3 ms·

What type of risky maneuvers are you imagining are required to drop some water on a fire? And how many $30-100 million dollar planes would you throw away to do

What type of risky maneuvers are you imagining are required to drop some water on a fire? And how many $30-100 million dollar planes would you throw away to do it? It's risky enough as it is, I doubt anyone wants to increase that risk.. and it seems to me they're perfectly capable of fighting fires without the multiple $100m losses you think might be "effective". It isn't like these fire depts have that kind of money to throw away. And they would still want to clear unauthorized drones from the area... It would be a big loss if one of these crashed because of someones hobby drone. And unpiloted or not, a plane that big and heavy won't be capable of moving out of the way of a small drone that gets in its way.

afiori 7y ago
As a premise I am not an expert in any related field, but with regards to flying in the smoke it is possible (maybe, I do not know which constraint are relevant) that an unmanned could have more freedom of approaching a fire from more angles.
zlsa 7y ago
Where are you seeing $30-100 million dollars? The largest firefighting plane in operation today cost [about $10 million](https://www.outsideonline.com/2079591/can-10-million-firefighting-machine-actually-stop-fires https://www.outsideonline.com/2079591/can-10-million-firefig...) to purchase and outfit.
- rgbrenner 7y ago
  That's an old converted plane. It was a passenger plane, then a cargo plane, then sat on a lot for a couple of years.. so they got it cheap. A new CL-415 is $35m: https://www.rand.org/blog/2013/12/investing-in-firefighting.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2013/12/investing-in-firefighting.... And that's not a particularly large plane. It does look like a lot of water bombers are old converted planes.. so you're probably closer to the correct number than the number I posted. I don't think this changes my point though.. they're still expensive planes.
  - starpilot 7y ago
    $100m lol. Don't think these cost as much as a fighter jet.
DoctorOetker 7y ago
"simply" picking up the water from a lake at night does not sound like a risky kind of flight maneuver to you?

afiori 7y ago

As a premise I am not an expert in any related field, but with regards to flying in the smoke it is possible (maybe, I do not know which constraint are relevant) that an unmanned could have more freedom of approaching a fire from more angles.

zlsa 7y ago

Where are you seeing $30-100 million dollars? The largest firefighting plane in operation today cost [about $10 million](https://www.outsideonline.com/2079591/can-10-million-firefighting-machine-actually-stop-fires https://www.outsideonline.com/2079591/can-10-million-firefig...) to purchase and outfit.

rgbrenner 7y ago
That's an old converted plane. It was a passenger plane, then a cargo plane, then sat on a lot for a couple of years.. so they got it cheap. A new CL-415 is $35m: https://www.rand.org/blog/2013/12/investing-in-firefighting.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2013/12/investing-in-firefighting.... And that's not a particularly large plane. It does look like a lot of water bombers are old converted planes.. so you're probably closer to the correct number than the number I posted. I don't think this changes my point though.. they're still expensive planes.
- starpilot 7y ago
  $100m lol. Don't think these cost as much as a fighter jet.

DoctorOetker 7y ago

"simply" picking up the water from a lake at night does not sound like a risky kind of flight maneuver to you?