Fritz Wester

Yes, all "A-II" aircraft that were "demoded" and returned to standard "A" configuration (ya right, damn goofy electrical system with "start Inverter" and DC gen on ATM), had the fwd cargo door sealed closed.

Dutch, who crewed 57-0566, otherwise known as "four sick sick"?

Dutch, the research I did on 56-0466 and in speaking with Former Four Horseman Bill Hatfield who was based at Neubi with the C-119's and made the move to Evreux, I can offer the following: 322nd Air Division was based in Germany. The 322nd AD was set up in August 1955. It controlled the three Troop Carrier Wings of the European Theater which were 317th at Neubi, the 465th at Evreux (the base at Evreux was not completed and ready to accept full operations and full personnel until early 1957), and the 60th at Dreux-Louvillier. When the 317th moved from Nuebi to Evreux, both Wings were based there under the 322nd AD. However the C-119's were all being transfered to the AFRES, so when that was complete both the 317th and 465th inactivated and the 39th, 40th and 41st TCS's came directly under the 322nd. In 1964 the 317th was reactivated at Lockborne when Chas DeGualle threw us out of France and the 39th and 40th moved there. As a technicality, the 317th was actually activated just prior to beginning the move from Evreux to Lockborne. 56-0466 was assigned to the 322nd AD 39th TCS in 1958 as I have photo's of it in that livery and there is one in the gallery as well. Your info looks pretty accurate. Don't know if this helped or not, but it is what I have.

Dutch, they were assigned to the 322nd Air Division. The two operational squadrons were the 39th and 40th TCS.

The hand pump in the cargo compartment to the left of the crew door was not completely disabled. It was left in place and is used for emergency hydraulic pressure for the extension of the nose gear. The actuator and the lines for the cargo door connected to the selector valve were removed/capped. All A's, B's, F's (since F's are USAF equivalent B's) and the first 16 or 18 E's had the forward cargo door. The early E's had them because they were actually B's modified to the "E" configuration while still on the assembly line.

There is NO chance 0484 flew for the CIA, in fact it never flew for Hemet Valley Flying Service as an airtanker or anything else either. It never left the ground after going to AMARC. Hemet stripped it of rotables and left it with what for them was timed engines. Bob Mace eventually ended up with the airplane and the last time I saw it it was sitting at another yard in the back just down the dirt road from Minden Air's yard. While the USFS Airtanker story is an ugly one the conspiricy theories which abound make interesting stories and little else.

UNION! GOOD GOD, I've never been so insulted!!!! :cool: O.K., you are right, the H&P losses of '02 were the "end of days", definately apocolyptic events for an industry struggling already. I can't speak to the "SEAT's", (Single Engine Air Tankers, the Thrushes, Air Tractor's etc., the USFS was always willing to pay more for those and Helicopters. The issue here is that in '02 there were over 40 "Large" Airtanker contracts. Today there is only 18 because the USFS will only use the P-2V's and P-3's. We will not dicuss the DC-10's and 747's, thats apples to oranges. The companies that operated the large airtanker fleets had year round expenses with overhead, investment in tank technology (there were only 5 Aero Union RADS systems installed in the C-130A's. The first was done for TBM Inc. at something in the area of $250,000.00, but TBM paid much of the Non Recurring Engineering (NRE) as well as supplied some of the engineering staff. The last C-130A RADS cost $750,000.00. That's only the tank.) When the aircraft were recieved there was investments in the aircraft themselves, maintenance, inspection, radios. The typical cost to place the aircraft "in service" ran in the $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 range on top of the tank. We havn't even put the first drop of fuel in it yet. These fixed costs were designed to be amortized over a number of years. Most operators hoped to reclaim their investments in 10 - 12 years. But after that investment capital was required to pay for ever growing costs to replace and repair expensive components like engines and propellers. Having bought more than a few cargo compartment cooling turbines in my life I can tell you at $25,000.00 to $35,000.00 a whack it doesn't take long for a profitable summer to go south in a hurry. Ever think about how much 23699 costs? Up until the price of oil went crazy it typically sold for $5.00 to $6.00/quart. That makes a case $120.00 ea. A flight crew by the time the taxes, benefits, hotels, per-diem and rental cars were paid might cost an operator around $160,000.00 to $200,000.00 for 180 days or more. We also haven't paid the overhead yet. Hangar rental and utilities that cost in the range of $5,000.00/month and secretarial/parts personnel and mechanics that work year round. Those are expenses that most people don't give much thought to. More overhead? How about those operators who would need to borrow money, as most businesses do. Finance charges on million or even multimillion dollar loans. How about a little profit for the owner. After all, we don't fly airplanes to fill the sky with sheetmetal and organized rows of rivets, we fly them to make money. The operators all had to supply their own fuel, at a fixed cost, until the fuel market became so volitile (no pun intended) and then were allowed an "economic price adjustment". The C-130A drinks between 640 and 700 gallons of fuel an hour. In todays world the hourly fuel burn alone is about $3,000.00/hour. Now we have to pay the flight crew, and daily or hourly wages is a small part of it. As contractors to the gov'mint you are required to pay certain levels as well as benefits. The compitition was always very stiff between the companies and the USFS admits after the fact they got everything "on the cheap" and suffered for it later. Now to be fair, there is plenty of blame to go around for the demise of the industry. No one is as clean as a preachers sheets. The point is it is 10 years since 2002 and the commercial fleet remains broken and devastated. I attended meetings with the USFS in the years following the destruction of the program. We asked them, "what do you want?", they said, "we don't know, what can you give us? Build something, if we like it we'll try it, if we don't, flush your investment down the toilet and take the losses on your taxes". What the hell kind of answer is that? Some people would claim the airtanker industry is like any other service industry, build it, if they don't buy it, tough luck, your out of business. That isn't how manufacturers who build specialized aircraft for the government do it. They get capital from the government to build the mousetrap. If the government doesn't buy it they absorb minimal losses. It is undeniable the USFS not only is under no obligation to accept what you may invest millions of dollars in, but don't have to use it if they do. It is a high risk business not just from the business model perspective, but to life and limb and as such the return on the investment should be very good. But the USFS told operators they were only allowed to make an 18% profit. It is not possible to adequately maintain the aircraft, pay high quality well trained professional flight crews and mechanics as well as retain investment capital for upgrade and replacement of equipment (read aircraft) on 18% profit margins. Look at the time it takes to field a "new" aircraft today. Can you imagine now, being so far behind the power curve it would be possible to replace the fleet? We are at least 6 years away from the introduction of a new proven viable, accepted aircraft type in the aerial firefighting fleet. I'm sorry to say, Rome has burned to the ground while Nero was fiddeling. So lets address the MAFFS. Good on the Guard and Reserve units that operate them, congratulations, you get extra funding and the empire lives on. As a retired Air Guardsman I know how the system works. Funding, and the only way to get more funding (or keep it), is to have a justifiable mission. Now, I don't want anyone taking me out of context here, I did not say they shouldn't work at all, you are right, they were intended to be a surge capability when the commercial assets were inadequate to meet the need, at a time when there were almost triple the available commercial assets as tody. The problem is that law was changed a number of years ago. They can be called up any time the USFS deems it necassary, commercial fleet available or not. The availability of the MAFFS for use by the USFS has resulted in a cushion that has allowed the continuation of the staus quo. How can there be a commercial fleet? Lets face it, they have "gotten buy" for the last 10 years. Where's the incentive? There are fewer commercial assets available for the last 10 years and for the last 10 years MAFFS has flown more hours than before the fleet demise. Who needs commercial assets anyway? There is a lot to this story and a lot that many people don't want to talk about, but US Herk, I want to thank you for putting up such a good post with such a great demeanor. It's always a pleasure to have a "discussion" with people who are intelligent. Oh that's right, that would be all Herky lovers everywhere!

So, what you are saying is, you want to finish putting the commercial aerial fire fighting companies out of business to support further government waste and bureaucracy? You actually want to see the aerial fire fighting industry further decimated? There was an entire commercial industry that until 2002 - 2004 had that job and was wiped out. What happened? It would take more space than available here to explain it. Those who were part of the industry at the time know all too well. Every time a MAFFS C-130 takes off it robs the private sector of the resources to survive and government incentive to fix a failed program.

Another rare but "it happens" occurance can be the check valve on the upper14th stage. In 30 years I have noted a couple of occasions where the check valve leaked, allowing bleed manifold air intended for the starter, to bypass into the diffusser. The check valve is rarely inspected because it is such a bastard to get to (especially on the -9 QEC), and few people really look at its condition during QEC removal/repair/overhaul. I have seen a couple where the problem was wear of the check valve results in an "egg" shape and the valve will not properly seal. It doesn't matter if you have a GTC putting out 50 PSI if the check valve is bypassing air intended for the starter into the diffuser, you will get slow starts. This problem can persist even with other engines on speed. fjw

Give me a call at 559-739-8122, I may be able to assist. Fritz