An225 wrote:

Very interesting indeed, but after the initial happiness it looks like a pretty weired idea.
Based on the number of produced airframes (13), number of orders (2), and the fact that this aircraft fills a special nich only, we can determine that the financial viability of this program is very limited. Therefore, why would Safran get into such a shure-loss project of engineering and certification?

Can someone explain the logic of starting such a project?

Thanks,

Uzi

Max Q wrote:

Cool and certainly one of the most interesting aircraft around

Anyone know what the two red levers just to the left of the throttles are ?

Slug71 wrote:

A variant with RR engines was previously looked into but shelved. My guess is, they are hoping for more sales with western engines. There's definitely a need for this aircraft.

For everyone who is sharing and commenting on the Media article about the Martin Mars Please stop!!!

I am just one of hundreds flying on these fires and fighting them for a living. The reason why the Mars is not on the fires is because we have equipment that does a faster more efficient job from smaller lakes which can put more water on a fire per hour. Water doesn’t put out a fire the crews do.

Large aircraft such as what you have read about take crews off the fire lines, sit helicopters on the ground for hours and stop precious production and critical gains. Their water comes out at a force which sends embers out and start spot fires it loosens ground, blows over trees creating hazards and ruins guards put in by crews.

For everyone out there please get these ideas out of your heads and realize there is a reason why we don’t use these planes. As for the night ops, this is a great idea in California or in the desert where at night you have long string drops and easy terrain but in BC it doesn’t work that way. There are night crews working and they don’t need any more dangers.

Lastly it is an insult to all of us who are working 18 hours days with no food and no place to sleep while we try to save people’s houses and animals and you sit at home telling us what is best. There is so much more to it then just putting water on a fire otherwise don’t you think we would do just that!!

Please educate yourselves before posting about this topic and or sharing with others as it is not needed. Look at the photo, no plane can fly in that smoke and heat and no water will put out a kilometer wide, 200 foot wall of fire.

ThePointblank wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

A variant with RR engines was previously looked into but shelved. My guess is, they are hoping for more sales with western engines. There's definitely a need for this aircraft.

Market is not as big as you think for large firefighting tanker aircraft than you think.

Firefighting crews generally prefer smaller aircraft, especially in rougher terrain; they can take on water from smaller bodies of water, are more manueverable, and can drop closer to crews due to greater precision.

In fact, with some of the larger tankers, they can cause more harm than good; there was one story locally of an anonymous helicopter firefighter pilot that got so fed up with how people were obsessing over why the Martin Mars waterbomber wasn't taking part in the fire fighting effort last year in BC, that this message was posted on social media:

For everyone who is sharing and commenting on the Media article about the Martin Mars Please stop!!!

I am just one of hundreds flying on these fires and fighting them for a living. The reason why the Mars is not on the fires is because we have equipment that does a faster more efficient job from smaller lakes which can put more water on a fire per hour. Water doesn’t put out a fire the crews do.

Large aircraft such as what you have read about take crews off the fire lines, sit helicopters on the ground for hours and stop precious production and critical gains. Their water comes out at a force which sends embers out and start spot fires it loosens ground, blows over trees creating hazards and ruins guards put in by crews.

For everyone out there please get these ideas out of your heads and realize there is a reason why we don’t use these planes. As for the night ops, this is a great idea in California or in the desert where at night you have long string drops and easy terrain but in BC it doesn’t work that way. There are night crews working and they don’t need any more dangers.

Lastly it is an insult to all of us who are working 18 hours days with no food and no place to sleep while we try to save people’s houses and animals and you sit at home telling us what is best. There is so much more to it then just putting water on a fire otherwise don’t you think we would do just that!!

Please educate yourselves before posting about this topic and or sharing with others as it is not needed. Look at the photo, no plane can fly in that smoke and heat and no water will put out a kilometer wide, 200 foot wall of fire.

Lastly it is an insult to all of us who are working 18 hours days with no food and no place to sleep while we try to save people’s houses and animals and you sit at home telling us what is best.