Thread: PUC Engines

  1. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    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.
    That's what I was thinking too.

    volff1170: I really can't or shouldn't say what I'd do in your shoes, as I've not tried them on. It sounds like you're leaning toward the officer's side so I guess I'd say you know your FD best. If it were not for the few minor issues we've found, I'd not have an issue with the officer's side. Like I said, we were nearly ready to flip a coin, only hindsight shows the few problems we've found.

    I personally don't feel that the officer's side pump panel is enough of a protective measure in general. I also have no divided highways and almost always shut down the road or street until I'm convinced my personnel are not in danger. For the most part, our local LEO's are good about this, they push for early opening of streets, we most often oblige when we can provide enough safety to be confident it's OK. Most often if we have a firefighter at the pump panel, we'll also have firefighters in and out of the apparatus compartments, focused on fireground/scene tasks, necessitating a safe area around the apparatus. Of course the officer's side panel minimizes time in traffic, but I'd rather remove the traffic itself anyway, regardless of when my operator is.

    But alas, if it wasn't for the in station exhaust extraction and curb/snowbank issue on EMS assists, we'd have no real issues with the officer's side panel. While we'd switch it next time, we're still very happy overall, but since we're firefighters we gotta have something to b*tch about.

  2. #52
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MG3610 View Post
    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.
    Our gadget mentality has had pull out crosslay trays since 1991, where we pull the tray off the rig, load the hose on the ground, and then put it back in the rig. And we also have spare trays pre-loaded, so the rig is in service that much quicker when we're coming back in the middle of the night in the dead of winter. They've worked great for 20 years. EDIT: In hindsight, I think they were on our 1986 3D too...

    The trays can be made to whatever size is necessary, at least on most rigs.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  3. #53
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volff1170 View Post
    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?
    In this case, what's wrong with a top-mount pump panel? I know I'm late to the discussion and maybe its not relevant. Seems a top-mount solves most of the issues you've mentioned at the expense of a longer wheelbase.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  4. #54
    MembersZone Subscriber
    voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volff1170 View Post
    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.


    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?
    driving the 'whatifs' into left field.. with electronic values there's really no reason the panel has to be local to the pump.. it could be anywhere on the engine theoretically. In fact, throw in some T/R modules and you could probably make it remote from the engine altogether. Give the operator a remote control pad they can operate from anywhere near the engine.
    So you call this your free country
    Tell me why it costs so much to live
    -3dd

  5. #55
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MG3610 View Post
    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.
    So spec it with trays for 150', 250', and 400'. Ours is spec'ed with a 100' front bumper line, with two 200' and one 300' preconnects between the cab and body. You're not married to 200' crosslay lengths on the PUC, or any of the competitors either.

    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.
    Departments in our area have been packing crosslays in trays for years before the PUC was introduced - it's just something different, not any better or worse as long as you spec it correctly.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


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

  6. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    So spec it with trays for 150', 250', and 400'. Ours is spec'ed with a 100' front bumper line, with two 200' and one 300' preconnects between the cab and body. You're not married to 200' crosslay lengths on the PUC, or any of the competitors either.


    Departments in our area have been packing crosslays in trays for years before the PUC was introduced - it's just something different, not any better or worse as long as you spec it correctly.
    Always saw 200 foot crosslays. So thats the end users decision, not something locked in by the manufacturer?

  7. #57
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MG3610 View Post
    So thats the end users decision, not something locked in by the manufacturer?
    Correct....
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


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

  8. #58
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    In this case, what's wrong with a top-mount pump panel? I know I'm late to the discussion and maybe its not relevant. Seems a top-mount solves most of the issues you've mentioned at the expense of a longer wheelbase.
    A top mount does keep the pump operator out of harms way but we are spec'ing a rescue pumper. We need as much room as possible and a top mount truck really adds a lot of length to the truck. I wish we could just get a straight rescue but because of manpower problems we need the water on it. There are times when we can't staff 2 trucks plus an ambulance for the same call. The length comes into play too when we have to put it in the station. I think we are limited to around 35 feet.

  9. #59
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    driving the 'whatifs' into left field.. with electronic values there's really no reason the panel has to be local to the pump.. it could be anywhere on the engine theoretically. In fact, throw in some T/R modules and you could probably make it remote from the engine altogether. Give the operator a remote control pad they can operate from anywhere near the engine.
    I was wondering when they were going to make a remote control pump panel.. lol.

  10. #60
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    That's what I was thinking too.

    volff1170: I really can't or shouldn't say what I'd do in your shoes, as I've not tried them on. It sounds like you're leaning toward the officer's side so I guess I'd say you know your FD best. If it were not for the few minor issues we've found, I'd not have an issue with the officer's side. Like I said, we were nearly ready to flip a coin, only hindsight shows the few problems we've found.

    I personally don't feel that the officer's side pump panel is enough of a protective measure in general. I also have no divided highways and almost always shut down the road or street until I'm convinced my personnel are not in danger. For the most part, our local LEO's are good about this, they push for early opening of streets, we most often oblige when we can provide enough safety to be confident it's OK. Most often if we have a firefighter at the pump panel, we'll also have firefighters in and out of the apparatus compartments, focused on fireground/scene tasks, necessitating a safe area around the apparatus. Of course the officer's side panel minimizes time in traffic, but I'd rather remove the traffic itself anyway, regardless of when my operator is.

    But alas, if it wasn't for the in station exhaust extraction and curb/snowbank issue on EMS assists, we'd have no real issues with the officer's side panel. While we'd switch it next time, we're still very happy overall, but since we're firefighters we gotta have something to b*tch about.
    Thanks for the insight... We have 5 different divided highways in our area including Interstate 90 and the Ohio Turnpike... LEO's will let us shut down the road if needed but most times we just take a lane or two. The sad thing is... Our previous chiefs never thought outside the box. All of our engines are built for structure fires. We don't have the room to put anything such as airbags, rescue struts or much cribbing. Any time we needed something like that, we had to call for mutual aid. Thankfully things are changing and we are getting a truck that will serve our purposes very well... If we can get it spec'd out right!!

  11. #61
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    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.
    Custom Fire did this for us on a rescue pumper. There were electric AND manual valves on most discharges. The electric control actually operated the manual pull handle- it moved in or out when you pushed the toggle switch. Not sure how they accomplished that, but it worked.


    I never understood the 2 200' mentality, either. Every place I've seen has buildings that range from right beside the sidewalk to waayyy off the road. Places with obstructions that had to be stretched around, huge buildings that would eat up that 200' before you even got to the fire, etc etc etc. I've heard guys rant on and on about how you'll never use all those crosslays, and/or you ain't got the water etc. Never occurs to them that having a bunch means you can pack different lengths for different situations.

    I think the 2/2 thing came into play as an average number for builders to use as a "standard" for stock units and pricing. Many depts probably either never considered changing it, or put it farther down the priorities list, and ran out of budget.

    Just my take, but those PUC crosslays look like they'd be a bitch to load without a slide out tray- they're 1 width wide, and VERY deep to keep them at a low height. Same goes for through the body speedlays, how else are you supposed to load em? Access doors from the cab or cpmts?

    I like the idea of keeping spare, preloaded trays- kind of like a speed loader, a spare cylinder, or an extra magazine for a pistol! Smart thinking!! Nothing is so much fun as reloading filthy, half frozen hose after a winter fire. This would put you back in service quickly.
    Last edited by Nozzle nut 22; 08-18-2011 at 01:29 AM.

  12. #62
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 16Scott View Post
    Can you provide the pump test RPM to go along with the PSI and GPM?
    Here y'all go, information for our 2008 Pierce PUC...

    1506 gpm @ 150 psi (pump tach: 1630, cab tach: 1680)
    1063 gpm @ 200 psi (pump tach: 1640, cab tach: 1700)
    750 gpm @ 250 psi (pump tach: 1840, cab tach 1860)

    A severe vibration was noted during 200 psi pump test as well.

    Testing done through one 6" side intake, 20' of 6" hard sleeve, 10' of lift.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


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

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