2006-11-01 09:01:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
It did wonders on the recent CA fire. It has several times the capacity of the helicopters when it comes to water and fire retardant.
It can lay a path of nearly 1/2 mile on a single drop.
There is a 747 also equipped for this purpose... the 747 carries almost twice the amount of the DC10.
Attached is a link showing the DC10 and an actual viedo of the 747 making a drop
2006-11-01 09:36:26 · answer #1 · answered by j H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, Why not? the DC-10 has had a few accidents in it's career, even was grounded after a United DC-10 crashed in Illinois, but over it's career it has overcome all of it's faults, and is still proving it's reliable tri-jet design all over the globe on second-hand and cargo airlines. It is relatively old and out-of-date, but with improved avionics and a large tank fitted inside the huge, wide body fuselage, one should think that the DC-10 would be fine, and probably pretty cheap to obtain and use in high-risk areas like California.
The Dc-10 has proved itself over the years and many hundreds are still in use. The kinks have all been worked out from it's few but deadly crashes making it probably one of the safest airliners to fly. With updated avionics the DC-10 could easily remain stable in smokey and other low visibility situations and the wide bodied fuselage would make it great for holding chemicals and fire retarder. If the fire department feels the need to use the airplane, why not. It's just another good, cheap airplane that will get the job done.
2006-11-01 10:06:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any aircraft with plenty of cargo capacity can be converted for use as a water-bomber... the problems, though, are that a fixed-wing plane does take a fair amount of conversion, and has to land to take on retardant or water - meaning a suitable runway and facilities, which may not be available close to a fire zone.
A helicopter, on the other hand, merely needs a "bucket" slung underneath... which can be refilled from the nearest body of water while in a hover.
It's a slick bit of flying, but it saves a lot of time
2006-11-01 13:00:20 · answer #3 · answered by IanP 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah the DC10 is a good air tanker. But the best water bomber in the world is the Martin Mars. It can scoop up water and return to the fire much faster than a DC10.
http://www.martinmars.com/
2006-11-01 14:35:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe it worth a shot because of the suddeness of these fire's.
Firefighting aircraft there is added risk involved. They are very costly to opperate I forgot how much but, I think it's $60,000.00
per hr.
2006-11-02 14:10:38 · answer #5 · answered by thresher 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if they can fit it with the right equipment, then I think it would work fine. There would be a lot of space to store the fire retardant.
2006-11-01 09:03:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was an American Airlines DC-10 and it was the worst aviation disaster in the united states
2006-11-01 12:18:44 · answer #7 · answered by *unknownuser* 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well it has plenty of capacity for Water drops suppose, but just damn big !
2006-11-01 09:04:18 · answer #8 · answered by Latin Techie 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it looked impressive and more stable those c130 are gitten old HELL YES
2006-11-01 22:17:58 · answer #9 · answered by allawishes 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they are available, yes.
2006-11-01 09:09:39 · answer #10 · answered by luckyaz128 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋