USFS engine in Rapid City

USFS engineToday in the Menards parking lot in Rapid City, SD I spotted this U.S. Forest Service engine (or water tender?) from the Black Hills National Forest. It appears to have been made by Ameri-Tech in Casper, Wyoming. You don’t see a lot of Federal agency wildland engines this large, east of the west coast states. Mostly we see (too many) little Type 6 engines with the pump and tank unit mounted, like this one, on a flat bed truck. The exceptions are the BLM which has a number of large engines, and the National Park Service for a while was purchasing wildland engines designed around the chassis rather than sitting on a flat bed.

When I started in the fire service on the west coast most of the USFS engines were built on a flat bed. The reasoning was that the pump and tank could be removed in the winter, allowing the truck to be used for non-fire projects. But, the tanks and pumps were almost never removed.

I am no engine-design guru, but the advantages of the flatbed-based engine compared to the engine body built around the chassis, is that the flatbed design could have a higher departure angle, it may be less expensive, and also perhaps lighter, making it easier to stay within the manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight.

Oddly, the truck in this picture has an unusually low departure angle, which could cause the rear wheels to lose traction when the tires enter a depression and the bumper/trailer hitch/spare tire assembly scrapes the ground. It is always a challenge deciding WHERE to put a spare tire, or IF there will be a spare tire.

USFS engine

Far too many wildland fire trucks exceed the GVW by thousands of pounds. Some have even been known to be very close to the GVW immediately after they were driven away from the manufacturer and filled with water, before any fire equipment or firefighters were added.

The disadvantages of a flatbed-based design would include less storage space and a higher center of gravity, resulting in inferior handling and a configuration that is a little easier to rollover. Of course all of these issues can be mitigated to a degree by the design, the materials used, and where the equipment is mounted or stored.

USFS engine

It would be interesting to know the specs of this piece of apparatus.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

7 thoughts on “USFS engine in Rapid City”

  1. Other than a few features (water chute) this model has been around since the 1950’s, model fifty. Although somewhat functional this “tank truck” did provide good service at a bare-bone price.
    All the comment folks had very good inputs, like pump capabilty. It worked just fine if the hose lay went down slope. Air drops were guanteed to shut down the skid pump at the worst possible time. A beer can opened-up and a pop rivit gun solved the problem.
    Is there a ladder (or rope) to get to the second level? I still have the scare on my leg were I slipped on the retardant cover bumper trying to get to the second story, were the hose is stored. It didn’t matter the skid mount pump was now out of service. BBC (before beer can) Progress?

    0
    0
    1. Wow, you’re right Johnny. Except for the modern 6-pack cab, this looks a lot like the “nurse tanker” we had at El Cariso Station on the Cleveland National Forest in southern California in the early 1970s.

      0
      0
  2. Yes a Model 52. Which is interesting as I thought the FS had stoped buying them 2 years ago. And all the advantages and disadvantages that are mentioned are true. But a lot of fires were put out using Model 52’s.

    Yes the bumper is more step than anything.

    In the Black Hills wonder how much this gets off road?

    0
    0
  3. The rear bumper almost seems to be a step — at least from the pictures. Is it also expected to perform as an ICC bumper?

    0
    0
  4. That looks to be a Model 52. HTF used to build these themselves in Sparks, NV. The pump is a Wildfire Equipment BB-4 with either an 18hp or 23hp B&S gasoline engine (most I have seen are 18). The pump head is interchangeable with that of a mark 3. The pump is woefully underpowered for pumping hose lays in the mountains.

    The heavy buildup comes with either a 700 or a 750 gallon tank. The plumbing is a little funky, it has to take 2 90 degree turns in a row to go around the tank. There is a substantial pressure loss on the side discharges to to the number of bends between them and the pump. The foam system is a balanced pressure bladder type system, the Robwen Flow-Mix 500 with a 5 gallon bladder.

    The main advantages are:
    1) inexpensive build, I think the cost was about $120k
    2) when you replace it, take of the buildup and sell the flatbed to recoup some of the cost

    I am the AFEO on a 2001 Model 52 type 4, if you have any more questions I may be able to answer them (or find someone who can).

    Dan

    0
    0
  5. Good looking engine. Being from Spokane, our district brush rig is a General Fire F-550. Those guys build beautiful truck, but I prefer my personal F-350 with alloy flat-bed, diamond plate boxes and slip unit. I find it easier to work on/repair/upgrade flatbeds. It’s been a long time since i’ve seen a type4/type3 flat bed. My concern would be high center of gravity with that large tank.

    0
    0

Comments are closed.