ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Sikorsky S-64 vs.Canadair CL-415
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2013
- Civil protection day at Mattarello - Trento - Trentino - Italy airport
24 may 2003
Sikorsky S-64 vs. Canadair CL-415 antifire capabilities demonstration
Filmed with Panasonic DV camera. DV tape missed and recently recovered! :-)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jsjwpd_ER8g/mqdefault.jpg)
You cannot compare these two fire fighting platforms. Each has its strengths and tactical uses. Used in concert, they are a formidable force in knocking down brush fires.
Exactly. And, as an AAO I would like to interject that the CL-215T is superior to the CL-415 (just ask the pilots...)
Water source situation has a LOT to do with the effectiveness of both of these platforms…
Fixed wing aircraft cannot draw water from a convenient small pond or swimming pool.
The CL-415 is a Beautiful Beast. It's amazing the maneuvers it can make even with a load of water. Amazing Wing Loads. The thing is built like a Flying Tank.
As an AAO and a ground-pounder.....I will take them both!!! There is no "versus"......they are two different resources, both of which are important and impactful when fighting wild land fires! Stayed tuned for my upcoming video....Pulaski versus fireline shovel! (Just hacking on you themistertube!! Thanks for the post!)
They both have their strengths. The CL-415 is faster certainly, but it's more limited on what type of water source it can use to refill. The S-64 can carry more water and refill in tighter quarters as well as dump more in a smaller area if needed. Used together they'd be pretty formidable in fighting fires from the air. Both are really neat aircraft.
Those crazy Canucks can really build reliable aircraft. Bombardier👍
According to Wikipedia:
The Aircrane can be fitted with a 2,650-gallon (~10,000 litre) fixed retardant tank to assist in the control of bush fires, and it has proved itself admirably in this role.
Maximum speed: 109 knots (126 mph, 203 km/h)Cruise speed: 91 knots (105 mph, 169 km/h)Range: 200 nmi (230 mi, 370 km) max fuel and reservesRate of climb: 1,330 ft/min (6.75 m/s)
The aircraft requires 1,340 metres (4,400 ft) of flyable area to descend from 15 metres (49 ft) altitude, scoop 6,137 litres of water during a 12-second 410 metres (1,350 ft) long run on the water at 70 knots (130 km/h; 81 mph), then climb back to 15 m altitude. The aircraft can also pick up partial loads in smaller areas and can turn while scooping, if necessary.
Maximum speed: 223 mph (359 km/h (194 kt))Cruise speed: 207 mph (333 km/h (180 kt))Stall speed: 78 mph (126 km/h (68 kt))Range: 1,518 miles (2,443 km)Service ceiling: 14,700 ft (4,500 m)Rate of climb: 1,600 ft/min (8.1 m/s)
Takeoff distance (ISA, land): 2,750 ft (840 m)Takeoff distance (ISA, water): 2,670 ft (815 m)Landing distance (ISA, land): 2,210 ft (675 m)Landing distance (ISA, water): 2,180 ft (665 m)Minimum water depth: 6 ft (1.8 m)
Both pretty cool machines. The plane needs a much bigger puddle and carries less water, but it can operate a lot further from the airport/fuel supply, and/or for a lot longer. As the fire to water distance increases, the plane becomes the more effective machine. In most of Canada, 200 nmi does not get you anywhere, and you still have to get back.
Both fantastic machines. Important to consider the effective working range as defined by distance to and from base as well as the time on station fire fighting. With theses machine the cycle of water effectiveness is the most important parameter and in some fire situations the (gallons/liters ) /hr will be the deterring factor with both these machines. The CLs usually are fueled for 4 hr missions. I don't know the 64s fuel and operating range is but I would imagine it would be much less.
you're right both are fantastics ! and the sky crane need a tanker trucks for fuel , not enought range...
Apples and Oranges, I will Take then both, I do like the CL 415 Better for all around fire fighting, much faster, the helicopter Is just cooler to look at, but awesome also.
Am I the only one who spotted the first drop landed with about 20 feet from the poor guy on a bicycle?
Pilot helikoptera to mistrz w swoim fachu 👍
6,140 litres in 12 seconds for the Canadair.
Wow.Fantastic.
The Erickson Sky Crane always reminds me of a Stud Breeding horse ready to climb on a fertile Mare. Then again, maybe not.
Which is a better tool? A hammer or a handsaw?
Of course it depends on the task/situation!
Tecnologia empregada para servir às necessidades de populações civis. Aqui temos os carros-pipa! Que comparação!
The camera is uncontrollably shaking ...
S64 = garden hose and CL415 = firehose
@brin kee Which is the case for most fires i.e., California, Canada, etc.
i dont know what to say.both are really awesome.i'm a big fan of helicopter's.
Incorrect, S-64 carries 2,600 gallons of water can fill out of any water source that is at least 18 inches deep. CL-415 carries 1600 gallons, needs 1 km of 6 feet deep water to fill.
I may be mistaking, but I believe you are referring to the S-64E, made by Erickson, an upgraded & certified CH-54A helicopter (9,073 kg. of payload, equivalent to about 2,400 US gallons).
You forgot to mention the CL-415 is twice as fast, 7 times the range, 1/4 faster climb speed.
Also sky crane needs 90 foot diameter rotor clear space to safety use any source of water.
Just saying.
Both are really cool.
2600 gallons is over the weight limit for that model. So your specs are off.
Windlifter and dipper am I mistaken?
idk
This is basically a flying water hose vs a waterbomber. Obviously Canada beats America on this battle.
Awesome《☆》Sky Crane Baby :*: %%%$$$%%% all day long ☻
I imagine that the CL cost less per gallon of water dropped .
Gt
Cuarsiandesitasilicegrafiaterrallublanfeliznavidadcompostaje kalaallisutsermersuakrcaskawawarawa
Io non ci vedo nulla di spettacolare. Sapete quanto ci costano?
facebook.com/controroghiestivi/