Full page newspaper ads recommend converting C-5M aircraft into firefighting air tankers

The aircraft would supposedly carry up to 60,000 gallons after structural modifications were made

C-5 Galaxy.
C-5 Galaxy. U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Charlie Miller, Oct. 3, 2005..

A former aircraft engineer is taking out full page newspaper advertisements proposing that C-5M aircraft be converted into firefighting air tankers operated by the Air Force. If you live in the Fresno, California area you may have seen the ad in the March 8 edition of the Fresno Bee. I called the person whose name appears on the ad, Joseph C. Coomer, and asked why he placed the ad.

“I was up against a brick wall and nobody wants to publish this stuff,” he said. “The Representatives already know everything and I can’t get through to anybody and it was just a dead end. I had to do this or nothing and I’ve put three years of work on this thing and I didn’t want to see it die. It’s too important.”

The ad will also appear March 15 in the Modesto Bee and the Sacramento Bee. Mr. Coomer said he is spending about $10,000 for the ads.

He said he does not have any firefighting experience but formerly worked for Boeing as a Weight Engineer on the 707, 737, and Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS).

He explained that the latest version of the C-5, which is the C-5M, has been outfitted with more powerful engines and has the ability to carry up to 60,000 gallons of water if substantial structural modifications are made. With fewer modifications it could carry 50,000 gallons, he said.

Single engine air tankers carry around 750 gallons or less, large air tankers 3,000 to 4,000 gallons, while very large air tankers can hold 9,000 to 19,000 gallons. Helicopters have a capacity of 250 to 3,000 gallons.

“They’ve got 52 [C-5Ms] in inventory and I think what’s going to evolve out of this, all 52 will be turned into the tankers and it will be a world firefighting unit for forest fires,” said Mr. Coomer. “That’s what I anticipate. Because Australia will probably want them and Canada will want them and they get spread out and the European Union will probably want some. One of the key things I come up with is a dumping system that can dump that much water, and that’s in three seconds because the aircraft is traveling at almost 200 feet per second.”

I asked if he was saying that the government should take over the operation of air tankers, which would put the private contractors out of business.

“Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.” he said. “You have the Forest Service and I’m taking responsibility over the aircraft away from the Forest Service and assign it to the Air Force. Yeah. And the tankers would be stationed at Travis Air Force Base [near Sacramento, CA.] … It’s almost in the center of the state. Up to 15 aircraft stationed at Travis, 15 C5s converted to tankers that would cover all of California, all of Colorado, and part of Oregon just from that base because the aircraft flies at 400 miles per hour. And when a fire breaks the locals won’t have to respond, they just wait for the aircraft — four, five, six, seven, whatever it is, to that site. And in one pass they put the fire out, one pass.”

I said to Mr. Coomer, “Aircraft don’t put out fires. Under ideal conditions they can slow them down long enough for firefighters—.”

“No, no, no, no, no, no,” he interrupted. “They will put the fire out from the air. They are soaking it with more than one inch of water. My calculations show that on a 10-acre fire, if you put five of those aircraft with 60,000 gallons each, will put one-inch of water on the ground.”

Retardant delivery systems used today have adjustable flow rates that produce variable coverage levels on the ground, measured in gallons per 100 square feet. The coverage levels defined by the U.S. Forest Service and used by contracted air tankers range from 1 to 10. For example, the maximum coverage level of 10 would be 10 gallons per 100 square feet. Water one inch deep would be coverage level 62, according to my calculations.

When asked how much it would cost to convert a C-5M into an air tanker, Mr. Coomer said, “I have no idea. … I don’t know, $3 million or $10 million to convert an aircraft. I don’t know that. I know it’d be quite a bit.”

Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Tom. Typos or errors, report them HERE.

Typos, let us know HERE. And, please keep in mind our commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

12 thoughts on “Full page newspaper ads recommend converting C-5M aircraft into firefighting air tankers”

  1. Having worked on a C-5A Base, the US Air Force Base that trained the Air Crews on the plane, THE WINGS/WING ROOT ARE NOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING THAT TYPE OF LOAD!
    The 747 and DC—10 are much more stronger in their design and build. The C-5A was a nightmare from the beginning and every plane had to be extensive modified. That is why so many of them were taken out of service and mothballed at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base.
    The USA and actually the world requires the much larger volume capacity of the 747 & DC-10!!! But the C-5 is not a viable platform to use or to trust for such safety issues.

    1. Usaf has been nursing thee planes for years reserving them for outsize cargo. They where built in the 1970’s ha king up an old unrelI able costly plane makes no sense. What does make sense require California to change its s crew laws prohibiting the removal of brush. Think about Mexico has similar terrain and hotter remps, do you see them burning their country down

  2. Interesting article; however another example of a person with no knowledge of wildland fire fighting wanting to “solve” the problem at whatever the cost. Unfortunately, bigger is not always better and this particular aircraft is definitely NOT the answer.

    1. Here is for you Barry. The reason people with no experience in fighting forest fires try to help is it seems what we are doing over and over again is not working. The state is burning and the fires have to burn themselves out

  3. This is were a billionaire who always wanted to be a fireman comes into the picture, bragging rights. Certainly have to give Mr. Coomer credit for his out-of-the box thinking and financial commitment.
    Instead of “tanking” a C5M, also located in Fresno is Caylmn, the container/parachute retardant (liquid) delivery system. Four loading rails delivery out the back ramp with 100 containers each, Caylmn talked at the recent conference in Sacramento “surge” attack.

    1. The A 10 Warthog was nothing more than a flying gatling gun/rotary cannon with a plane wrapped around it! Oh, and then there was that titanium armor bathtub the pilot sat in. The aircraft was built to survive just about any combat damage it might receive in battle and get the pilot home.

      Take out the weapon, along with the magazine, related systems and armor bathtub, and the center of gravity goes all out of whack. The problem making the Hog into a tanker was the center of gravity issue could not be engineered out, or in.

      Now the S-3 Fire Viking? FOD due to the low slung Hoovers hanging so close to the ground coupled with the need for limited longer runways to get to V1 and V2.

      But hey! An S-3 in Cal Fire livery looked incredible on the drawing board!

      Seems to be that when you only have two power plants. be they turbine, jet or piston, on the aircraft that the water/retardant capacity remains small (C 27 Spartan anyone?) How do they get all that capacity out of a CH 47 with just two engines on the empennage anyways?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *