Mars Water Bomber - Sign petition to ReInstate Bomber For 5 more Years Across BC

I would say that should put a lid on that!! Right from the pilot himself.
 
We have a tendency to complain when the Government wastes money. It seems we do the same when they try to save money.
 
Maybe CFAX should have asked the question: "Would you rather spend our scarce tax resources on keeping Wayne Coulson's antique aircraft in the air when there are more modern ways to fight forest fires, or would you want the Government to spend these dollars on health care and education?"
 
h8F67A337
 
\
Do the firefighting planes of today have the spectacular "water payload" of the Mars....?

Those planes can carry a lot of water......am I wrong or are there no current planes that can match them in water capacity?

I still get the message though about limitations etc etc etc and costs.....

But they sure can carry a load of water.....
 
I agree Seafeaver no one seams to want to answer that question " Are there any other water bombers today that can carry that amount of water?". I was over in Kelowna yesterday and they were very worried about the powerhouse and transmission lines. I've seen a lot of times when its all about the cost then when it all screws up cost doesn't matter but by then it is usually too late. The Politicians spend our money like drunken sailors anyway so if they spend a little more on avgas to stop or put out a forest fire with a hammer instead of peashooters I'm okay with that. I wonder why the "former" Mars Pilot ever agreed to fly them if they are so inefficient.
 
It needs to retire gracefully and be put in an aviation museum or turned into a floating bar on the lake , could be a very cool tourist attraction Martin Mars Bar..
 
Klob said:
I forwarded this thread to a good friend of mine, he sent me this:

" I love the Mars. I love the sound of her, and I love to see her fly. She is a spectacular piece of machinery, and is a huge part of BC Aviation history. She is NOT a good water bomber compared to other airplanes today - whether you compare dollar for dollar or Litre per Litre of water put on the fire. As a previous manager and Chief Pilot of the Martin Mars, i am SICK of hearing these posts crying out about why the BC Government is not compelled to hire a private company with an antique (albeit a very nostalgic one for residents of the Alberni Valley) airplane to fight fires, when the Government feels that the best solution is provided by another means. Management at Forest Industry Flying Tankers used the same tactic back in 2003 when they no longer had the support of Macmillan Bloedel and Weyerhauser. There were fires burning in Kelowna and the Mars was not invited to participate in the profitable business of putting those fires out. The media was called, and after a TV interview with the Manager of Forest Industries Flying Tankers (staged on the shore of Sproat Lake, with the Martin Mars in the background), public outcry swayed the BC Government in to hiring the Martin Mars. Per dollar spent, the Mars (and I love them) was much less effective than other machines on those fires.
Fighting fires - like disaster relief - is a business. The Martin Mars is no exception. They are not available to save the world because of one man's belief that fire is evil. They are available because one man believes that he can make a fortune operating them. I wish him success - but I am tired of hearing him and his supporters cry because their particular company has not been awarded a lucrative contract by the BC Government. There are many different tools used to fight wildfires in BC. Why should the BC Government be forced in to using a tool that they know from 50 years experience with the Martin Mars, is not as effective as other tools?


Steve Stackhouse
Martin Mars Captain 2003 - 2007. Chief Pilot 2007. Proud to be a Sproat Lake resident, and lifelong admirer of the mighty Martin Mars.
Click to expand...

"They are not available to save the world because of one man's belief that fire is evil. They are available because one man believes that he can make a fortune operating them."

Wow that is a very directed statement, and is a little slanderous if you ask me. If he was chief pilot why did not stay on when Coulson acquired the aircraft? 2007 would have been bang on when things started changing. Surely someone with that expertise would have been needed, and ask to stay on? Not buying the story I think there is more to this with your friend there...

Carry on...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not mentioned so far in this thread so far is that there has been a steady move away from belly skimming aircraft in western Canada. Retardant tankers are slowly becoming the primary - although not the only - weapon. In high temp/low humidity conditions, straight water is of quite limited effectiveness unless dropped from perilously low heights, and as mentioned by other posters, water sources without dangerous terrain nearby are not that common in our mountainous province. Retardant and/or ground equipment can be used to create strategically located fire breaks to contain fires or protect structures; water has a much shorter period of effectiveness in this role.

I saw the Mars bombers flying in the big Penticton fire of 1994 and they're certainly magnificent to watch and music to the ears, but there are only a few situations where their capabilities can be used to full effect. Quantity is not always a substitute for quality. Several American operators have converted passenger jets like the DC10 and even the 747 to bomber use, and although they can deliver even larger quantities to a fire, they're far from taking over the aerial firefighting industry because low altitude operation of turbojet aircraft is very fuel thirsty. The best compromise for a wide range of situations appears to be turboprop planes like the old Lockheed Electras often seen on BC and Alberta fires, more manuevrable and fuel efficient than bigger jets, double the cruise speed of the Mars, impressive airfield performance capabilities. Newer turboprop aircraft like BL's Dash 8 series have also been modified for firefighting, and once again the attraction is the balance between fuel cost, cruise speed, short field capability and payload. Mars can carry 7200 gallons but cruises at just 165 knots and can only land and fuel at a handful of sites in BC. Electra tank capacity is 3000 gallons but it drops more effective retardant and can cruise at 325 knots. Selection of suitable landing sites in BC is very numerous, retardant can be road tankered to advance bases if required. The ministry has done the math, unfortunately the Mars aircraft no longer have a role in their strategic plans.
 
wow over 17,000 signatures so far ...Apparently too be dropped at premier's doorstep tomorrow. So see what happens very strong support across the province. Thanks to everyone that signed it.
 
sly_karma said:
Not mentioned so far in this thread so far is that there has been a steady move away from belly skimming aircraft in western Canada. Retardant tankers are slowly becoming the primary - although not the only - weapon. In high temp/low humidity conditions, straight water is of quite limited effectiveness unless dropped from perilously low heights, and as mentioned by other posters, water sources without dangerous terrain nearby are not that common in our mountainous province. Retardant and/or ground equipment can be used to create strategically located fire breaks to contain fires or protect structures; water has a much shorter period of effectiveness in this role.

I saw the Mars bombers flying in the big Penticton fire of 1994 and they're certainly magnificent to watch and music to the ears, but there are only a few situations where their capabilities can be used to full effect. Quantity is not always a substitute for quality. Several American operators have converted passenger jets like the DC10 and even the 747 to bomber use, and although they can deliver even larger quantities to a fire, they're far from taking over the aerial firefighting industry because low altitude operation of turbojet aircraft is very fuel thirsty. The best compromise for a wide range of situations appears to be turboprop planes like the old Lockheed Electras often seen on BC and Alberta fires, more manuevrable and fuel efficient than bigger jets, double the cruise speed of the Mars, impressive airfield performance capabilities. Newer turboprop aircraft like BL's Dash 8 series have also been modified for firefighting, and once again the attraction is the balance between fuel cost, cruise speed, short field capability and payload. Mars can carry 7200 gallons but cruises at just 165 knots and can only land and fuel at a handful of sites in BC. Electra tank capacity is 3000 gallons but it drops more effective retardant and can cruise at 325 knots. Selection of suitable landing sites in BC is very numerous, retardant can be road tankered to advance bases if required. The ministry has done the math, unfortunately the Mars aircraft no longer have a role in their strategic plans.
Click to expand...

Coulson did convert a C-130Q but she is a little to big to bring into Alberni yet... Its on active duty in USFS based out of Nevada.Eventually I think the plan is too have the runway built longer to accommodate it... I am sure if the day come alberni will just love it...

Here is a video of it .... Pretty cool plane.


[sf-zl6jzOQ4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-zl6jzOQ4

BTW not related to Coulson's either... But I know a little :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SpringVelocity said:
wow over 17,000 signatures so far ...Apparently too be dropped at premier's doorstep tomorrow. So see what happens very strong support across the province. Thanks to everyone that signed it.
Click to expand...

Thought you said you were going to drop out of this thread because you knew things that you couldn't bring up. Frankly, I could give a rat's butt what 17000 uninformed people think about having the Mars bombers putting out fires in BC. Again, if the question that CFAX asked was properly stated - along with the economics of the equation rather than just the whole romantic thing about having those big planes dropping lots of water and costing a hell of a lot of money doing so...
Also, again, I have to wonder how many of Wayne Coulson's relatives and employees "signed" the on line petition, and how many times they signed it?
 
Come on even if the whole family and company signed it over is wouldn't make 17k. You have an issue with the owner and company its come up in your former posts obviously I respect that and that is your deal.

But I am not interested in name calling on here and these posts turning nasty. I remained somewhat silent except for the former pilots comments... It was good to hear both sides of the story especially from some of the guys on the ground and even a few that worked on planes.

Your entitled to your opinion though. I think it's a great aircraft and a waste doing nothing with these fires going on whether Coulson own it or someone else. Have great night big bruce cheer up!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SV, I have no issue with the Coulson family - don't know the folks at all. What I do have an issue with is people who think that a petition that is essentially a popularity contest should influence significant economic and efficiency decisions related to fighting forest fires in BC. I would rather rely on forest fighting experts who have determined that there are more modern aircraft available to more efficiently deal with forest fires. It is interesting to note that no homes nor lives have been lost in the most recent flurry of fires. There are all kinds of people who would advocate that letting fires burn is an effective way of renewing our forests. Protect the interface areas (i.e. the homes built next to forests) but let the rest burn.
Bottom line for me is that people much wiser than me and thee on this issue have decided that our scarce tax dollars are better spent using more modern arial fire fighting equipment than an old relic that is probably better off being in a museum than in the air.
 
As far as relics go.....the C-130 isn't exactly the latest and greatest plane to hit the airways......


Many of the fires they have these days and in the last few years, there's houses burned to the ground (Calif, Washington, Alberta)....and evacuation orders for whole towns.....

I don't think letting large fires just burn is the way to go personally.......


Originally the Mars were owned by a consortium of logging companies..........MacMillan Bloedel being one of them.....

Their foresters and experts must have thought it was a good idea at the time.......and it most likely was.

However they lost one early on when it crashed into a hillside.......so they are tricky to fly....especially just after you let the water go and the plane is suddenly thousands of pounds lighter resulting in upward acceleration...

They are a great historic icon......but if planes these days can do as good or better job for way less money then maybe it's time to put them in the museum......

Most of the parts for them aren't available any more and have to be hand-made......so greater expense.

I wouldn't be surpised if they ended up back in the USA....the Americans were always in a snit about the fact that we had them up here.....

When they got the California contract, part of the deal was they had to put an American flag emblem on the planes......



Possibly one of the biggest plusses of the Mars is the fact they can land on a body of water (if it's big enough).....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seafever said:
Possibly one of the biggest plusses of the Mars is the fact they can land on a body of water (if it's big enough).....
Click to expand...

You have a future in media, Seafever, nice spin job. Most people think that the Mars' inability to land on conventional runways is a serious limitation. Landing on water doesn't seem like a problem in most of Canada, given that we have the most surface fresh water and the longest coastline in the world, but the infrastructure isn't there. It's one thing to land a seaplane on a lake, but what then? Plane is useless if it can't quickly refuel and prep for further operations. There are very few places where the Mars can land and have access to aviation grade fuel, mechanical services, flame suppressant foam, etc. I know when they were working fires in the Okanagan they had to return to Port Alberni each night. That return flight at just 165 knots is one more reason why they're less efficient than other aircraft. BC Forest service established a network of Air Tanker bases some years ago that all other aircraft on firefighting support can use. They're clearly not interested in spending more infrastructure money duplicating the system for just two planes.

It's not like they're a bad plane or anything, but the firefighting game has developed and changed, and the Mars aircraft have run up against their limitations. We should rejoice in the fact that they were saved from the scrap heap 65 years ago and re-purposed to great effect. They're a part of our history and should be preserved and enjoyed for those generations to come, but we don't try to fight fires with steam-powered fire engines anymore either. The petitioners should consider that these planes are much more able to be preserved for posterity now, no more chance of an operational accident that could destroy a priceless link to the past.
 
Well said Sly and Bruce. I concur, They were, and it is, an amazing aircraft, as was Orville and Wilbur's Kitty Hawk, but let's put it in a museum in Port Alberni paid for by the Canadian and International Forest companies that benefitted from their use on Vancouver Island Tree farm Licenses that were GIVEN to them by the government so many years ago. Western Forest Products comes to mind........
 
They are way too old and parts are hard to come by not to mention the ABSURD cost of Avgas vs. Jet-A. That and finding guys who can work on multi-stack radial engines and patch fabric wings who only want to work for 2 months of the year is tough. You will not see any C-130s in Canada anytime soon either for the same reason you don't see anyone Heli-logging with Cobra and UH-1's up here- because Transport Canada doesn't allow anyone with "experimental" aircraft to work for money like the FAA does. Good thing too I believe. Wayne can buy some military surplus junk! put the word "experimental" or "restricted" on the side and charge $10000/hr for a C-130 in California. This whole debate is a waste of time. Like said above, the government wants a fire fighting machine, not some piece of nostalgia.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top