The Arcus F-45 Firecatcher, a British concept for a purpose-built firefighting plane
Posted by ElSquibbonator@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 31 comments
LockPickingPilot@reddit
Caravan with extra steps
BionicBananas@reddit
Purpose-built? Why does it look exactly like a Cessna Caravan without wingstruts?
WarmWombat@reddit
My first impression was that of a very poorly modelled Cessna Caravan, with some elements (nose wheel) of the GA-8 Airvan for instance.
Proportions of this thing are just off. Location of the engine exhaust feels way too forward. The volume of the engine cowl is massive - would be interesting to know what they plan on sticking in there. Pilot visibility through the side door window (if there is a door, that is) is horrible - what is the purpose of that fairing in front of the wing? Looks like they slapped together a quick and dirty 3D model to pitch the idea.
According to the wiki first flight was planned for 2023 for production starting in 2024? Sounds very unrealistic. Seeing that only renders of this model is available, I very much doubt that there has been any progress.
Bear__Fucker@reddit
I'm thinking it is a dead project. I can not find any information on it other than a few news articles from 2020. Arcus Fire's website no longer exists. The builder, NZ Pacific Aerospace, does not mention anything about it on their website. The designer, NZ Flight Structures, also does not mention a single word about it.
CrazyolCurt@reddit
https://www.aerospace.co.nz/files/dmfile/P-750-XSTOL-Brochure.pdf
Here's what it eventuated into, then the company got busted selling them by the U.N. to North Korea
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/95066250/kiwi-firm-investigated-after-plane-ends-up-in-north-korea
Appropriate-Count-64@reddit
I love the PAC P-750 XSTOL. It’s like a caravan but more funky
Treemarshal@reddit
Engine exhaust looks about right for a PT6 (remember they're reverse flow) but other than that...
Blue_ech0@reddit
I build the PT6 for a living, and I can confirm the exhaust is wonky. No model we have on the line will have the exhaust that far forward. It looks like it's coming out the side of the front gearbox. And that nacelle looks like it was designed for the PT6 twin concept engine that combined 2 engines with a common prop output.
DasFunktopus@reddit
Looks like a Caravan that’s let itself go.
antarcticacitizen1@reddit
Catches on fire..."You named it wrong"
Such-Oven36@reddit
Seems waaay cheaper than just modifying a caravan. Said no one.
LeatherRole2297@reddit
Any new-build firefighting aircraft that isn’t amphibious is satire.
Bear__Fucker@reddit
Really ignorant to think all wildfires occur near a water source large enough for aircraft to skim and scoop.
LeatherRole2297@reddit
You’ve made assumptions, made assumptions like an arseholt. The term “amphibious” means that the aircraft can operate from both land AND water. So if there isn’t a suitable lake nearby, an amphibious firefighting aircraft lands at an air attack or aerial tanker base to get refilled with slurry/water/retardant… just like a traditional firefighter would.
Bear__Fucker@reddit
True. I did assume you were talking about scooping. Apologies. In response to just the amphibious & satire aspect: No current amphibious aircraft has the payload capacity to match VLAT's. The vast majority of current tankers are purely land based. The majority of tankers are also not purpose built. Considering your comment of "new-build" tankers: It seems very unrealistic, or satire, to think anyone could build or afford to build a VLAT with retractable landing gear for water landing or scooping. Does it make sense for smaller tankers? I guess. If they are solely for locations without suitable water landings, then the design would just be more expensive or useless. In terms of a VLAT, even if someone designed one, the body of water would have to be massive to support one.
Without your comment being location specific, or aircraft size specific, I think it is still very ignorant to say "any new-build" is "satire." Arseholt.
LeatherRole2297@reddit
Numbnuts, I want you to look at that picture. Good, long look. Now numbnuts, does your stupid ass see any Very Large Aerial Tankers in that picture? Any 74s or -10s? How bout it, dumbass, see any Hercs or P-3s in that picture?
I’ll bet your so goddamned much fun to hang out with a guys gotta stay hydrated to stay on his feet.
Bear__Fucker@reddit
Wow snowflake, you're really getting offended. Your comment is general. Maybe you should read it again take a good. long. read. It doesn't say anything specifically about the picture. It makes a blanket statement saying basically all air tankers should be amphibious. Maybe you should learn to word your comments better. I'm still going with the fact that your comment was ignorant, and you're just angry because I pointed it out. I hope the rest of your life is as pleasant as you are.
CrazyolCurt@reddit
https://www.aerospace.co.nz/files/dmfile/P-750-XSTOL-Brochure.pdf
Here's what they eventuated into.
The New Zealand company eventually got fined by the U.N. for selling a few to North Korea
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/95066250/kiwi-firm-investigated-after-plane-ends-up-in-north-korea
Dangerous-Salad-bowl@reddit
There must be a batter way to tank it up over a beefed up garden hose.
Activision19@reddit
To be fair it’s shown using TWO beefed up garden hoses.
Maxrdt@reddit
Tough to break into the high-wing, turbine market right now. Existing types like the massively successful Cessna Caravan and the Quest Kodiak seem like they wouldn't leave much room for a competitor unless it has some big advantage that's not obvious from the pictures and description.
Hattix@reddit
Unsure why someone would think this would be a good idea when, at any given time, plenty of airliners at the end of their passenger life still have thousands of hours left on their airframes. Whether it's old 737NGs, BAe 146s, DC-10/MD-11s or even Twin Otters, they're going to do all the same job for an awful lot less money.
Furaskjoldr@reddit
The plane is built for the New Zealand and Australian bush fire market. They generally don't have decent sized runways available so aircraft need to be smaller. A DC10 would literally not fit on the runway. The Twin Otter would be the only one you listed that would work equally well, but having more choice is always good I guess.
murphsmodels@reddit
It looks like a slightly modified Cessna Caravan. There are tons of those too.
Hattix@reddit
I reckon a 146 would do it too. Those things could operate out of tiny runways.
HorrifiedPilot@reddit
Do people forget the existence of At-802s and Thrush 710s?
NoobButJustALittle@reddit
Kinda poor name choice
Lillienpud@reddit
Yep. Hope it doesn’t catch fire.
wildskipper@reddit
It would be good if OP would give a bit more info, so here's the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firecatcher_F-45
It's only British financed, the manufacturer is a New Zealand company and the capacity of the plane seems to be larger than some comparable planes. I can only imagine they're going after the market for tackling bush fires in New Zealand and Australia. The company also apparently has a Chinese arm so perhaps for that market too.
Sonoda_Kotori@reddit
What makes this purpose-built? Are the tanks highly integrated into the fuselage like a SuperScooper?
Also interesting that it seems to have a rear cabin with three windows on the side. Does it double as a spotter?
KokoTheTalkingApe@reddit
Apparently there are three variants: tanker, cargo and passenger.