‘uncommon’ is in reality - check accident statistics.
The Air Tractor was designed before serious structural composites became feasible for small airplanes. (‘fiberglass reinforced plastic’ was probably available but not suitable for wings, chemical tanks may be a good use of FRP.)
Life has choices - tradeoffs, the MU-2 and GB2 exemplify that with better performance and payload: that’s a large economic benefit.
I expect that tankers do not fly low above hot fires.
They may normally fly at 200 feet above trees, but Coulson upped to 300 if I understand correctly, after losing two airplanes.
It is important not to fly into rising terrain.
That’s true but the drop dissipates rapidly at too high an altitude and isn’t nearly as effective. Our Air Tractor AT802F single engine tankers fly 90 kts at 90 - 120 feet AGL depending on terrain and obstacles. We purposely bought the larger engines to allow them to pull up sharply once the drop is released. Larger tankers have a tougher time pulling up for rising terrain but they drop a lot more than the 800 gallons our Air Tractors drop.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.