Is it time NZ got an aerial fire fighting plane ?

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Is it time NZ got an aerial fire fighting plane ?

1 | 2

Scott3

3340 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3136738 29-Sep-2023 23:54

If we were to go the dedicated plane route, these would likely be a good fit for NZ:

I think they are about USD2.3m each. About 3000L capacity (but that payload is shared with fuel), and ability to refill on any appropriate waterway:

Mighty Ape

Shop Mighty Ape for electronics, games, computers books and more (affiliate link).

Goosey

2347 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3136759 30-Sep-2023 10:04

That’s Dusty Crop Hopper !

tweake

1057 posts

Uber Geek

#3136818 30-Sep-2023 10:53

Scott3:

In general wildfires seem to be increasing in frequency, so it would make sense for NZ to scale up it's capability.

My understanding is that rural fire has long been the poor cousin to their urban counterparts when it comes to equipment, (not that the urban centers don't have issues with stuff like old / unreliable ladder units). So expensive aerial firefighting planes are going to be challenging to fund.

That said, I understand a bunch of flash new 4x4 rural fire trucks have been delivered over the last few years. (at about NZ$340k each)

One of the below planes (5,300L capacity), runs at about USD30m (about NZD50m).

Even for a single plane, that is a pretty massive opportunity cost. Could buy over 1500 modern 4x4 rural fire pump /tank trucks. like the below:

Or we could look at some of the super flash gear aussie has got in the last while:

Unimog:

Ultra Light (G Class):

agreed.

what people keep forgetting is planes are not there to put fires out. the firefighting is done by ground crews. so 1500 firetrucks is a huge jump in ability than one plane.

Scott3

3340 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3137157 30-Sep-2023 20:37

Thought about this a little more. There has to be something wrong with the value of the fire fighting planes I quoted above.

The $30m plane costs more than 10x that of the air tractor, but doesn't even carry double the retardant....

tripper1000

1543 posts

Uber Geek

#3137678 2-Oct-2023 11:52

N.Z. bush fires are far less lethal and destroy less property than USA and Australian fires so bush fire fighting isn't any kind of priority here. If dozens of lives were lost every fire, public priorities would change.

The retardant dropped is corrosive and gets all over the aircraft, so this is why you typically see old retired military/civil aircraft converted to fire bombers (ie low value & disposable). USA fire-bombing companies are in fact interested in our retiring C-130 because they have been maintained better that most. Particularly, the wings have been upgraded, unlike that fatal US firebombing C-130 that had the centre wing failure.

(Pseudo?) Environmentalism has obstructed back-burning and firebreak maintenance in the western world, which is the main reason bush fires are gotten worse in CA and Aussie. (The return of controlled burn-offs was a big thing in NSW this year, but it took a bunch of preventable deaths and destruction for it to be bought back). The retardants dropped by aircraft are not "natural" products, and have big long scary chemical names, so would be vilified by the average kiwi anti-industrialist. Best stick to Di-Hydrogen mono-oxide dropped from helicopters.

Wombat1

400 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3137684 2-Oct-2023 12:06

New Zealand needs fire fighting planes just as much as australia needs an earthquake response system.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
7284 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3137689 2-Oct-2023 12:24

Wombat1: New Zealand needs fire fighting planes just as much as australia needs an earthquake response system.

Ah - but I was lying awake in bed at 1am in Sydney 40 years ago and felt an earthquake that was later widely reported.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

tripper1000

1543 posts

Uber Geek

#3137824 2-Oct-2023 14:31

eracode:

Wombat1: New Zealand needs fire fighting planes just as much as Australia needs an earthquake response system.

Ah - but I was lying awake in bed at 1am in Sydney 40 years ago and felt an earthquake that was later widely reported.

How did you survive without an earthquake response system?

frankv

5583 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3137864 2-Oct-2023 16:36

Scott3:

Thought about this a little more. There has to be something wrong with the value of the fire fighting planes I quoted above.

The $30m plane costs more than 10x that of the air tractor, but doesn't even carry double the retardant....

You pay a large premium for a flying boat. It has to have a whole lot of stuff and structure that an ordinary plane doesn't (starting with an anchor, I guess). I don't think there's much benefit for a flying boat fire-fighting aircraft in NZ... unlike (say) Canada, there's not many lakes and alight-able rivers where there isn't also an airstrip of some kind nearby with road access.

[Edit] Just read above about the corrosive nature of retardent. In that aspect flying boats are better, because they're already well-protected against corrosion.

1 | 2