Martin Mars may be staying in California

Martin Mars may be staying in California

Gents:
Somebody pre-empted me as I was about to post the same Mars landing sequence photos, but pasted together in a continuous strip. They are quite impressive when they are pasted together however the trick is getting the strip under 300 MB to be able to post it. I believe the photo credits go to M/Gen Brian Vernon. In speaking with my brother a few nights back, he told me that someone on the landing approach shoreline of Lake Elsinore had taken a nice seqence of pictures and these appear to be them.

Although these shots are similar to ones already posted in this thread, they clearly show the finesse required to operate the Mars in such small reservoirs. My brother has had to grease the bird onto the water within 100 ft. of the downwind end of the lake (when there is any wind!) in order to have a fighting chance at grabbing a 50-60% load. Under ideal conditions, a pick-up run will be 25-30 seconds however the best he has been able to do in Elsinore is @18 seconds translating to a ~5000 USgal load. To do this, he carries minimal fuel and uses 1.8 of the 3 miles available for the pick-up and then needs the remainder to build the Mars’ airspeed up to a minimum engine-out airspeed of @120 mph prior to over-flying houses and trees. Every (pick-up) departure from Elsinore is done with the “thumb on the dump button” for obvious reasons. Working out of that duck pond has required the use of all his old float-flying tricks including circular take-offs, downwind runs to get on the step, etc. When he described his approach to land in the first 100 ft of Lake Elsinore, it harkened back to our early flying days at Pitt Meadows, B.C. where we won the combined spot-landing/flour-bombing trophy in my Citabria at the 25th anniversary fly-in/air-show (he as pilot, yours truly as bombardier). He has always had the midas touch for spot landing airplanes, of any size, and it clearly shows in these photos. I guess all this just serves to reinforce the old adage that “runway behind you is wasted real estate”. We were both taught by our old instructor (in Fleet Canucks) that if you did not touch down on the numbers and/or make the first turn-off, you had better not show your face in the airport coffee shop……extremely valuable coaching for Mars operations at Lake Elsinore!!! As for the question re: would he rather be flying something newer? I can comment that for water bomber pilots in general, “programmable” airplanes have very little appeal. Flying the biggest “day-VFR” airplane in the world, and a boat to boot, does have a good deal of that appeal.
Mk.1
———–

They are amazing pictures of a truly fantastic aircraft, that has lived on way passed expectation. Amazing
There are some similer angles and closeness to subject if you type in Martin Mars on Youtube. The noise is astounding.

Edit, Just read this post fully and wow, what a great discussion.
Amazing website there Flying Kiwi.

Mk.1 you are very lucky, I would love to look inside these classics.
What does your brother think about flying them? Sounds stupid, but does he enjoy the fact hes flying an icon in daily use, or does he think its heavy, hard work, hard to maintain and would rather be in something more modern?!
BTW what could the Mars be replaced by? I can only think of Shin Miewas and that Beriev jet flying boat.

no, they were sent to me by a friend who is also a flying boat enthusiast.
I’m not sure of their original source.

If you could find out, I for one would be interested in contacting the photographer.

Thanks for sharing.

Roger
no, they were sent to me by a friend who is also a flying boat enthusiast.
I’m not sure of their original source.
The noise must have been quite inspiring too I’d imagine.
GeoffR

wow! I could sit and gaze for ages at these, wishing I was where that family are standing 🙂

Now wouldn’t those five pictures be fantastic set in a single long picture frame. Did you take them Geoff?

Roger Smith.

Some more pics of Martin Mars arriving at Lake Elsinore And cutting it a little close …..

GeoffR

James,

Here at long last are some of the photos I promised of the Mars at Lake Elsinore last weekend, and a link to a web page with the Mars and many other fixed and rotary wing water bombers:

Martin Mars from last weekend:

These folks were as happy to see it as I was:

More photos and descriptions on the fire-fighting aircraft page:

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Misc/FireFighters/index.html

Richard.

That Low level shot is a candiate for the How Low Can You Go? thread methinks.

Hi Richard,
Some stunning pictures there – thanks for sharing.

The Mars is an amazing machine.

Your firebomber page is excellent. Thanks.

Cheers

SUPERB photos on your website and descriptions, well done!:)

Martin Mars and other water bombers

James,

Here at long last are some of the photos I promised of the Mars at Lake Elsinore last weekend, and a link to a web page with the Mars and many other fixed and rotary wing water bombers:

Martin Mars from last weekend:

These folks were as happy to see it as I was:

More photos and descriptions on the fire-fighting aircraft page:

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Misc/FireFighters/index.html

Richard.

Mk1: Fascinating stuff 🙂 Thanks for posting.

That forum is really impressive ! you’ll find everyone there from the young fan to the former WWII bomber pilot…and MK1 post give an idea of the area that can be covered…thanks for your intervention..

Wow this forum sometimes amazes you – thanks Mk1 🙂

The withdrawal of fixed-wing a/c by the US was iirc due to their use of high-time airframes converted to fire-fighting, then subsequently having wings “let-go” whilst in the process of tackling the fires.

I bet it’s difficult having to fly in the rising air that the fires create.

Neither the Mars nor the jet airliners were designed for firebombing, but the Mars is more suitable because of the load factors, piston advantage and Dan Ivor’s original brilliant idea. Adopting an aircraft optimised for high-level cruise and maximum loads for the (engineering) stressful job of firebombing looks good superficially, but I remain unconvinced.

Of course a Mars isn’t going to look manoeuvrable next to a C-415, but it’s not going to whizz by unable to get into the landscape wrinkles that a jet airline type has to.

Just thinking about it.

Richard, I’d love to see those photos!

Cheers,

I admit that I was thinking of the absolute maneuverability of the Mars, not compared to the DC-10 or 747.

I agree, putting a big jet down low sounds very hairy.

I’m putting a page of fire-fighting aircraft together for my website, I’ll post a link when it’s done. I’ll have 4 shots of the Mars on it.

Richard.

Martin Mars may be staying in California

JDK:
You are absolutely right sir. The Mars can definitely deliver more of “the goods” to the exact spot(s) required than any other airplane. THe CL215/415 is an awesome firefighter however and can operate out of much smaller water bodies. The big issue in California is the absence of suitable fresh water bodies (BLM/State authorities are really down on dropping salt water for obvious reasons) which means the Mars has to pick up from already depleted reservoirs that are barely big enough to operate from. The Mars in Lake Elsinore is a “battleship in a bathtub”. In neutral wind conditions at lake Elsinore, you will note that take-offs and pick-ups are always executed SW to NE giving the maximum available length (@ 3.3 miles).
Mk.1
———

Interesting disscussion re maneuvreability of the Mars. I can say from first hand experience that the “not very maneuvreable” argument would prevail in this instance. From one short flight in the old bird and numerous discussions with my brother (the chief pilot), I can comment that the pilot in command must always be planning/processing at least 2-3 seconds ahead of every control input (particularly on ailerons) as the Mars is indeed very slow to react and even slower when at her 162,000 lb gross weight. Even at METO power, when all 10,000 horses are pulling, she is not “blessed with power”. With large water/fuel load combinations and hot weather conditions (usually associated with fires), the Mars does not have a generous performance margin. At high altitude fire locations (above 6,000 ft) in the mountainous B.C. interior, the old girl must be flown very carefully. When her sheer physical size, weight, power to weight ratio, absence of hydraulic boost on ailerons, combined with violent thermals are all factored into the equation, the result is an airplane that is extremely physically demanding to fly in a confined (mountainous or smoke-constrained) area. Full aileron deflection (stop to stop) inputs requiring both pilots to put all their strength into the roll (and counter roll) are not uncommon. My brother is (and has to be) in the best physical shape to safely fly the airplane in the role it now serves.

Well that looks like me blown out of the water without enough knowledge! 😀

And I never got out on the wing, either. (I’d have been holding on and on all fours too…)

Appreciate the insight and analysis very much. I’d be interested in your brother’s comparison in ‘load on target’ between the Mars and DC-10 (or 747, but that’s mostly theoretical). I’d still bet (no fool like and old one…) that the Mars can drop lower, closer (and thus more effectively) than a DC-10 in anything other than dead flat country.

Thanks again.

Martin Mars may be staying in California

Gents:
Interesting disscussion re maneuvreability of the Mars. I can say from first hand experience that the “not very maneuvreable” argument would prevail in this instance. From one short flight in the old bird and numerous discussions with my brother (the chief pilot), I can comment that the pilot in command must always be planning/processing at least 2-3 seconds ahead of every control input (particularly on ailerons) as the Mars is indeed very slow to react and even slower when at her 162,000 lb gross weight. Even at METO power, when all 10,000 horses are pulling, she is not “blessed with power”. With large water/fuel load combinations and hot weather conditions (usually associated with fires), the Mars does not have a generous performance margin. At high altitude fire locations (above 6,000 ft) in the mountainous B.C. interior, the old girl must be flown very carefully. When her sheer physical size, weight, power to weight ratio, absence of hydraulic boost on ailerons, combined with violent thermals are all factored into the equation, the result is an airplane that is extremely physically demanding to fly in a confined (mountainous or smoke-constrained) area. Full aileron deflection (stop to stop) inputs requiring both pilots to put all their strength into the roll (and counter roll) are not uncommon. My brother is (and has to be) in the best physical shape to safely fly the airplane in the role it now serves.
As for the effects on the life of the airframe, key structural components on the Mars were extensively strain-gauged during flying operations a few years ago and the airplane’s operating limitations were established based on this realtime stress-strain information. Overall, both Hawaii and Philipine Mars are in excellent physical condition. Hawaii Mars (CF-LYL), the red-tailed airplane now in California, looks almost new inside as it was completely refurbished a few years ago. The people in the hills around San Diego are very fortunate to have access to the Mars and its highly dedicated air and maintenance crews. I’ve attached a photo taken this summer, taken up on the wing, when showing “his uncle’s Mars” to my little guy.
Mk.1
——–

As Einstein said, “It’s all relative.”(ity) 😉

The two surviving Mars have been up-engined from the original production version. For low and slow, a well-managed piston engine beats a pure jet for quicker variations in applied power. (When converted, the original powerplants were replaced with four Wright R-3350-24WA Cyclone engines of 2500 hp (1860 kW) each. – Wikipedia)

We are all aware of the concept of ‘g‘ loadings – less attention is paid to g being a function of speed and turn radius as well as mass. Wing loading is a factor as well of course. Basic aerodynamic says that a Marin Mars with a lower wing loading and cruise speed will be more manoeuvrable than a higher wing loading jet type with a requirement to move at a higher (lowest) cruise speed. (Of course modern jets have amazing lift devices to deploy, and are much stronger than a W.W.II era type; but they’re using that strength faster and harder, and those lift devices are not intended for long use at low level with the deployment and retraction cycling and load variation caused by the situation.) The airframe fatigue rate will grow much more slowly on a (here’s that word again) relatively lighter loaded structure. Whatever happens there won’t be the same DC-10 or a 747 firebombing with 50 years performance under it’s belt – the fatiuge rate will see to that if nothing else. With proper maintenance and a continued need, the airframe of the Mars has clocked up a half century (how many other types can claim that?) and is theoretically good for another 50.

Neither the Mars nor the jet airliners were designed for firebombing, but the Mars is more suitable because of the load factors, piston advantage and Dan Ivor’s original brilliant idea. Adopting an aircraft optimised for high-level cruise and maximum loads for the (engineering) stressful job of firebombing looks good superficially, but I remain unconvinced.

Of course a Mars isn’t going to look manoeuvrable next to a C-415, but it’s not going to whizz by unable to get into the landscape wrinkles that a jet airline type has to.

Just thinking about it.

Richard, I’d love to see those photos!

Cheers,

I’m also no expert, but I spent last weekend photographing the Mars and it didn’t seem maneuverable from where I was.

Great aircraft, it just didn’t seem maneuverable.

Richard.

And common to large piston-powered aircraft from that era…I’d wager the Mars aren’t blessed with an over-abundance of power.

The DC-10 has a lot of power, but I understand that one negative factor in fire-fighting operations is its “spool up” time.

Yes, Badger, they were designed for the job. I’m no expert, but I remain unconvinced by 747 and DC-10 tankers being that effective – they can’t get close (the water or foam needs to be put as low and close as possible, while in the video you can see how good the CL415s are. The Mars puts a big load, low and on target, and the Mars are (relatively) slow and manoeuvrable too. But then I’m a Mars ‘fan’. 😉

I’m also no expert, but I spent last weekend photographing the Mars and it didn’t seem maneuverable from where I was.

Great aircraft, it just didn’t seem maneuverable.

Richard.