Thread: PUC Engines

  1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Boxalarm please correct me if i am wrong. But doesnt your puc at work have a higher friction loss in the internal plumbing when compared to you alls regular engines? Or was the person that told me that misinformed?

  2. #27
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    RFd, let me see what I can find out about the FL in the plumbing on that.

    As for this year's pump test on our 2008 PUC pumper, here are the results:
    • 150PSI - 1506 GPM
    • 200PSI - 1063 GPM
    • 250PSI - 750 GPM
    • Time to obtain draft: 12 seconds (Tridet air primer)
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

    Default BoxAlarm187

    Can you provide the pump test RPM to go along with the PSI and GPM?

  4. #29
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 16Scott View Post
    Can you provide the pump test RPM to go along with the PSI and GPM?
    Sure, give me a couple of days.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  5. #30
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4

    Default

    “The MVP uses the standard split shaft drive. If you want pump and roll, they will install an auxiliary engine driven pump as well. Seems like a win-win package: compact, simplified pump panel, frame rail height crosslays, and a crap-ton of compartment space.”

    Using an auxiliary engine driven pump or even an additional PTO pump for the low, low price of……... is not a win at all for me. If the PUC has pump & roll as standard, why pay for more stuff that you don’t need.

    “As you pointed out, there are other manufacturers out there doing PUC designs, such as this PUC-style aerial from Rosenbauer. The Ferrara MVP has been mentioned, and there's also the EMAx from E-One, the PRO from KME, and the Transformer from Crimson. Each of these designs offer an "alternative" design to the standard mid-ship pump, and I believe each have their own strengths and weaknesses.”
    “That was one of the things that impressed me most on the MVP. How compact they were able to make that pump panel- heck, there are 2 vertical slide out tool boards, AND shelving in that first compartment! Makes me wonder why the HECK most pump panels are so big to begin with.”


    The Rosenbauer uses an end suction pump, but also uses a split-shaft transfer case. The E-ONE, Ferrara and KME use a standard pump configuration, they just place bodywork around the pump panel. There is nothing new there. Cold climates folks have done that for years.
    The way Crimson, Ferrara and KME make the pump panel on the driver’s side so compact as you stated is that all of the valves are electric. On the officer’s side, the front compartment has half of its space taken up by the pump panel. At least E-ONE uses some manual valves. I don’t know for sure how the Crimson pump is driven. I suspect it is PTO from the transmission. If that is the case, PTO drives typically are limited to 1250 gpm. They are claiming 1500 gpm.
    The following video from Ferrara shows the MVP in action. Look at the officer's side compartment space (or lack of) at 2:10.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL...embedded#at=14
    This link from KME shows in detail an all electric valve pump panel and an officer’s side compartment full of plumbing.
    http://fire.kovatch.com/ProductDivis...iesPumper.aspx

    The PUC offers a full compartment on this side.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CareerLt View Post
    “The MVP uses the standard split shaft drive. If you want pump and roll, they will install an auxiliary engine driven pump as well. Seems like a win-win package: compact, simplified pump panel, frame rail height crosslays, and a crap-ton of compartment space.”

    Using an auxiliary engine driven pump or even an additional PTO pump for the low, low price of……... is not a win at all for me. If the PUC has pump & roll as standard, why pay for more stuff that you don’t need.

    I think you answered your own question, as an option, if you don't need it, don't order it.


    “As you pointed out, there are other manufacturers out there doing PUC designs, such as this PUC-style aerial from Rosenbauer. The Ferrara MVP has been mentioned, and there's also the EMAx from E-One, the PRO from KME, and the Transformer from Crimson. Each of these designs offer an "alternative" design to the standard mid-ship pump, and I believe each have their own strengths and weaknesses.”
    “That was one of the things that impressed me most on the MVP. How compact they were able to make that pump panel- heck, there are 2 vertical slide out tool boards, AND shelving in that first compartment! Makes me wonder why the HECK most pump panels are so big to begin with.”


    The Rosenbauer uses an end suction pump, but also uses a split-shaft transfer case. The E-ONE, Ferrara and KME use a standard pump configuration, they just place bodywork around the pump panel. There is nothing new there. Cold climates folks have done that for years.
    The way Crimson, Ferrara and KME make the pump panel on the driver’s side so compact as you stated is that all of the valves are electric. On the officer’s side, the front compartment has half of its space taken up by the pump panel. At least E-ONE uses some manual valves. I don’t know for sure how the Crimson pump is driven. I suspect it is PTO from the transmission. If that is the case, PTO drives typically are limited to 1250 gpm. They are claiming 1500 gpm.
    The following video from Ferrara shows the MVP in action. Look at the officer's side compartment space (or lack of) at 2:10.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL...embedded#at=14
    This link from KME shows in detail an all electric valve pump panel and an officer’s side compartment full of plumbing.
    http://fire.kovatch.com/ProductDivis...iesPumper.aspx

    The PUC offers a full compartment on this side.
    I'm not sure what you have against electric valves, but in this example, it does add compartment space vs a regular midship pump panel. Moving the preconnects ahead of the pump at frame rail height makes the space above the pump usable as well. Is the ENTIRE front compt usable for storage? No. There is, however lots of storage elsewhere.

    Not trying to argue with you, I just think it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Just a different way of arriving at the same destination. All of these different styles offer improved compartment space, lower preconnects, and reasonable wheelbases, vs "traditional" style midship pumpers. If you HAVE to have manual valves, you could always locate them at the point of use- such as with water thieves, or a simple ball valve.

    I'm enjoying this thread- it's turned into an interesting discussion!

  7. #32
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CareerLt View Post
    Using an auxiliary engine driven pump or even an additional PTO pump for the low, low price of……... is not a win at all for me. If the PUC has pump & roll as standard, why pay for more stuff that you don’t need.
    Carrying that thought one step further, if you don't have the need for pump-and-roll on a Pierce PUC, delete it for credit.

    Quote Originally Posted by CareerLT View Post
    The Rosenbauer uses an end suction pump, but also uses a split-shaft transfer case. The E-ONE, Ferrara and KME use a standard pump configuration, they just place bodywork around the pump panel. There is nothing new there. Cold climates folks have done that for years.
    True on all accounts. I guess the question could be made: is the customer looking for a vehicle that uses an "alternative" pump location, or simply maximizes the use of compartment space relative to the traditional pump house while leaving the pump itself in it's standard location?

    Quote Originally Posted by CareerLT
    The way Crimson, Ferrara and KME make the pump panel on the driver’s side so compact as you stated is that all of the valves are electric. On the officer’s side, the front compartment has half of its space taken up by the pump panel. At least E-ONE uses some manual valves.
    Over the past year, I've talked to a lot of industry experts about manual versus electric valves, and no one can produce any proof that there's a higher failure rate for either of the valves. Perhaps the electric valves have matured enough that they're able to handle fire service rigors? (For those customers that prefer that style valve, of course)

    As for the use of manual vs electric, the E-One panel is all manual, as evidenced in this photo from FDIC 2011:



    For comparison's sake, here's the Crimson Transformer panel:



    As for the KME PRO [edited by OP], they are using a compact pump panel through the use of electric valves and the front bulkhead of the compartment,...



    ...but take a look at the forward-most compartment on the officer's side:



    Here's a shot of the former demo FFA MVP that is now in service in DE:


    Quote Originally Posted by CareerLT
    I don’t know for sure how the Crimson pump is driven. I suspect it is PTO from the transmission. If that is the case, PTO drives typically are limited to 1250 gpm. They are claiming 1500 gpm.
    Yes, it is a PTO driven pump.

    Quote Originally Posted by CareerLT
    The PUC offers a full compartment on this side.
    We had a Rosenbauer demo at the VFD a couple of months ago that did as well.
    Last edited by BoxAlarm187; 08-14-2011 at 05:59 PM.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Thanks for the pictures!

    The KME engine reminds me of ST Louis's engines- NO intakes or discharges on the driver's side, they're all on the officer's side. Smeal did this using a Hale 8FG pump and a custom manifold. KME probably did something similar.

    Those intakes have to go somewhere, and if you want the best flow with the least friction loss due to excessive plumbing, they need to go directly into the impeller. Looks like all those designs included more than adequate storage space.

    That E-one is interesting- I'd love to see behind the pump panel how all those linkages were done. Looks like the pull handles are located behind the pump.

    The Crimson looks really different- the pump sits a lot farther back. Looks like it's behind the forward compts. The control panel up in the wheelhouse compt seems to make sense- on most of our trucks, that compt wasn't very deep.

    That MVP demo unit is set up differently from the one in the video link. In this one, the pump panel has it's own separate compt, while the rig in the video combines those 2 into 1 big one. I like how they used the space above the speedlays. That stokes comp looks like it's transverse! Looks like some healthy floodlighting on the side, too. I wonder what the deal is with the wired in yellow trouble light?

  9. #34
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nozzle nut 22 View Post
    Thanks for the pictures!

    That MVP demo unit is set up differently from the one in the video link....I wonder what the deal is with the wired in yellow trouble light?
    You're most welcome.

    I don't see the light you're referring to. If you're talking about the long coiled cord with the box on the end of it, that's the tethered remote for the Will-Burt light tower.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,273

    Default

    [QUOTE=BoxAlarm187;1288522]Carrying that thought one step further, if you don't have the need for pump-and-roll on a Pierce PUC, delete it for credit.



    True on all accounts. I guess the question could be made: is the customer looking for a vehicle that uses an "alternative" pump location, or simply maximizes the use of compartment space relative to the traditional pump house while leaving the pump itself in it's standard location?



    Over the past year, I've talked to a lot of industry experts about manual versus electric valves, and no one can produce any proof that there's a higher failure rate for either of the valves. Perhaps the electric valves have matured enough that they're able to handle fire service rigors? (For those customers that prefer that style valve, of course)

    As for the use of manual vs electric, the E-One panel is all manual, as evidenced in this photo from FDIC 2011:


    I think this is a KME and not a E-One......


    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  11. #36
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptOldTimer View Post
    I think this is a KME and not a E-One......
    Nope, it's an E-One:



    Here's the KME:
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  12. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    Over the past year, I've talked to a lot of industry experts about manual versus electric valves, and no one can produce any proof that there's a higher failure rate for either of the valves. Perhaps the electric valves have matured enough that they're able to handle fire service rigors? (For those customers that prefer that style valve, of course)




    As for the E-One EMax, they are using a compact pump panel through the use of electric valves and the front bulkhead of the compartment,...



    ...but take a look at the forward-most compartment on the officer's side:

    These two photos are KME. The panels and steamer caps say so...

    Even if electric valves aren't failing like they used to (I know in the early 90's of many departments that had them locally, and had a hell of a time with them), you'll pay a premium for them. They get expensive quickly.

    These photos of all of these so-called space savers prove just like everything else, you give up space somewhere else to make things work or appear to be some genuine miracle of space efficiency. Sure, there are some packaging improvements, but I still believe a rear mount pump with a rear panel will probably yield the most compartment space for a given body length and tank, and yes I know there are sacrifices with that concept too.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  13. #38
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    These two photos are KME. The panels and steamer caps say so....
    Joel, thanks for the correction, now I see where I made the mistake. Too much early morning typing and cutting and pasting...
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  14. #39
    Forum Member
    Tim1118's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    These photos of all of these so-called space savers prove just like everything else, you give up space somewhere else to make things work or appear to be some genuine miracle of space efficiency.
    Agreed. Like everything, there is give and take. It does shorten the wheelbase up, but the pump panel has got to go somewhere. The E-One is available with electric valves (might have already been mentioned), but again, there is a good sized price increase associated with them. Care, maintenance and training will keep them working for a long time. Most products available for us are going to give us a long useful life... but that is going to be determined by the build and installation before we get our hands on them. Back to the PUC/eMax/KME, I think I still trust a standard pump transmission for the main fire pump instead of the PTO driven.
    TruckCommittee.com

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    114

    Default

    My department is in the process of spec'ing out a rescue-pumper. We've had a number of manufacturers out to show us their trucks. We are trying to maximize space for rescue equipment so the pump panel is a big concern for us. As for the pics of the KME Pro and the compartment on the officers side, I'd like to see that configuration on a rear mount truck with the pump panel on the offers side. Then all of the discharges and intakes would be off of the rear of the truck. That would leave the compartment on the other side wide open, right?

    As for the electric valves vs. manual valves.. I've never dealt with electric valves and my concern with them was if there is a failure, is there a manual override? I asked a Crimson sales rep this question and his reply was that they do have manual overrides for every electric valve but it may take a while to get to them. That does me no good if the fecal matter hits the fan!!

  16. #41
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volff1170 View Post
    As for the pics of the KME Pro and the compartment on the officers side, I'd like to see that configuration on a rear mount truck with the pump panel on the offers side. Then all of the discharges and intakes would be off of the rear of the truck. That would leave the compartment on the other side wide open, right?
    The beauty of a rear mount pump (and again, I know I'm biased) is that you can have a panel similar to this and not need electric valves. As an example, Toyne does a great job of keeping their panels on their rear mount pumpers very compact and still using manual valves. Here's an example:

    http://www.toyne.com/Delivery.asp?pa...livery5299.jpg

    There is nothing Toyne is doing here that is proprietary, other builders should be capable of this kind of arrangement, if they'll take the time to do it. The builder of our last rear mount was lazy and did not do what I thought we had communicated, but no one from my department that has any power would do anything about it. And so our newest engine has a rear compartment with about 3/4 of the interior volume wasted by useless pump panel.

    And yes, your opposite side compartment would be without intakes, discharges, etc. unless you wanted them there.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  17. #42
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    The beauty of a rear mount pump (and again, I know I'm biased) is that you can have a panel similar to this and not need electric valves. As an example, Toyne does a great job of keeping their panels on their rear mount pumpers very compact and still using manual valves. Here's an example:

    http://www.toyne.com/Delivery.asp?pa...livery5299.jpg
    When I see rigs like that, it makes me bang my head on the wall that the members of my VFD refused to even consider a rear-mount pump. "It'll be the only one like it in the area...not a good idea". Grrrrr.....
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  18. #43
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    The beauty of a rear mount pump (and again, I know I'm biased) is that you can have a panel similar to this and not need electric valves. As an example, Toyne does a great job of keeping their panels on their rear mount pumpers very compact and still using manual valves.
    I have to second this. While our panel isn't as compact, we were able to get all manual controls (yes we still fear electronics) in a pretty well laid out panel in our rear mount. Toyne does a very nice job of panel layout, and the quality of materials and workmanship exceeds many others we've seen. In the end our rearmount allowed us better utilization of space in a smaller body size.

    One thing we really like about the rearmount is the pump suction in the rear. When it comes to hooking a hydrant, you merely need to pass the plug to ensure a propr hose layout. With the sidemount suction the operator needed to ensure the right distance between the steamer and the hydrant to eliminate kinks or adding hose. Of course you can add a rear intake to a sidemount, especially if you've set up a bunch of dry hydrants for side suction.

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    Adam, I was ready to post something a couple of hours ago, then I pulled it, hoping you would come in on this. I seem to recall a comment that I attribute to you about having the panel on the officer's side rather than the driver's side. Any opinion? Would you do it again as you have it now, or would you want to change?

  20. #45
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefengineer11 View Post
    Adam, I was ready to post something a couple of hours ago, then I pulled it, hoping you would come in on this. I seem to recall a comment that I attribute to you about having the panel on the officer's side rather than the driver's side. Any opinion? Would you do it again as you have it now, or would you want to change?
    Yeah, I was just discussing this with an out of town Chief yesterday. Originally we couldn't decide which side to put the panel on.

    Conventional thinking said put it on the right (officers) side to keep the operator out of traffic, but our policy is to block the road if the scene is such that it requires an operator. The other thought was that it would be easier on the driver side as it would be a shorter trip to the panel from the seat when engaging the pump in cold weather. In the end we opted for the right side, having no real strong feelings about either side. If we'd only known! None of the issues are real big, but for simplicity we'd now put it on the drivers side for the following reasons:

    A. We run a lot of medical back-up calls for our ambulances. In cold weather the operator spins the pump and throttles up to about 1000 rpms. When in this operating mode, we do not block the road but park parallel to the curb. What happens if that standing facing the panel it's real easy to trip backwards on the curb itself depending on how close the truck is to the sidewalk. Also, in the winter the snowbanks either force you to park out into the street more or standing in the snow/slush. Again, nothing too big, just none of these would be issues whatsoever if the panel was in the street.

    B. We thought and discussed needing to reroute the exhaust away from the panel, but didn't realize that this was an NFPA requirement the builder had to comply with. Thus instead of us using a short run of exhaust extraction hose to reroute the exhaust, Toyne had to put the exhaust on the left side of he engine. The issue arose as our station was set up for all bays to have exhaust system attachment on the right side of the trucks. We had to move the system in the bay the Squad resides in and basically moving it is a far more limited option now. Not to mention it can't hook to anyone else's in our M/A stations. Again, not big or insurmountable, just little things that make you go hmmm.

    So, in the end if we could do it over or in a few years when we buy another one, we'd go with the panel on the drivers side.

  21. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    101

    Default

    This is a rear mount pump, rear panel, leaving both side compartments clear.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigjim54 View Post
    This is a rear mount pump, rear panel, leaving both side compartments clear.
    And in hindsight, I wish our first rear mount pumper had a rear panel like this. Ours is exposed to everything, which just compounds the noise that the engineer has to deal with.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Yeah, I was just discussing this with an out of town Chief yesterday. Originally we couldn't decide which side to put the panel on.

    Conventional thinking said put it on the right (officers) side to keep the operator out of traffic, but our policy is to block the road if the scene is such that it requires an operator. The other thought was that it would be easier on the driver side as it would be a shorter trip to the panel from the seat when engaging the pump in cold weather. In the end we opted for the right side, having no real strong feelings about either side. If we'd only known! None of the issues are real big, but for simplicity we'd now put it on the drivers side for the following reasons:

    A. We run a lot of medical back-up calls for our ambulances. In cold weather the operator spins the pump and throttles up to about 1000 rpms. When in this operating mode, we do not block the road but park parallel to the curb. What happens if that standing facing the panel it's real easy to trip backwards on the curb itself depending on how close the truck is to the sidewalk. Also, in the winter the snowbanks either force you to park out into the street more or standing in the snow/slush. Again, nothing too big, just none of these would be issues whatsoever if the panel was in the street.

    B. We thought and discussed needing to reroute the exhaust away from the panel, but didn't realize that this was an NFPA requirement the builder had to comply with. Thus instead of us using a short run of exhaust extraction hose to reroute the exhaust, Toyne had to put the exhaust on the left side of he engine. The issue arose as our station was set up for all bays to have exhaust system attachment on the right side of the trucks. We had to move the system in the bay the Squad resides in and basically moving it is a far more limited option now. Not to mention it can't hook to anyone else's in our M/A stations. Again, not big or insurmountable, just little things that make you go hmmm.

    So, in the end if we could do it over or in a few years when we buy another one, we'd go with the panel on the drivers side.
    RFDACM02,

    You make some valid points... We have been trying to decide which side of the engine that we want the pump panel. We run 2 ambulances and seldom use an engine for EMS response. The main use of this rescue pumper will be for highway response for MVA's. We thought that the best location for the pump panel would be the officer's side because it does get the pump operator out of traffic most of the time. So let me ask this, If you used your engine in the role that we intend on using ours, would you still consider the pump panel on the drivers side or officers side?

    I was thinking about this too... What if you had a pump panel on the officers side with all electronic valves and another pump panel on the drivers side with manual valves, just like the Toyne picture? That would give you the convenience of the electronic valves on the side to get you out of traffic and the manual valves are readily available. Plus, given the size of the pump panel on the Toyne, it wouldn't take up much more room. Then the pump operator could choose which side of the engine gives him/her (politically correct) the best option for safety and overall view of the scene. Has anyone seen an engine with two pump panels?

  24. #49
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volff1170 View Post
    RFDACM02,

    You make some valid points... We have been trying to decide which side of the engine that we want the pump panel. We run 2 ambulances and seldom use an engine for EMS response. The main use of this rescue pumper will be for highway response for MVA's. We thought that the best location for the pump panel would be the officer's side because it does get the pump operator out of traffic most of the time. So let me ask this, If you used your engine in the role that we intend on using ours, would you still consider the pump panel on the drivers side or officers side?

    I was thinking about this too... What if you had a pump panel on the officers side with all electronic valves and another pump panel on the drivers side with manual valves, just like the Toyne picture? That would give you the convenience of the electronic valves on the side to get you out of traffic and the manual valves are readily available. Plus, given the size of the pump panel on the Toyne, it wouldn't take up much more room. Then the pump operator could choose which side of the engine gives him/her (politically correct) the best option for safety and overall view of the scene. Has anyone seen an engine with two pump panels?
    Pretty sure you can't do manual and electric on the same valve, but you can run an electric valve I'm sure with two control heads. I've been wrong before though.

    If that's the case, put controls in the cab for what you would need to do on a roadway (tank to pump, recirc, trash line, etc.), and the engineer will never be at risk. I know that's been done before.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  25. #50
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    my biggest issue with PUC and similar rigs is they dont account for atack line flexibility. They did what most of the US fire service did, put 200 foot crosslays on it. Can someone tell me why 200? We dont have a 200 foot preconnect on my engine. We run 150, 250 and 400. The crosslays on these types of engines, are to me, virtually useless. The idea of a pull out box to pack your hose in is a deal breaker, versus a deal maker to me, simply because it represents a gadget mentality, not a tried tested and true option. Sorry, not sold.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 09-04-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-07-2003, 09:26 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 07-13-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2003, 09:31 AM
  3. Indiana -Antique Fire Engines
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Buffs' Firehouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-27-2003, 02:20 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 12-18-01
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-20-2001, 11:34 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 11-23-01
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2001, 08:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register