Identify this air tanker

Identify this air tanker

Does anyone know what air tanker is shown in the image above? It is a screen grab from a new USDA video that can be viewed at Wildfire Today. This scene is from 1:06 to 1:16, lasting about 8 to 10 seconds. The retardant may not be coming from the belly of the aircraft, so it could be a MAFFS C-130. Also, the retardant appears to broken up into tiny droplets rather than having a few scattered chunks, indicative of a pressurized system as seen in the MAFFS. Those guys shoot tons of in-flight video.

The aircraft part on the left seems odd, since there’s nothing similar on the right side. But that could be because of the placement of the camera, possibly being off-center.

Typos, let us know, and please keep in mind the commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

6 thoughts on “Identify this air tanker”

  1. I can definitively state that it is a MAFFS C-130. The fuselage on the left is of the ramp and door area, the bump on the bottom is the ramp foot. The view is from underneath the S-duct, looking aft toward the pintle assembly.

  2. Jerome, you state “no system can beat gravity”, and I couldn’t agree more. Yet we continue to see increased use of pressurized-delivery tanks strapped inside some very expensive BAe146 and Hercules airplanes. Other than anecdotal reports from many seasoned firefighters, has there been any definitive study or report that compares the efficacy of ‘apples-to-apples’ retardant delivered by the contrasting systems?
    I think we already know the general sentiment among the more astute players in the field, but the closest we got to a formal assessment on pressurized systems was the decision by the USFS not to award a next-gen contract to the first two BAe146s (T140 & 141). Yet they remain in service indefinitely on a legacy loophole arrangement.
    I know we all roll our eyes at the thought of yet another commissioned report regarding airtankers, but in this case, I believe it’s justified. Although maybe not palatable to all involved, an unbiased third-party decision could potentially serve fire managers and taxpayers very well into the future.

  3. Maffs II.

    No system can beat Gravity though…
    And when you add a Constant Flow system you have the best pattern on the ground.. (depending on the drop height, speed, timing, drift, coverage level selection..of course)

  4. It’s obviously a MAFFS drop. The pattern of retardant from a conventional gravity tank is much more distinctive and doesn’t gradually taper into a wisp like the drop in this video clip. No other pressurised delivery system has a nozzle offset from the aircraft centerline; this one protrudes from the port side of the fuselage like the MAFFS II model in the C-130J.

  5. I agree, it’s a MAFFS.
    The DC-10 has a conventional constant flow tank that would give a much different picture if a camera were mounted forward of the doors. You’d be able to see the wings.

  6. I’ll go with MAFFS, Bill. Looks like the horizontal stabilizer poking out to the visible upper right as well as showing a bit on the left.

Comments are closed.