1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Would love to see a picture of the truck quoted on post 3. What was the price tag? Sounds about like what we are looking at. Over the years we have run just about all kinds of tankers. Most were home built until the last few years. If looking for water hauling only, I would go with eliptical tank with the ability to dump both sides and rear, which could be controlled from the cab. Makes for 1 man operation of truck, also keeps from having to have someone between the truck and the drop tank.
    Last edited by Ranburne; 03-11-2012 at 08:45 PM.

  2. #27
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranburne View Post
    Would love to see a picture of the truck quoted on post 3. What was the price tag? Sounds about like what we are looking at. Over the years we have run just about all kinds of tankers. Most were home built until the last few years. If looking for water hauling only, I would go with eliptical tank with the ability to dump both sides and rear, which could be controlled from the cab. Makes for 1 man operation of truck, also keeps from having to have someone between the truck and the drop tank.
    Hopefully, we'll be getting updated drawings of that truck any day now. I'll try and post them here. The truck I described is a Pierce Impel chassis, price was just over $500K. Our theory in ordering our trucks it to try and have them overlap a bit so if one truck is down, we still have another that will fill that role. For example, this truck's role fits in between our 2000 gal dump tanker and our engine. This truck can operate as a 1 man operation or as a traditional engine company, and it can also operate as a water supply engine.

  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Texas
    Posts
    284

    Default

    Poly or S/S wrapped poly

    For the same amount of water, round will be longer than oval, which is longer than T-shaped or square.

    One thing to think about is per-axle weight. 2000 gallons on a single-axle actually has a higher per axle weight than a 3000 gallon on twins.

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    Fyrtrks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Binghamton,N.Y.
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Well you can vary the length of the unit by varying the height of the tank/barrel. If you need a short OAL unit the tank can be higher. You have to remember the need to keep proper design in mind when working on shortening up your unit.
    Fyrtrks

  5. #30
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    598

    Default

    I have been thinking about posting on this subject ever since the O.P. started this thread.

    I am fortunate to be exposed to numerous tankers (tenders) and a broad spectrum of Fire Departments from the affluent to the Hard Scrabble Rural volunteers. One thing that stands out in the usability area is a power to weight ratio that keeps the unit maneuverable while providing climbing and acceleration for use in mountainous terrain. I do not necessarily refer to long climbing distance, but even to pulling up out of river bottoms to reach good hard roads. Experience indicates that volumes of 2,000 to 3,000 gallons seem to be the most effective at both parameters. Tanks of over 3,000 gallons tie-up the dump site for excessive periods. The goal should be to stop, dump, and roll within 2 minutes, thus keeping the wheels turning most of the time. Weight placement with a tandem rear axle is critical in providing enough steer axle weight to allow tight turning without having the front push through the turns, especially in winter weather. Locking in a power divider will push the front end right across a two lane road when climbing up out of a stream access and turning onto the main highway.
    Recent opportunities to work with and next to vacuum tankers at fill sites has shown the great advantages realized with these types of apparatus. There is still an advantage to having a large pumper with multiple suction sleeves in the water source, and a fill set-up where fill rates are consistently above 1200 gpm. (fill times significantly under 2 minutes) The vacuum tankers really shine where the distance from the tanker to the water source is over 30 feet horizontally. Conventional engines simply can’t move enough water over long distances and/or high lifts. With a good vac-truck operator, the tank is under vacuum before the empty truck reaches the draft point. Connecting the suction tube (6”) in the dry state is relatively easy, and the instantaneous application of vacuum to the line by opening the 6” valve makes the water literally fly into the tank at 1,000 gpm or more. DO NOT buy any tanker with less than two (2) – 3” gated fill lines. Keep the piping as short as possible, (10 in. or less) and the valve bodies at least 3” I.D.’s. Filling with 4 or 5 inch lines becomes a pain if the line can not be quickly bled empty to allow easy disconnecting of fill lines.
    At the dump location, no one should be required to step between the tanker and the drop tank. Automatic air operated extensions and large dump valves will allow the driver to make the drop without exiting the cab. Side dumps will aid in reducing the number of back-up operations needed. Do not plan on backing unless there is no other way to access the drop tank. Dump rates of more than 1500 gpm should be the minimum acceptable rate.
    Safe travel should be the paramount consideration when designing tankers. Stability and handling control are vital elements, as well as baffling to prevent surging and side sway. No one should be permitted to operate or ride in a tanker unless restrained with both lap and shoulder belt.
    Unless the wheels are turning on the rig, no water is being moved to the scene. Speed will not replace rapid fill and dump times. Assuming an acceleration from 0 to 45 mph in 0.1 mi and the same deceleration rate, then the travel time for a fill and dump site separation of one (1) mile, we have a travel time of 200 seconds. If we allow our driver to run at 60 mph, the we can get the travel time down to 144 seconds or an average of 56 seconds quicker per trip, but at what loss in safety? Taking 30 seconds out of both the fill and dump times, we get the same effect with none of the risk. Since the physics controlling the forces on the apparatus are a square function, increasing the speed from 45 to 60 causes the risk to be almost doubled.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    ]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranburne View Post
    Would love to see a picture of the truck quoted on post 3. What was the price tag? Sounds about like what we are looking at. Over the years we have run just about all kinds of tankers. Most were home built until the last few years. If looking for water hauling only, I would go with eliptical tank with the ability to dump both sides and rear, which could be controlled from the cab. Makes for 1 man operation of truck, also keeps from having to have someone between the truck and the drop tank.
    Name:  img130.jpg
Views: 1991
Size:  31.7 KB
    This is an early drawing of the truck, we made a few mods to it. The biggest is going to a 3/4 height compartment on the officers's side giving us room for two compartments for hand tools over the rear axles. Most of the other changes are small, like eliminating the 2 1/2" intake on the rear since there was a large diameter one already there. I had to print the PDF file then scan it as a picture, so you may have to save the image to enlarge it to see the detail.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. AFG Tanker/Tender App
    By SMNFirefighter in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-03-2011, 07:29 AM
  2. How big of a tank for a tender?
    By Wolf8552 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-26-2006, 11:20 AM
  3. Tanker/Tender Baffles
    By SamsonFCDES in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-10-2004, 09:56 AM
  4. building a tanker tender
    By dlc702 in forum MembersZone Updates & Information
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2003, 03:52 PM
  5. What size of tanker/tender is best?
    By Captain Mike in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-12-2001, 11:02 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