Conair to convert a jet into an air tanker

Conair RJ85 Airtanker impression
Conair RJ85 Airtanker impression
An artist's conception of Conair's British Aerospace Avro RJ85 air tanker. Image from Conair.

A Canadian air tanker company, Conair, has announced that they have purchased a jet-powered airliner and will be converting it into a Type 1 3,000-gallon air tanker. The aircraft is an Avro RJ85, which is a variant of a British Aerospace BAe-146. The difference is that the RJ85 has a longer fuselage and more efficient engines. The RJ85 seats up to 112 passengers as an airliner. Neptune leased a converted BAe-146 from Tronos and obtained “interim” approval from the Interagency Air Tanker Board in late 2011. In November and December it saw some limited use in Texas and California.

Judging from the artist’s conception of the planned air tanker conversion, it will have an internal tank, rather than a bolt-on external tank. Conair will be doing the actual conversion at their base at Abbotsford in British Columbia, Canada, but they have not announced if it will have a conventional constant-flow gravity tank or a pressurized tank. They expect to have the new 3,000-gallon air tanker ready for the 2013 fire season.

The RJ85 that Conair purchased in December is serial number E2270. It was previously operated by Lufthansa and was delivered in December, 1995. Here is a link to photos of the aircraft when it was flying for Lufthansa.

Below is an excerpt from a Conair news release:

We have undertaken a detailed evaluation of both the BAe 146 and Avro RJ85 including simulator and flight testing of the aircraft in the demanding low-level profile required in fire-fighting missions. It is important to note that we are working closely with BAE Systems as the Original Equipment Manufacturer. As a later variant of the BAe 146, the Avro RJ85 is a younger aircraft which will give longer life, and with its higher design weights and better ‘hot and high’ performance it will be a more suitable aircraft for these demanding missions.

With the improved performance of the RJ85 coupled with what we believe to be a game-changing tank design, the RJ85 Airtanker will offer a significant improved mission capability compared to existing, new and proposed aircraft including the BAe 146-200.

Conair operates a boatload of air tankers, including 10 CV580s and 17 single engine air tankers. Several of their CV580 air tankers saw service in the United States during the last part of the 2011 fire season after the U.S. Forest Service cancelled Aero Union’s contract for their eight P3 air tankers over a dispute about inspections.

CV-580
Conair's fleet of CV580 air tankers

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.

15 thoughts on “Conair to convert a jet into an air tanker”

  1. Do you guys really think that Canair wouldnt have researched this aircraft before they chose it? I think they know the weights and fuel burns. Get a life!

    1
    0
  2. Being born into aviation my parents company operated sixteen (not at the same time) crop dusters and two T.M.F. real borate bombers.
    I like the T.B.F. (TBM) but was never allowed to fly one, I was still in high school. Forty-eight fire seasons later and living the industry I feel that these are exciting times for aerial fixed wing change. Who would have thought turbine (jet) powered firefighters thirty years ago. My one little vote goes out to Erickson and their Air Crane and the those DC-10 guys in So.Cal. My wife just told me “there is no contest, take your Geritol and go to bed”. Good night.

    0
    0
  3. Again its like your all looking at a brochure at a dealership, turn radius, indestructible engines. What I find funny is why now Canada? How about you guys get a original idea for once leaders of aviation fire, America built and converted your tankers. No one mentions fuel capacity here. Long dispatches and turn around times because of constant refueling for the 146 will show its weakness. I would’ve thought you guys learned that lesson already operating your 580’s. As for the dc9 I’m sure it will hold a lot more retardant and fuel just from the numbers I’ve seen. Send tanker 40 to Alaska with a dispatch to the edge of the earth then you will see its true weakness. Im surprised the Canadians didn’t go with a 737, the next thing were going to see is a artist rendition of a dc9 with con air colors.

    0
    0
      1. Empty and at altitude sure those numbers look great. But you must account for all the other numbers maximum takeoff weight, max fuel with a load of retardant, fuel burn of four thirsty turbo fans at low altitudes. You have to remember those engines are designed to operate most efficiently at higher altitudes, those numbers reflect a basic flight from point a to b at 30,000 feet with a take off and a landing. The USFS requires 2.5 hours of fuel for a fire dispatch I bet the 146 barely meets that with a full load of retardant and the faa min reserves. So for long dispatches like what could be encountered in AK a fuel stop on the way back to the tanker base will most likely be required or trade fuel for a loss of retardant carried to the fire. Also region 8, sometimes a dispatch of considerable distance will come up. So if were talking about a next gen air tanker Im just surprised this platform seems to be the main choice. Double the fuel load, increase the gross weight and zero fuel weight by 20,000 pounds and move the main gear back about six feet and it would rule the sky. I like the idea of this plane, designed for short fields and it will fly extremely slow but there are other airliners out there that make more sense on paper like the 737 or a DC9. The USFS should up the dispatch fuel requirement for these new planes, less time at the pump equates to faster turn times at the base and a steady uninterrupted delivery of retardant. Jets eat a lot of JET-A.

        0
        0
        1. So the question is, in my mind: do we design our air tanker fleet for the distances in Alaska (where most fires are allowed to burn) and the Southeast US (where tractor-plows are the dominant suppression tool), or do we look at the use records over the past 10-20 years and have specs that meet our needs 75-80% of the time in the Western States where air tankers are every day tools without the Alaska-size distances from an airport? It’s all about the economics, just like buying a 1-ton Pickup versus a SUV versus a Ford Focus: what do you need and use most often? Are there short-term fixes for the infrequent events? “if wishes were horses …..”

          0
          0
  4. I must be have been running a high fever a few comments ago when I suggested that the U.S. goverment and an aerospace giant could partner to accelerate the progress of obtaining the number of fixed wing air tankers needed to help protect our natural resources. Contest: Count the number of oxymorons in that paragraph.

    0
    0
  5. Atleast in the province I live and work in, We have 2 major tanker contract holders for wildfire suppression. Air spray and Conair. Air Spray supplying Elektras and Conair supplying the CV580’s, both dated, but PROVEN aircraft for air support.

    0
    0
  6. One can bet that Canada has a more serious bend on their natural resources air program which I am fairly sure there is some government money to assist in the development of their airtanker program.

    Canada has shown a more serious attitude towards the aviartion program and unless someone in the natural resources field can PROVE to me that Conair did not recieve Guv assistance in the development of their RJ tanker, I will stand down.

    What won’t count is heresay from folks on this forum, who are not Conair types. I will believe Conair types before I would venture to believe firefighters ” in the know” through 3-100 party sources.

    Again, Canada has taken aviation more seriously than most Guv types in the “lower 48.” I am sure they do not have the “Mickey Mouse” that goes on here, especially someone “CLAIMING” that there are issues in aging aircraft here in the US with US operators.

    Folks thinking here that Canada isn’t using 30, 40, 50, and 60 year old aircraft for air operations while the USFS is shutting ’em down here are under a serious problem of either misinformation or pride in an aviation program that can not identify that Canada is probably a TRUE LEADER in these operations and that OUR (USFS) has a ALOT of learning YET to do with this arena.

    Call me ignorant!!

    0
    0
  7. I am not a pilot. My information comes from a Captain with one of the major airlines who has more than 30 years experience and is an A&P as well.

    My source says the frame on the DC 9 is built like a bridge, the engines are indestructible, there are no maintenance issues and parts are plentiful.

    Its just one more (potential) tool in the tool box.

    0
    0
  8. While I am not going to criticize Conair or the boyz at Neptune…there is a reason the regional airlines got rid of the RJ series:….maintenance issues and some flight issues ID’d by more than 1 pilot. These aircraft are entering their 15-20 yr life spans that are going to start screaming “aging aircraft” issues.. DO NOT kid yourselves!!!

    0
    0
  9. At least one pilot I have talked to have nothing good to say about the BAe-146 as an air tanker.

    I am told the DC 9 is a much preferable aircraft.

    0
    0
    1. Chris I would take the 146 over a DC-9 any day. The 146 was designed to go in to airports that bigger jets can not. The 146 was the first commercial jet that was able to go into Aspen, CO without any restrictions put on it by the FAA. The 146 also was designed with a high lift wing, the Air Force C-17 takes part of the 146 wing design and expands its lift capability. The 146 also has better takeoff and landing distances than the DC-9. The 146 is also about the same size as a current P2V-7 Neptune and they have about the same turn radius which means they can operate out of the same bases. With the DC-9 its turn radius is twice the size of a 146. Here in Southern California I can think of only 2 tanker bases where the DC-9 will fit Fresno and San Bernardino. The 146 can fit at San Bernardino, Fox, Porterville, Santa Maria, and probably Ramona if Cal Fire allows them to fly in there. Now I’m not saying that the DC-9 is a bad choice as a possible airtanker, I’m just saying that I feel that the 146 is better suited than the DC-9

      0
      0
    2. Chris – I spoke with a very experienced pilot last week who said the exact same thing about the bae146s use as an air tanker.

      0
      0
  10. Amazing – private industry perceives a need and invests their own $$ (Canadian and US) to build better mouse traps. Kinda like what Erickson Skycrane has done. No need for the USFS to commit 2/3 of their entire budget (oh yeah, how about contributions from the NPS, BLM, USFWS, BIA and NASF, too) to move into the next generation of air tankers. Is North America a great continent, or what?

    0
    0

Comments are closed.