Brett Yuile — Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:43:24 +0000

I would have thought the Bombardier CL-415 or CL-515 by Viking would have been a better solution as, even though they carry less, the turn around time is much less and the transit time savings between drops could be significant.

By: Geoffrey H

Geoffrey H — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:11:36 +0000

What a beautiful aircraft. Excellent news regarding the purchase by NSW Government. Used on 10 September 2019 for the peregian Beach fires on the Sunshine Coast ( QLD).

By: John

John — Wed, 19 Jun 2019 05:43:52 +0000

In NSW how many rural airports can accommodate this type of aircraft ,and supply the quantities of water needed?

By: iain

iain — Mon, 20 May 2019 10:50:09 +0000

In reply to David.

David,
I spent a bit of time with the crew whilst they were out and I seem to recall that 72 pax and and the 15 tonne retardant wasn’t a problem. (It was still waiting on cert for pax whilst in oz on it’s first tour) It is also unique in that it can be pressurised when enroute and during drop runs. The other acft (C130, DC10 or MD11???) were limited to O2 levels when carrying retardant for runs.
Moving firefighting crew around is a big issue for the RFS and allows this acft to be used after dark when fire drops not (yet) possible.
Interestingly the crew were quite low time on the B737 but were very experienced fire bombers. Endorsing on type was regarded as simple as compared to teaching the complexities operations of fire bombing.
It is a beautifully engineered acft and Coulson will be churning these out for years.

By: David

David — Thu, 16 May 2019 23:41:58 +0000

Average payload of 737 is 20,000kgs less 15150 kgs for fire fighting fluid.
Leaves 4850kgs for 72 pax +gear (67.5 kgs per pax)
Definitely one or the other but not both.

By: Albert D M

Albert D M — Thu, 16 May 2019 22:50:59 +0000

The 72 passengers would probably be RFS crew that can de deployed on the ground…..

By: Outofthecountry

Outofthecountry — Thu, 16 May 2019 22:22:46 +0000

In reply to reeves35. Only need when they first respond and they can transport personnel to establish a forward base, and firefighting staff, then do a fire run. They would not carry passengers while doing the fire attacks as it is unnecessary and dangerous to the passengers.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 16 May 2019 20:41:23 +0000

Maybe Adventure Tourism REEVES35?

By: Marc

Marc — Thu, 16 May 2019 20:23:51 +0000

@Reeves35
Ferry fire personnel option