First place: FireflighterThe American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Foundation has announced the winners of a Team Aircraft Design Competition open to undergraduate AIAA branches or at-large Student Members. The task was to design from the ground up a purpose-built large air tanker.
Specifications for the aircraft included 4,000 to 8,000 gallon retardant capacity, 2,000 to 3,000 nm ferry range, it would use existing available engines, and have a dash speed of 300 to 400 knots. Other criteria included a drop speed of 125 to 150 knots and takeoff from a Balanced Field Length of 5,000 to 8,000 ft. with an assumption of +35°F standard atmosphere at an altitude of 5,000 ft. above mean sea-level.
The design teams awarded first, second, and third places all chose 8,000-gallon gravity-powered retardant tanks. The estimated prices of the aircraft are based on a manufacturing run of dozens of each aircraft. The teams’ complete proposals are at the links below.
First Place
The “Fireflighter” designed by a team from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore took first place. (See image above). It is powered by four turboprop engines and has a dash speed of 410 knots. The students estimate it would cost $75 million.
Fireflighter retardant tankSecond Place
Second place, Valkyrie, by team Njord.Team Njord, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign designed the “Valkyrie,” powered by two jet engines. Its dash speed is 300 knots and would use two removable RADS-XXL retardant tanks, enabling it to carry 20,000 pounds of cargo at the aircraft’s ferry range of 3,000 nm. It would sell for approximately $186 million.
Falkyrie retardant tankThird Place
Third place, Firehawk, by team Albatross.The Albatross team, also from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, designed the “Firehawk” powered by two jet engines. It would have a dash speed of 380 knots and sell for about $91 million.
Firehawk retardant tank
18 Comments
Very cool!!! Now the doofus slugs in the NIFC contracting shop need to get their sh__ together so that a vendor can actually get a bank loan to BUY one of these (think 10 yr contracts)
Some smart people designed these, intelligence that is not matched on the govt contracting side.
Cool stuff.
Its more like getting buyin from already established aircraft manufacturers and tooling up for a limited few of aircraft…even with 3D and new tech…what would the upfront costs be?
NIFC and contract folks in LMA world have no idea what true aircraft cost are unless they were previously employed by those manufacturers or spent more than 5-10 in the real aviation world
Cool stuff…..yes
Costs for X# of aircraft….somebody needs to assess that and then onto contract
wow..a C-130 and a P2 with Jets… Nothing very new.
Once again… anonymous trolls wanting to take shots at NIFC federal workers who do not have the power to contract like a DOD agency does. The decisions to do 10 year contracts come straight out of the Washington DC… along with the funds to pay for it.
Trolls takin shots?
Alot of us lived the DoD process(es) and what we at unit, intermediate and depot level maintenance and the wait…
Me , a former federal worker, understand the foibles of both worlds…
But major improvements are needed at the WO FAM level with performers who actually have had to handle aircraft in one form or another to include contracts…
Forestry degree education i recieved was very weak on scenario based aviation contracts….probably 2 days on aerial photography…surely not on airtanker contracting.
Most of us and the aircraft vendors understand contract processes comes out of DC and stuff rolls downhill very well to include all that “new” tracking tech that USFS is foisting upon operators…whaddya think that’s going to cost? Surely more than 5K a pop.
We could walk a mile in each other’s shoes but when agencies start putting more requirements on bucket dropping to track gallons of water in a Bambi Bucket…next thing you know they’ll be telling the pilot he /she isn’t putting enough water into the bucket without understanding high/ hots and torque available
I know I’ve commented on here recently, but I like to comment on things that matter. Places where things might change for the better. I’m a proponent of open source technology for stuff that works.
I’ve flown pretty much everything “Next Gen.” Not super proud of that fact, but I’ve learned things along the way. The real drop pattern winner is head pressure with the retardant entering laminar flow as soon as possible. It’s really that simple. Or to put it more simply, tall and skinny tank, away from the wing. Dale Newton figured this out in the late 80’s. He is like the modern day Prandtl to us in the firefighting world.
The airframe is different. I’m not an aeronautical engineer, I’ve just been taking credit for their good work for years.
Thanks Shawn
That first design looks very “Dash-8”-like…though the weights and dimensions are different.
I always like seeing what “clean sheet of paper” designs can be. Just like “concept cars” that are debuted at trade shows but are never really intended for production, perhaps some of the features in these aircraft will spur further development.
Functionality aside, they are fun to look at. 🙂
They got the designs they asked for [a modified cargo aircraft]. What would be the desired capabilities if the design specs came from the aviation firefighting community?
I’d like to see the spec sheet marked up by someone from the aviation firefighting community.
Has anyone considered using a C-17 as a aerial tanker?
Yes Mark, on several occasions on this web site I have mentioned the use of a C 17 with a MAFF 3 delivery system, 5000 U.S. gallons and a coverage level of over 4.gal/100 square feet, not pressurized.
When the C17 goes on GSA auction like the CH47 Chinooks……you’ll be waitin a bit …😆 🤣 8
I agree with Shawn. The Rads Tank system designed by Aerounion is probably the best Tank system with the best in the industry. T&G/IAR and TBM Hercs had that Tank system and Aerounion’s P3’s. Coulson bought the patent and their Hercs have it. As far as the airplane, a Tactical airplane makes the most sense. By the way I’m a bit taller than a Troll…
Once you specify a RADS tank and the amount of retardant you want to carry, you’re halfway there with airframe design. Large volume = large aircraft. No way around that. I’m not sure what constitutes a tactical aircraft but by defining it, you further bound the design. The second place design has some “tactical” features.
Here’s how you build a “purpose built” air tanker that could actually (eventually) be used by contractors under the current system: build an aircraft that could be used by the commercial or military market with the intent of using them as air tankers after they serve their commercial or military purpose.
Meaning, you design a commercial passenger/cargo or military cargo aircraft with the structural integrity required to be converted to an air tanker with an internal gravity tank when it eventually goes on the secondary market.
It’s not ideal but it’s the current reality. Will that ever happen? There are currently no insensitives for manufactures to produce that kind of design.
Correct NYC2AZ
For the few aircraft to be built…..where’s the incentive to tool up for a limited run production…maybe someone ought be talkin to Viking/ DeHavilland….
10 or so years ago there was “Big Talk” how USFS was “gonna” work with Lockheed- Marietta and gonna get some C130J action
Question is for all the braintrusts out there…where did that little plan go?
NATO…..No Action, Talk Only!!
Congratulations to the winners and to all that entered the contest. I know you put a lot of time and effort into your designs.
Comments are closed for this article!