"LOAD and RETURN" 

@Commando Jessica What an inane and tasteless comment !!

RIP Mr. Hunt

SAD LOST TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY LOST SAVING OTHER IN FIGHTING FIRE

Commando Jessica if that’s a guenuine question, I’m assuming every time they get a new plane they give it a new number and I’m assuming they upgrade a lot from crashes failures etc cause these planes are old

@Commando Jessica Yep, that's clearly the case, your comment was doused with it !!.

6 days on 1 day off for all of summer is the problem

Ty Bauer how’s that a problem? Work hard all summer, save money and travel in the off season. Plus your doing a very noble job knowing your potentially saving lives and other important assets.

I appreciate your service

A Jr dick

A Jr nah ur just a dick ur life must be so shit, don’t try to bring ppl down to ur low level, fuck off

I think what you are describing would be classed as a TRUE pucker moment. "Have faith.... have faith.... have faith.... OH GOD..... YES..... Climb you beautiful thing...."

Turboprop conversion, powered by two Garrett TPE331 engines;[35] A total of 22 are operated by the CDF. I see the first landing is a turboprop.

They sound funny tho, with the turboprop engines. Used to see the old style radial versions all the time out at NAS Whidbey in the 50s and early 60s.. 🤔

@@jerrydoolittle9747 I joined the Navy in the early 70's and the radials were on their way out then, but we still had a couple of US-2F's and 2 T-28's at NAS Alameda. I was stationed at Whidbey in the 80's with VA-165.

@@michaelbandeko3519 My dad worked as a avionics tech rep for Philco Ford. Worked on S2/P2/P3/P5M platforms in the late 50s and 60s.. Sigh... Very familiar with VA-165, next door neighbor and good family friend was lost in an A6 in Jan 68... thanks for sharing.. 👍🤔

Me too

I worked for Sis-Q in 1981 & 1982, flying air attack 440 out of Columbia. Tanker 76 was Norm Foster and Tanker 77 was Jim Aiken. In '82 it was Jerry Donahue in 77. Both Jim and Jerry died in crashes.

this is when a forest is burning in hell, when firefighters are fighting to their last breath I won't expect them to work like this 24/7, 365 days a year that would be the end to the world

The taiwanese army have retired the S2T too.

Yep. There are a few sophomoric jokes that I saw. Including plugging a hose in the port labeled 'hot load'.

@@longshot7601 Thanks, you saved me the trouble of making the joke myself.

you could make that a pornotitel: big whitey gets a hot load up their back

CalFire pretty much rebuilt the plane from the ground up in order to put the turbines in, replacing the old radials.

@@skydiverclassc2031 We have a similar company a few miles from me. They are rebuilding old DC-3's and adding turbines.

OV-10 Bronco. The Mohawk was the OV-1.

They also make the USPS vehicles. lol

Chris Darting Grumman did, it is called The Grumman Long Life Vehicle (LLV); using the chassis of the Chevy S-10.

There was a good reason they were called Grumman Iron Works. They reached their pinnacle with the Tomcat. I hope they will join the competition for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative but I think Northrop Grumman is done with the Navy after the screwing they got with the X-47B.

Wonder how an S-3B would work... sure a lot of them sitting in the boneyard . An AW from the 80s-90s (though mostly helo).

KutWrite are the CalFire planes from that era?

KutWrite Yip,Taiwan led the initiative to re-engine them with turbines,after they couldnt get Orions from the US.

The S2 looks kinda cute with the turboprops, but the radials are so big compared to the fuselage, that it looks almost funny. Awesome plane :D

I should hope all pilots fly with confidence hahah

​@@morerightrudder9742 These guys have the experience to justify their confidence. Many times the people that crash were confident, unfortunately the confidence was misplaced.

1am I read this comment and erupt in laughter. 😂 thanks

me to lol

I have the same on the back of my undies.......

And with a name like yours, one can understand lol

My inner Beavis noticed that right away! Heh Heh, Cool, Heh, Heh

Ha ha ha🤣

Weldy Media Productions depends on where the fires is no more then a hour

The actual reload once the hose is hooked up is about 5 minutes on these S2-t's.

pretty damn fast

The airport at Columbia is a normal small airport in the Sierra Nevada foothills. The AAB is at one end of the field. I've flown in there several times on cross-country flights; when a fire is being actively worked, you just go somewhere else locally until they're done.

why? in this video the only sound is the sound of those TPE 331 without stupid relaxing music. Yeah, sounds a little bit loud but its the reality

B-26 Marauders were never used for water bombing. You seem to be confusing the Marauder with the Invader. It’s all due to the Korean War. To start off, I’ll explain the prefix’ for the roles of the aircraft in case you didn’t know. ‘A’ - Attack, ‘B’ - Bomber. Originally the Invader was called the A-26. In World War Two it would complete tasks with attack roles with rockets on the wings and a small bomb load like destroying smaller targets, blocking roads, destroying trains, etc. All of the confusion was started in 1947 when the designation of the A-26 was changed to the B-26. The prefix in front of ‘26’ to explain its role was changed because, well you can guess it, it was going to be completing bombing roles instead of attack now in Korea. This carried on throughout the Koran war until mid 1955 prior to the Vietnam War. The role of the Invader was to be changed back to the attack role where it would once again just be attacking smaller targets and trails in Vietnam. That basically sums up why some call it the A-26 or B-26. The whole reason it’s so confusing is because during World War Two, there was a whole different type of twin engined bomber called the B-26 (the Marauder) which was when the Invader was called the A-26 in that time frame. So overall to clarify your comment on the “Marauder”, it was never flown as a water bomber, the Invader was. They were both called the B-26 at one point but it all depends on what war they were in.

And what's the average turnaround time on reloading only? What is the endurance time of the S2T?

1200 gallons

Nice tactical landings 😀

Since they're powered by PT6's, how about Stoops?

Those are Grumman s2t

@@stones2706 thanks for the information

Grumman S2T. Here is a link with more information. fireaviation.com/tag/s2t/

Syuewei Wang S2

California had a company in Mesa Arizona reconfirgure the Carrier based planes into fire fighting machines. Smart move, they were originally folding wing systems and had out date power plants but they all had a great structural system.

They still have the ability to fold their wings.

They can still fold, there just isn't a reason to do it here.

Gonzalo Andrade about 1200 gallons

Gonzalo Andrade: It's not water, it's fire retardant! Just to let you know!

What they said.....

mix of civil and mil . mostly civ actually

Stephen Bradley id say equivalent to a tanker shuttle for normal rural water operations with drop tanks. But instead of tankers its planes. If you have a good operator they should have no problem running solo

Not to mention the obstructed vision looking at the ground @ low level. And another possible fatality in case of a crash.

They run 1 because that’s all that is needed, they already have a look out plane flying in the air a few hundred feet higher than these that directs all incoming planes and he’s considered a look out and helps coordinate where they need to drop.

@@bradgt5130 Interesting thanks!

The Grumman is American so parts are easier to get. Plus that runway doesn't look big enough for a big aircraft. Plus they are ex-military so probably fairly cheap. Plus they have been using them from the 70s so I guess they work and the pilots know them.

They seem to provide an exceptionally impressive service with that money.

@@cjeam9199 I've seen crazy things.

8320 wildland fires since the beginning of the year.

RV4g: Not ridiculous. C415s are only able to do so when large lakes are available close to the fire. Not hard to find in Canuckistan, but more difficult in California mountains. The S-2 was designed to hunt submarines at 50-100 feet altitude and has 'fighter' type manueverability with boosted ailerons. (I've got 5 hours in a CS-2 with the RCAF).

Plus the scooper are more often used to drop water and foam on fire, where as the S2-t's are mostly used to drop retardant in front of a fire.

That would be even more expensive, plus extremely dangerous. Even the military only does aerial refueling if they have to. Plus I don't think retardant could be pumped through one of those transfer systems, too thick.

Just skip the aerial filling of the small airplanes from a big one and just use the big one to drop retardant..... Just search for "747 fire retardant drop" But get ready to pay for it

Its actually better to have different sizes. One tanker type can't do all jobs.

A lot of the fires require dropping into areas far too small/short for the big planes to safely work. Back in the '70s a fire being worked north of Napa tasked several S2's, a DC-7 and a PB4Y, depending on the spots needing retardant. The terrain included extremely rugged, tight box canyons, steep slopes, and a few extended open areas at various times. It was impressive to see the Privateer or the DC-7 come over our house at less than 100' (the house was placed on the edge of a ridge looking over the Napa Valley).

As a Fire Captain for CAL FIRE and was the Tanker Base Manger at Columbia I have to give a thumbs down on that idea

Republicans are the ones that cut the budget, so they share a fair part of the situation today.