Joined
·
10,462 Posts
WWII Water Bomber
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
Man, you'd never break a champagne bottle on the nose of an aircraft today. That thing must have been built out of concrete.
Joined
·
3,647 Posts
Joined
·
7,286 Posts
Very few of them were made and they were built for transport. the "Water Bomber" name comes from their transition to fighting wild fires by dropping/bombing water on them.
Joined
·
3,647 Posts
SpecialEd,
THANKS for the info. - I presumed that they were called "water bombers" as they are seaplanes.
Do you know if they were ever used in WWII??
yours, sw
THANKS for the info. - I presumed that they were called "water bombers" as they are seaplanes.
Do you know if they were ever used in WWII??
yours, sw
Joined
·
7,286 Posts
mg:
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
This is the source of the urban myth about a dead man in scuba gear being found in the tops of the trees after a forest fire. As the story goes, no one could figure out how he got there until someone realized that the water bombers had been scooping water from a nearby lake that was popular with divers...
Joined
·
2,134 Posts
Actually, the Mars was originally designed and prototyped as a heavy patrol bomber to replace the Consolidated Coronado much as the Mariner was replacing the Catalina, but the "Super-Size Me" boats were both found to be better for hauling than fighting.
Unfortunately, I'm not having much luck finding data on what the PB2M's defensive armament and offensive stores were meant to be; this is a problem I've been grappling with for over a decade when a client contracted for Research Support services when he was trying to create a PB2M as a custom unit for a WWII miniatures wargame. (I refunded his entire retainer even though I was contractually allowed to retain payment for hours invested--I want people to at least have SOMETHING to show for their money when they hire me.)
Unfortunately, I'm not having much luck finding data on what the PB2M's defensive armament and offensive stores were meant to be; this is a problem I've been grappling with for over a decade when a client contracted for Research Support services when he was trying to create a PB2M as a custom unit for a WWII miniatures wargame. (I refunded his entire retainer even though I was contractually allowed to retain payment for hours invested--I want people to at least have SOMETHING to show for their money when they hire me.)
Joined
·
1,257 Posts
Just a week ago there was a cable show about the Canadian company that owns the last operational Mars and use it as a water bomber.
Apparently only 7 or 8 were built.
They were shown using it to fight major brush fires in northern Mexico.
From the looks of the size of the flight and maintenance crews, spotter helicopter crews, necessary equipment and support, and the difficulties in keeping it flying, I'm betting that the cost to employ them is a little more then $9.95 an hour.
Apparently only 7 or 8 were built.
They were shown using it to fight major brush fires in northern Mexico.
From the looks of the size of the flight and maintenance crews, spotter helicopter crews, necessary equipment and support, and the difficulties in keeping it flying, I'm betting that the cost to employ them is a little more then $9.95 an hour.
Joined
·
10,462 Posts
Actually the number was six built for the Navy during WWII.
World's largest water bomber plane with a 200-foot wingspan hits the market for $3m | Daily Mail Online
yea, it's based out of victoria, b.c and has recently been sold to a museum in the states- the locals are right p*ssed about it- my brother was aboard when they were fighting the fires in the Okanogan
there used to be 2 of them, but one was grounded due to the lack of spares and deemed unflightworthy- damned bureaucrats- when you need a part on one of these u MAKE one- but that requires a machinist that either can work from drawings or one that has EXPERIENCE- and having no land gear, it's like the canso- pby 4- non amphibian- back when they were bombing they had a racetrack going- one would come in, drop its load and the other would be en route and dropping while the other returned- maybe 15 minutes between dreops, and most of that was air-time
there used to be 2 of them, but one was grounded due to the lack of spares and deemed unflightworthy- damned bureaucrats- when you need a part on one of these u MAKE one- but that requires a machinist that either can work from drawings or one that has EXPERIENCE- and having no land gear, it's like the canso- pby 4- non amphibian- back when they were bombing they had a racetrack going- one would come in, drop its load and the other would be en route and dropping while the other returned- maybe 15 minutes between dreops, and most of that was air-time
back in the 60's-70's there used to be a company called AIRSPRAY that was tasked with fighting forest fires on the east slopes of the rockies in Canada- they ran I believe it was 3 cats- it may have been 4- out of yyc b/c that was the only runway long enough to accomodate a cat with a full load- and these were not EX- AMERICAN cats, but RAF/RCAF- probably built by Vickers in Vancouver under license- they had green/grey camouflage and ROUNDELS- it is possible that they were SERVICE asrs at the time- how I wish we digital cameras back then- years later I ended up working for airspray( we called it hairspray)running Grumman trackers
as for the goose, you may find them on inter-island Caribbean routes
as for the goose, you may find them on inter-island Caribbean routes
Joined
·
1,257 Posts
Too bad Howard Hughes didn't finish the "Spruce Goose" amphibian.
That thing could have extinguished Hell in one drop.
That thing could have extinguished Hell in one drop.
Joined
·
3,647 Posts
Joined
·
10,462 Posts
He went as far as he wanted. Made a successful flight then mothballed the bird. He may have been starting to lose it mentally at that time.
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
There is actually a concept for long overwater transport called a "ground-effect" aircraft. The idea takes advantage of the fact that when an aircraft flies within one wingspan of the surface, much less lift is required. If done over long distances this would translate into some combination of less drag (because producing lift also produces drag), lower fuel flow, and/or higher payload. The Russians actually have experimented quite extensively with this concept. I was going to provide a picture or video, but there is so much out there that if you just Google "ground effect aircraft" you'll get a ton of results.
Why mention this? Because the one flight the Spruce Goose flew was entirely in ground effect. Never having climbed above one wingspan, it's tough to say what kind of performer it would have been.
Why mention this? Because the one flight the Spruce Goose flew was entirely in ground effect. Never having climbed above one wingspan, it's tough to say what kind of performer it would have been.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
