https://www.instagram.com/p/BneWJLZjz5b ... e=ig_embed

A total of 4 firm orders with plus another 6 options, good to know the Be-200 is finally going to be used extensively in the role it was designed for.

Interesting. Here's a translation of the text via google translate. It would be great if someone who actually speaks Russian gave us a proper translation

"On September 8, during the exhibition "Hydroaviasalon-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of ten amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in the United States.

This contract provides for the delivery of four Be-200BC aircraft and an option for another six such aircraft. The first two aircraft will be equipped with engines D-436TP, the rest with SAM-146 engines.

Also, a contract was signed for the delivery of five amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in Chile."

Who are they going to, specifically? The federal US forest service? A state's? Some contractor?

Nice, my favorite aircraft ! And with a bit of French tech inside. Although getting 2 with one type of engines, then 2 with another type of engines, then having the rest as options is a bit strange.

N415XJ wrote:

Interesting. Here's a translation of the text via google translate. It would be great if someone who actually speaks Russian gave us a proper translation

"On September 8, during the exhibition "Hydroaviasalon-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of ten amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in the United States.

This contract provides for the delivery of four Be-200BC aircraft and an option for another six such aircraft. The first two aircraft will be equipped with engines D-436TP, the rest with SAM-146 engines.

Also, a contract was signed for the delivery of five amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in Chile."

Who are they going to, specifically? The federal US forest service? A state's? Some contractor?

After the huge fires we had a couple years ago, it was the most logical thing to get bigger anti fire planes for Chile.

N415XJ wrote:

Who are they going to, specifically? The federal US forest service? A state's? Some contractor?

Yes, the lack of specifics should be sending up a couple of flags here. I'll file this in the "I'll believe it when I see it" pile.

Wouldn't a buyer notify the public as well? I hope it will happen but two different engines on such a small order sounds fishy.

N415XJ wrote:

Interesting. Here's a translation of the text via google translate. It would be great if someone who actually speaks Russian gave us a proper translation

"On September 8, during the exhibition "Hydroaviasalon-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of ten amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in the United States.

This contract provides for the delivery of four Be-200BC aircraft and an option for another six such aircraft. The first two aircraft will be equipped with engines D-436TP, the rest with SAM-146 engines.

Also, a contract was signed for the delivery of five amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in Chile."

Who are they going to, specifically? The federal US forest service? A state's? Some contractor?

If I understand correctly, the customer is the company "Seaplane Global Air Services", which is registered in the state of Delaware.

Great news! Hopefully it will materialize.

In terms of getting water on target/ per hour/ per dollar it must be impressive.

E.g. 2400t water in 42 flights / 119hrs / 300 scoops-drops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuF0LN8x66c

Very unlikely. The CL415 couldn’t get in on bilateral certification, what’s the chances of an uncertified product from a country actively being sanctioned?

GF

keesje wrote:

In terms of getting water on target/ per hour/ per dollar it must be impressive.

E.g. 2400t water in 42 flights / 119hrs / 300 scoops-drops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuF0LN8x66c

At one full refueling, the Be-200 can dump up to 270 tons of water, provided that the distance from the base airfield to the fire site is not more than 100 km, and from the fire to the water intake site is 10 kilometers.
The cost of one flight hour Be-200 is in the range of $6000-$13000.
The price of the aircraft under contracts with EMERCOM of Russia was ~ $ 53million.

More accurate information, unfortunately, I have not found.

P.S. It was also recently announced plans for the creation of the aircraft on the basis of amphibian A-42 (a takeoff weight up to 90 tons).

Wayfarer515 wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BneWJLZjz5b/?utm_source=ig_embed

A total of 4 firm orders with plus another 6 options, good to know the Be-200 is finally going to be used extensively in the role it was designed for.

Link is already dead...like the contract??

Link from TASS news agency:

https://tass.ru/ekonomika/5539477

Contract signed for delivery of four + six options to USA, five will be sold to Chile says press release from TANTK Beriev company...

And the engines for the first two (D-436) will be sourced from where?

Breaking news on twitter ..... is it Donald Trump they're trying to sell these aircraft to?

There's nothing but flashing red lights and flags about this story; just getting the contraption FAA certified could ruin the entire Russian civil aviation scene.

Someone's throwing a wobbly.

B777LRF wrote:

Breaking news on twitter ..... is it Donald Trump they're trying to sell these aircraft to?

There's nothing but flashing red lights and flags about this story; just getting the contraption FAA certified could ruin the entire Russian civil aviation scene.

Someone's throwing a wobbly.

Google tells me the Beriev has certified the BE-103 in the USA (back in 2003) http://aviationweek.com/awin/faa-has-ce ... iev-be-103

This tells me that certification won't ruin Beriev, especially since it's part of UAC. Furthermore, as it is a fire fighting aircraft the Trump administration could pull a "National Security" that seems like a magical "Avoid regulations (the President) doesn't like" since 9/11

WorldFlier wrote:

Google tells me the Beriev has certified the BE-103 in the USA (back in 2003) http://aviationweek.com/awin/faa-has-ce ... iev-be-103

This tells me that certification won't ruin Beriev, especially since it's part of UAC. Furthermore, as it is a fire fighting aircraft the Trump administration could pull a "National Security" that seems like a magical "Avoid regulations (the President) doesn't like" since 9/11

They've certified a 6-seat aircraft, which has little to do with a 40-tons fire fighter. The article doesn't mention to which standard the -103 has been certified, which could make a world of difference. They'd apparently also need to certify it with two different engines, again not something applicable to the -103.

The idea Trump would bulldoze through an order for a fleet of Russian aircraft would, I think, only serve to accelerate already ongoing investigations.i

[/troll mode on] Shouldn't that be under Military Aviation? [/troll mode off]

The Be-200 is a beautiful plane indeed, may be good for California, but I think it had some issues in the Med when it was leased due to its size.

Why is the US not looking at this?



A more "politically" correct choice. I know that Greece is actively checking it to replace its aging CL215 (mainly) fleet.

Personal opinion: There seems to be a distinct lack of modern firefighting planes these days. I could see a limited market for them especially as the global temps go up on a yearly basis.

Were just going to ignore the fact that they are grounding firefighting aircraft here in the USA for lack of pilots, but you're all expecting even more aircraft?

Can I get a sip of that?

Draken21fx wrote:

[/troll mode on] Shouldn't that be under Military Aviation? [/troll mode off]

Or given the thread's title, perhaps non-av?

There are no Air Tankers owned by the Federal Government (I suppose you could say the Maff System is Federally owned) the vast majority are private companies. When I started ( I was on the Govt side not the company side) the B17. PB4Y, B24 and many other WWII planes were in Service. When I left we were using DC-6's and 7's. Currently they are using Ag planes and the Super Tankers. The 747, DC-10, 737. I don't keep up with the industry any more but I know of at least 1 company that was trying to develop the DC-9/MD80. The Russian Amphibs would work well in some areas of the US but not real well in the Mountain West. California, Oregon and Washington would work in some places. This is the reason the CL 215 and 415 didn't sell in the US. Having said all of that i would love to see them work a fire.

I think the noble purpose of fighting wildfires which have even cost many human lives should be more than enough reason to let this happen, at least from a political point of view, they already turn a blind eye when it comes to rocket engines or getting a ride to space without the expectation of your astronauts getting blown away into pieces in the process, so why not do it on this one too?

As for the certification, I have no idea what is required for such an specialized type of airplane, I do seem to remember they already got EASA certification, and they already have operated in Europe for a while.
As for the D-436 status, as far as I remember Motor Sich is still supplying engines for non-military applications for the Russians, and are even working on a newer version with reverse thrust capability for the Be-200.

As for the title thread, a bit misleading I admit, however what the heck the military have to do with firefighting? EMERCOM in Russia is a civil insitution, and I guess the same goes for its US counterpart.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

I think the noble purpose of fighting wildfires which have even cost many human lives should be more than enough reason to let this happen, at least from a political point of view, they already turn a blind eye when it comes to rocket engines or getting a ride to space without the expectation of your astronauts getting blown away into pieces in the process, so why not do it on this one too?

As for the certification, I have no idea what is required to do it, I do seem to remember they already got EASA certification, and they already have operated in Europe for a while.
As for the D-436 status, as far as I remember Moto Sich is still supplying engines for non-military applications for the Russians, and are even working on a newer version with reverse thrust capability for the Be-200.

As for the title thread, a bit misleading I admit, however what the heck the military have to do with firefighting? EMERCOM in Russia is a civil insitution, and I guess the same goes for its US counterpart.

In the US there is a National Guard unit that can outfit C-130's with the Maffs system and fly fire missions. It stood for Mobile Ariel Fire Fighting System. There was a bunch of strict conditions that had to be met before the ANG could be called up. There had to be no Civilian tanker available. Also the unit was specially trained and preformed quite well. I saw them in action a few times

Hmm - this is certainly very interesting. First - aren't UAC or any of plane/parts suppliers under US sanctions? How can the transaction go through then? But I guess if it's for a Federal agency, Dept. of State can make it work. Second - what about avionics, especially English-language one?

The only thing I can think of - some form of wet-lease, where the planes are physically in or around the USA, and pilots are on duty or are being flown in within, say, 24 hours of request.

Shin Meiwa US-2s is one, a military plane, not civil; two, it’s not a fire-fighting plane. So, it’s out. The Be-103 is cert’d in the “Normal” category under Part 23. The Be-200 would have to be Part 25 or a special under the “Restricted” category. Relating the 103 to the 200 is like saying because the DHC-2 was certified, Bombardier can just start selling CRJs based on both being built by the same company.



GF

travaz wrote:

In the US there is a National Guard unit that can outfit C-130's with the Maffs system and fly fire missions. It stood for Mobile Ariel Fire Fighting System. There was a bunch of strict conditions that had to be met before the ANG could be called up. There had to be no Civilian tanker available. Also the unit was specially trained and preformed quite well. I saw them in action a few times

FWIW, last month I watched a Nevada Air National Guard C130 (#9) from the 152nd Airlift Wing (the High Rollers) load up on fire retardant at the USFS Air Tanker Base at SBD. It was during the SoCal fires last month in Idyllwild and Orange county. There were plenty of other tankers on the tarmac as well. There were 3 of the DC10 Tankers that were cycling in and out to refill on retardant as well as a DC9 and a BAe 146. The ANG C130 seemed to be focused on the Idyllwild fire.

It looks like it was their first firefighting deployment. They were assigned to Fresno, but came through SBD at some point.

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/242694/hi ... activation

Pretty awesome day of plane spotting.

Mike Drop

B777LRF wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

Google tells me the Beriev has certified the BE-103 in the USA (back in 2003) http://aviationweek.com/awin/faa-has-ce ... iev-be-103

This tells me that certification won't ruin Beriev, especially since it's part of UAC. Furthermore, as it is a fire fighting aircraft the Trump administration could pull a "National Security" that seems like a magical "Avoid regulations (the President) doesn't like" since 9/11

They've certified a 6-seat aircraft, which has little to do with a 40-tons fire fighter. The article doesn't mention to which standard the -103 has been certified, which could make a world of difference. They'd apparently also need to certify it with two different engines, again not something applicable to the -103.

The idea Trump would bulldoze through an order for a fleet of Russian aircraft would, I think, only serve to accelerate already ongoing investigations.i

Eff the politics. We NEED this aircraft. If you have lived in Oregon, California and surroundings, you'd understand. We have been living in a cloud of smoke for 3 months while we are surrounded by wildfires. People are losing their homes.
This happens every year.

travaz wrote:

There are no Air Tankers owned by the Federal Government (I suppose you could say the Maff System is Federally owned) the vast majority are private companies. When I started ( I was on the Govt side not the company side) the B17. PB4Y, B24 and many other WWII planes were in Service. When I left we were using DC-6's and 7's. Currently they are using Ag planes and the Super Tankers. The 747, DC-10, 737. I don't keep up with the industry any more but I know of at least 1 company that was trying to develop the DC-9/MD80. The Russian Amphibs would work well in some areas of the US but not real well in the Mountain West. California, Oregon and Washington would work in some places. This is the reason the CL 215 and 415 didn't sell in the US. Having said all of that i would love to see them work a fire.

Just drove through Madras Oregon last week & Erickson Aero-tankers were all over the ramp, two in their operating colors, several more in the Spanair colors from their previous days as passenger aircraft, all were MD-87's & I have been seeing them for years. I have seen them in action up here in Oregon, but I'm wondering if all of those Spanair planes will ever be converted?

This looks like it will be very beneficial to the firefighters out west battling some of the most intense wildfires ever seen in the US.

Slug71 wrote:

Eff the politics. We NEED this aircraft. If you have lived in Oregon, California and surroundings, you'd understand. We have been living in a cloud of smoke for 3 months while we are surrounded by wildfires. People are losing their homes.
This happens every year.

Well - write your Congressman. They need to get out of these sanctions, be able to buy this aircraft, work with the manufacturer on adjusting it to the needs of Americans, and improve safety of regular residents like yourself. They've been having other priorities for a while now, tell them it's time to finally get real.

travaz wrote:

There are no Air Tankers owned by the Federal Government (I suppose you could say the Maff System is Federally owned) the vast majority are private companies. When I started ( I was on the Govt side not the company side) the B17. PB4Y, B24 and many other WWII planes were in Service. When I left we were using DC-6's and 7's. Currently they are using Ag planes and the Super Tankers. The 747, DC-10, 737. I don't keep up with the industry any more but I know of at least 1 company that was trying to develop the DC-9/MD80. The Russian Amphibs would work well in some areas of the US but not real well in the Mountain West. California, Oregon and Washington would work in some places. This is the reason the CL 215 and 415 didn't sell in the US. Having said all of that i would love to see them work a fire.

If I recall well, the MD80 has serious water ingestion issues for its engines and didn't work out because it would need a pressurised drop system which adds weight.
The BE200 is also not immune to water ingestion by the engines, though we're talking about a seaplane.

Frankly the BE200 is as useless as the Shinmaywa US-2. Their payload capabilites are too low.
In addition, the US-2 is not a cheap plane.
Don't get me started on the 215\415. There's a reason why governments are not ordering them by the hundreds. The cost of rebuilding damaged property is lower than the operating cost of these aircraft, considering that they are not effective on medium to large fires.

Scorpius wrote:

keesje wrote:

In terms of getting water on target/ per hour/ per dollar it must be impressive.

E.g. 2400t water in 42 flights / 119hrs / 300 scoops-drops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuF0LN8x66c

At one full refueling, the Be-200 can dump up to 270 tons of water, provided that the distance from the base airfield to the fire site is not more than 100 km, and from the fire to the water intake site is 10 kilometers.
The cost of one flight hour Be-200 is in the range of $6000-$13000.
The price of the aircraft under contracts with EMERCOM of Russia was ~ $ 53million.

More accurate information, unfortunately, I have not found.

P.S. It was also recently announced plans for the creation of the aircraft on the basis of amphibian A-42 (a takeoff weight up to 90 tons).

270t of water? Are you sure? Because in the web presentation they said that the airplane has a 12mc tank.

426Shadow wrote:

Were just going to ignore the fact that they are grounding firefighting aircraft here in the USA for lack of pilots, but you're all expecting even more aircraft?

lack of pilots requires larger planes, doesn't it?

talonone wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

keesje wrote:

In terms of getting water on target/ per hour/ per dollar it must be impressive.

E.g. 2400t water in 42 flights / 119hrs / 300 scoops-drops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuF0LN8x66c

At one full refueling, the Be-200 can dump up to 270 tons of water, provided that the distance from the base airfield to the fire site is not more than 100 km, and from the fire to the water intake site is 10 kilometers.
The cost of one flight hour Be-200 is in the range of $6000-$13000.
The price of the aircraft under contracts with EMERCOM of Russia was ~ $ 53million.

More accurate information, unfortunately, I have not found.

P.S. It was also recently announced plans for the creation of the aircraft on the basis of amphibian A-42 (a takeoff weight up to 90 tons).

270t of water? Are you sure? Because in the web presentation they said that the airplane has a 12mc tank.

Wikipedia also lists the capacity as 12.000 kg of water. Thats 22-23 flights. At a ferry range of 3300 km, that doesn't seem possible since you will be operating at low level with lots of power for the constant takeoffs and climbs. Wikipedia lists a "normal" range of 2100 km (not stating at which profile, so actual fire-fighting range could be even worse). At 100 km per flight (round-trip of 200 km), that allows you to drop a maximum of 120 tons.

WIederling wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Were just going to ignore the fact that they are grounding firefighting aircraft here in the USA for lack of pilots, but you're all expecting even more aircraft?

lack of pilots requires larger planes, doesn't it?

Or newer planes to attract pilots based on the shiny-jet syndrome.

VSMUT wrote:

talonone wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

At one full refueling, the Be-200 can dump up to 270 tons of water, provided that the distance from the base airfield to the fire site is not more than 100 km, and from the fire to the water intake site is 10 kilometers.
The cost of one flight hour Be-200 is in the range of $6000-$13000.
The price of the aircraft under contracts with EMERCOM of Russia was ~ $ 53million.

More accurate information, unfortunately, I have not found.

P.S. It was also recently announced plans for the creation of the aircraft on the basis of amphibian A-42 (a takeoff weight up to 90 tons).

270t of water? Are you sure? Because in the web presentation they said that the airplane has a 12mc tank.

Wikipedia also lists the capacity as 12.000 kg of water. Thats 22-23 flights. At a ferry range of 3300 km, that doesn't seem possible since you will be operating at low level with lots of power for the constant takeoffs and climbs. Wikipedia lists a "normal" range of 2100 km (not stating at which profile, so actual fire-fighting range could be even worse). At 100 km per flight (round-trip of 200 km), that allows you to drop a maximum of 120 tons.

WIederling wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Were just going to ignore the fact that they are grounding firefighting aircraft here in the USA for lack of pilots, but you're all expecting even more aircraft?

lack of pilots requires larger planes, doesn't it?

Or newer planes to attract pilots based on the shiny-jet syndrome.

You've counted wrong. 270 tons is provided from the airfield to the fire of 100 km. On the plane from the fire to the water intake (river or lake) fly to a distance of 10 km.

talonone wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

keesje wrote:

In terms of getting water on target/ per hour/ per dollar it must be impressive.

E.g. 2400t water in 42 flights / 119hrs / 300 scoops-drops. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuF0LN8x66c

At one full refueling, the Be-200 can dump up to 270 tons of water, provided that the distance from the base airfield to the fire site is not more than 100 km, and from the fire to the water intake site is 10 kilometers.
The cost of one flight hour Be-200 is in the range of $6000-$13000.
The price of the aircraft under contracts with EMERCOM of Russia was ~ $ 53million.

More accurate information, unfortunately, I have not found.

P.S. It was also recently announced plans for the creation of the aircraft on the basis of amphibian A-42 (a takeoff weight up to 90 tons).

270t of water? Are you sure? Because in the web presentation they said that the airplane has a 12mc tank.

"At one full refueling" of fuel, good for many scoops/drops of water e.g. totally 270t.

The Japanese flying boat is a great machine, but probably build/ dimensioned to do 20 water landing / take-offs a month, not per day.

The re-engining of the BE-200 with SaM146 means they now have Safran / a commercially approved engine on board, which ensures monitoring, service, development programs.

NearMiss wrote:

N415XJ wrote:

Interesting. Here's a translation of the text via google translate. It would be great if someone who actually speaks Russian gave us a proper translation

"On September 8, during the exhibition "Hydroaviasalon-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of ten amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in the United States.

This contract provides for the delivery of four Be-200BC aircraft and an option for another six such aircraft. The first two aircraft will be equipped with engines D-436TP, the rest with SAM-146 engines.

Also, a contract was signed for the delivery of five amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in Chile."

Who are they going to, specifically? The federal US forest service? A state's? Some contractor?

After the huge fires we had a couple years ago, it was the most logical thing to get bigger anti fire planes for Chile.

Nearmiss, While I agree with you about having new anti fire planes in Chile is good news for the country, I wonder why our authorities choose this option exactly. There are other options available and frankly I have my serious doubts about how practical would be for Chile to get support, maintenance, crew training and full warranty for the future operation of this planes. A good sized and more handling fleet of Canadair CL-415 would made much more sense than this. For the price tag of this russian planes you could buy a bigger number of CL-415 and distribute them in a better way to assure coverage of different regions quickly.
Considering the lack of transparency from CONAF and the " Anti Fire Contracts Cartel " we knew about in the recent times, this decision is a liiiittle suspicious….


Rgds.
G.

They will make beautiful ramp sculpture - that is where they will spend most of their time, as getting support for them will be next to impossible (and not because of sanctions). Portugal tried them out (leased them for a fire season) a few years ago, and even with direct support from the manufacturer (who was operating the planes) dispatch reliability was terrible, and they kept getting damaged from hitting trees at the end of their scoop runs in our dams (couldn't scoop up and climb fast enough). We quickly went back to Canadairs (although that is not really an option anymore).

And don't even get me started on buying Kamov helicopters for fire-fighting, that is an even more terrible idea..

Slug71 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

Google tells me the Beriev has certified the BE-103 in the USA (back in 2003) http://aviationweek.com/awin/faa-has-ce ... iev-be-103

This tells me that certification won't ruin Beriev, especially since it's part of UAC. Furthermore, as it is a fire fighting aircraft the Trump administration could pull a "National Security" that seems like a magical "Avoid regulations (the President) doesn't like" since 9/11

They've certified a 6-seat aircraft, which has little to do with a 40-tons fire fighter. The article doesn't mention to which standard the -103 has been certified, which could make a world of difference. They'd apparently also need to certify it with two different engines, again not something applicable to the -103.

The idea Trump would bulldoze through an order for a fleet of Russian aircraft would, I think, only serve to accelerate already ongoing investigations.i

Eff the politics. We NEED this aircraft. If you have lived in Oregon, California and surroundings, you'd understand. We have been living in a cloud of smoke for 3 months while we are surrounded by wildfires. People are losing their homes.
This happens every year.

Meh, this is the LAST aircraft we need. Unsupported paperweights that will be scooping from... exactly where inthe western US? Dropping just plain water, no retardant?

In the meantime Coulson is doing drop tests with their 737-300s as we speak to get carded, with a 4000 gallon capacity. 6 are coming online. Way more useful and i 100% guarantee a higher sortie rate 1 week in to the season with the 733.

Typical stunt. Remember when the IL-76 was supposed to be working US fires? Still hasn't happened yet.

Spacepope wrote:

Meh, this is the LAST aircraft we need. Unsupported paperweights that will be scooping from... exactly where in the western US? Dropping just plain water, no retardant?

I have wondered about that.
When I see videos of firefighting water airdrops away from the US they seem to drop plain water.

Is it only in the US that massive amounts of environmentally suspect retardants are added?
https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/documents/304c.pdf

Spacepope wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

They've certified a 6-seat aircraft, which has little to do with a 40-tons fire fighter. The article doesn't mention to which standard the -103 has been certified, which could make a world of difference. They'd apparently also need to certify it with two different engines, again not something applicable to the -103.

The idea Trump would bulldoze through an order for a fleet of Russian aircraft would, I think, only serve to accelerate already ongoing investigations.i

Eff the politics. We NEED this aircraft. If you have lived in Oregon, California and surroundings, you'd understand. We have been living in a cloud of smoke for 3 months while we are surrounded by wildfires. People are losing their homes.
This happens every year.

Meh, this is the LAST aircraft we need. Unsupported paperweights that will be scooping from... exactly where inthe western US? Dropping just plain water, no retardant?

In the meantime Coulson is doing drop tests with their 737-300s as we speak to get carded, with a 4000 gallon capacity. 6 are coming online. Way more useful and i 100% guarantee a higher sortie rate 1 week in to the season with the 733.

Typical stunt. Remember when the IL-76 was supposed to be working US fires? Still hasn't happened yet.

Tell that to the people who lose their homes EVERY year and the people and firefighters who lose their lives.
The SaM146 is Supported by SAFRAN. There are plenty of places it can scoop from, Klamath Lake and Shasta Lake being just two of those places. It can drop retardant, but where are you going to scoop that from? There is no way a 737 has a higher sortie rate. Landing (at a suitable airport), filling tanks, taking off, trip time etc..all adds to the turnaround time. A Be-200 can land in many of the suitable bodies of water closest to the fire and go to work dropping roughly 3100 gallons.

Slug71 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Eff the politics. We NEED this aircraft. If you have lived in Oregon, California and surroundings, you'd understand. We have been living in a cloud of smoke for 3 months while we are surrounded by wildfires. People are losing their homes.
This happens every year.

Meh, this is the LAST aircraft we need. Unsupported paperweights that will be scooping from... exactly where inthe western US? Dropping just plain water, no retardant?

In the meantime Coulson is doing drop tests with their 737-300s as we speak to get carded, with a 4000 gallon capacity. 6 are coming online. Way more useful and i 100% guarantee a higher sortie rate 1 week in to the season with the 733.

Typical stunt. Remember when the IL-76 was supposed to be working US fires? Still hasn't happened yet.

Tell that to the people who lose their homes EVERY year and the people and firefighters who lose their lives.
The SaM146 is Supported by SAFRAN. There are plenty of places it can scoop from, Klamath Lake and Shasta Lake being just two of those places. It can drop retardant, but where are you going to scoop that from? There is no way a 737 has a higher sortie rate. Landing (at a suitable airport), filling tanks, taking off, trip time etc..all adds to the turnaround time. A Be-200 can land in many of the suitable bodies of water closest to the fire and go to work dropping roughly 3100 gallons.

Happily. I nearly lost my home in 2012 to one of these massive fires and work in both emergency response and restoration after the fires, so don't even try to pull this victim card on me. The western US is a damned arid region for the most part and 95% of the bodies of water are too small for the BE-200 to scoop from (as evidenced with their secondary arborist career in their failed Portugese experiment). When you have the caveat of a high scoop rate if the drop zone is within just 6 miles of the fire, those goalpoast have to keep moving to make this aircraft appealing in the least.

Look at it this way: The Martin Mars are retired. The Canadair scoopers are only used sparingly out here. It's all converted airliners and C-130s, with SEAT support and the occasional mutual aid CV-580s.

Water is way less effective in suppression than retardant, and most of these retardant lines are being dropped to assist ground firefighters (the ones that actually put out the fire, aircraft simply don't do that). Dropping 3000 gallons of plain water isn't going to slow down the firefront for the guys on the ground. Retardant drops and dozers will. If you run retardant through a BE-200, any of it's paper advantages are gone in a poof of smoke.

Lastly on the engines that some of these (uncertified) airframes are reported to get. 1:when the superjet has reliability issues int he press, the French part of the engines is singled out as the source of the problems (whether our Russian friends are just pulling the reason out of their butt remains to be seen) and 2: the reliability and lack of support extends to the entire airframe, one of which isn't even operated outside it's own home country yet let alone it's intended hemisphere. Without a massive logistics carnival following the aircraft everywhere it goes it'll be a brick. Russian aircraft have a reputation of being able to be maintained by a peasant conscript with a hammer, however this doesn't mean reliability or dependability, it just means they can be fixed if you have the right pile of parts that fail often.

[quote="N415XJ"]Interesting. Here's a translation of the text via google translate. It would be great if someone who actually speaks Russian gave us a proper translation

"On September 8, during the exhibition "Hydroaviasalon-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of ten amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in the United States.

This contract provides for the delivery of four Be-200BC aircraft and an option for another six such aircraft. The first two aircraft will be equipped with engines D-436TP, the rest with SAM-146 engines.

Also, a contract was signed for the delivery of five amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in Chile."

Hi: An were is original text?

Rgds

Apprentice wrote:

N415XJ wrote:

Interesting. Here's a translation of the text via google translate. It would be great if someone who actually speaks Russian gave us a proper translation

"On September 8, during the exhibition "Hydroaviasalon-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of ten amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in the United States.

This contract provides for the delivery of four Be-200BC aircraft and an option for another six such aircraft. The first two aircraft will be equipped with engines D-436TP, the rest with SAM-146 engines.

Also, a contract was signed for the delivery of five amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in Chile."

Hi: An were is original text?

Rgds

It was in the OP link on instagram.

Retardant is just as useless when you can't penetrate a canopy or even a layer of grass.
Moisture in any form does slow down a fire but you need massive quantities.
No aircraft in operation today has the capabilities to deliver those massive quantities except the MI-26. The Mi26 is also not perfect in terms of maneuvrability, but it can be combined with military roles, which can make it easier to fund.
I'd also accept 10 ton Skycranes but they'll need double the amount.
What California really needs is a fleet of 200 heavy helicopters, designated scooping places and large firebreaks every 2 miles.
Sure, it will cost a few billions but the environmental and economical impact will be very positive.

Also, large scale irrigation, whether from aircraft or traditional methods, can stimulate rainfall. Rain brings more rain, drought brings more drought.
This should also be considered considering the scale that we can ooerate at nowadays.

I also remind that we should stop dumping sea water. It slows down regeneration dramatically and kills trees that survive the actual fire.

Pyrex wrote:

They will make beautiful ramp sculpture - that is where they will spend most of their time, as getting support for them will be next to impossible (and not because of sanctions). Portugal tried them out (leased them for a fire season) a few years ago, and even with direct support from the manufacturer (who was operating the planes) dispatch reliability was terrible, and they kept getting damaged from hitting trees at the end of their scoop runs in our dams (couldn't scoop up and climb fast enough). We quickly went back to Canadairs (although that is not really an option anymore).

And don't even get me started on buying Kamov helicopters for fire-fighting, that is an even more terrible idea..

The Be-103 sure made for good ramp ornaments. Its US-based dealer really took a bath on the 3 he imported, he couldn't sell them to anyone and parts support was practically non-existent. I remember speaking to him years ago and he had one of the planes grounded for months, waiting for a spare part to arrive from Russia. The cost of said parts (when available) was eye-watering too.

Sounds like the Portuguese had a similar experience with the Be-200.

AFAIK, Be-200 only had one tree related incident in Portugal, and here is a video of taking off from lake with no issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__XflBfmVs4

It has also successfully done fire fighting in the Middle East and across Russia (vary different climates).

Spares is a looming issue for a non-Russian gov operator, but the capability is there.

I lived in a town that was badly hurt by fires in 2009 - the Black Saturday fires in Victoria, Australia.

Before then, aerial firefighting was not a subject I thought much about. But what really struck me was the large numbers of helicopters which scooped up buckets of water from local farmers dams, rivers etc. These weren't big choppers, just Rangers or Squirrels, with the occasional lumbering Skycrane.

My instinct was to wonder why no fixed wing? Other countries do fixed wing extensively.

Talking to local firefighters, the consensus was that fixed wings were impractical because they had to fly a fair distance from the coast to reach the fire grounds. This limited the number of drops per day, if amphibs were used. (The Russian aircraft can only do 100km which would be very limiting I think). They conceded large aircraft using retardant could be of use, but that the cost was too high, and would pay for a handful of choppers, which would be better overall.

I think the most interesting part of this debate is that there seems to be totally different approaches as to how best to use aviation assets in fires!

Gonzalo wrote:

NearMiss wrote:

N415XJ wrote:

Interesting. Here's a translation of the text via google translate. It would be great if someone who actually speaks Russian gave us a proper translation

"On September 8, during the exhibition "Hydroaviasalon-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of ten amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in the United States.

This contract provides for the delivery of four Be-200BC aircraft and an option for another six such aircraft. The first two aircraft will be equipped with engines D-436TP, the rest with SAM-146 engines.

Also, a contract was signed for the delivery of five amphibian aircraft Be-200ES in Chile."

Who are they going to, specifically? The federal US forest service? A state's? Some contractor?

After the huge fires we had a couple years ago, it was the most logical thing to get bigger anti fire planes for Chile.

Nearmiss, While I agree with you about having new anti fire planes in Chile is good news for the country, I wonder why our authorities choose this option exactly. There are other options available and frankly I have my serious doubts about how practical would be for Chile to get support, maintenance, crew training and full warranty for the future operation of this planes. A good sized and more handling fleet of Canadair CL-415 would made much more sense than this. For the price tag of this russian planes you could buy a bigger number of CL-415 and distribute them in a better way to assure coverage of different regions quickly.
Considering the lack of transparency from CONAF and the " Anti Fire Contracts Cartel " we knew about in the recent times, this decision is a liiiittle suspicious….


Rgds.
G.

Maybe they were the "cheaper" option. But seeing how bad Russian manufacturers are at sending parts and maintenance equipment to costumers (Interjet and their SSJs) they might end up being more expensive than originally planned. Wonder if they'll be just operated for CONAF or if CONAF will own these planes.

I have been in the middle of several wildfires in California and never saw water drops from planes. California doesn't really have many lakes to draw from, will these planes carry saltwater? There are some large reservoirs but they can get low too. They seem to prefer helicopter water buckets and retardant. The water buckets are handy because they can draw from small local ponds.