Like Tree9Likes

Thread: prototype water truck

  1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    You can't disagree with math, it's an absolute.

    A narrow road has nothing to do with the weight or center of gravity of a truck. And wheelbase doesn't matter if the truck's steering doesn't have much cramp angle.

    The concept of a plain and simple tanker has gone the way of rubber coats. And any dept. that would buy a truck like this doesn't know or care much about safety.
    I would agree that there are far fewer pure tankers being ordered, which is unfortunate. The role of a tanker should be very simple ... tanker water. Unfortunately, folks do want to make them multi-purpose which simple increases the size and weight, and conversely decreases their ability to nimbly move around dump and fill sites.

    Every tanker here is at least 3,000g with a complete stock (seemingly) of engine company equipment. Sure, it now allows me to take it to a brush fire or structure fire, but when the time comes for it to do what it was primarily designed for ... TANK water ..... it now becomes as nimble as a 747 if I have to (heaven forbid) back it into a tight spot at the fill sight or swing it into a tight hole at the fill site.

    Tankers don't need high-pressure pumps. They should not be involved in fire attack or relays where pressures are required. If you have to pump water a distance from the dump point, put an ENGINE there ... That's why THEY exist.

    Do I miss the days of short-wheel based single purpose tankers? Hell yes! And would I love to have a couple of my combo and volunteer departments? Damn straight.

    Again .... take care of the center of gravity issues by squaring off the tank and extend it outward, and maybe drop it to 2000g, which would reduce the height, and you would have a TANKER ... simple and basic .. that I would love to put into the bays at both of my departments.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 10-31-2013 at 08:54 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  2. #27
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Do I miss the days of short-wheel based single purpose tankers? Hell yes! And would I love to have a couple of my combo and volunteer departments? Damn straight.

    Again .... take care of the center of gravity issues by squaring off the tank and extend it outward, and maybe drop it to 2000g, which would reduce the height, and you would have a TANKER ... simple and basic .. that I would love to put into the bays at both of my departments.
    I agree that a straight-up tanker is far more economical and often more operationally logical than one of the do-it-all rigs that some places are buying.

    But your suggested tweaks to the tank are moot; if you can see in the original pictures, that tank has old olive paint on it, meaning it's military surplus just like the truck.

    Which goes back to my last post, that this thread is built on the idea of getting plentiful inputs and converting them to a marketable product with minimal modification.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF View Post
    I agree that a straight-up tanker is far more economical and often more operationally logical than one of the do-it-all rigs that some places are buying.

    But your suggested tweaks to the tank are moot; if you can see in the original pictures, that tank has old olive paint on it, meaning it's military surplus just like the truck.

    Which goes back to my last post, that this thread is built on the idea of getting plentiful inputs and converting them to a marketable product with minimal modification.
    Agree that the tank is likely military surplus as well, so to make the changes to the tank would require the poster to purchase tanks, which likely would have to be custom built, which would obviously increase cost.

    Still, I like the his concept of a short wheel base 2000g, or even 2500g if the tank issue can be solved with a bare minimum of other stuff on the vehicle.

    I think that there would be departments that would be interested in that type of barebones single purpose water hauler.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I think that there would be departments that would be interested in that type of barebones single purpose water hauler.
    Shucks, MY department would. That's what we have now: 2,300-gallon elliptical with a dump and a portable pump, portable tank and suction on the side. Designed for efficiency.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  5. #30
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Marble Rock, Iowa
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF View Post
    But your suggested tweaks to the tank are moot; if you can see in the original pictures, that tank has old olive paint on it, meaning it's military surplus just like the truck.
    I agree completely. The truck is quite obviously an M916 and it looks like they took a 5000 gallon fuel tanker tank and cut it in half, those tanks do have baffles but not anything that would be NFPA compliant. That thing is way top heavy, its almost 12ft. to the top of the stack and the TM lists maximum side slope operation at 10% slope. These were set up as tractors so these numbers would be for a trailer hooked to it and not a tank mounted on the frame.

    All that being said we took an M915 (6x4) and mounted our custom built tank on it. It hauls ~2800 gallon and it's sole purpose is to haul water, it has no pump at all. (I would like to see a transfer pump put on it but that's off topic). The tank we had built is properly baffled. The few things I don't like; we have to put people up to to get down and put back the porta tank, It only has a rear dump and it's not centered on the tank I would like to see a swivel dump added, and the truck can go way faster than any truck should be able to we police the speed its driven at very closely.

    Name:  IMG_1069.jpg
Views: 296
Size:  27.3 KB

    Name:  IMG_1070.jpg
Views: 295
Size:  28.8 KB
    BFD5408 likes this.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD5408 View Post
    Huh. Maybe "you can't disagree with math," but you sure can build a faulty proposition with it.

    In the terrain that LaFire is referring to, the outperformance is measured in miles of rough road to the incident, not GPM pumped over hundreds of feet.

    Of course there is no drawback to a high volume pump, but at least around here, when turnaround times from a water source to a wild land fire can easily exceed an hour, the difference is negligible.

    I agree that in the wrong hands a buildup like this could be dangerous, but the same could (and should) be said for any off road truck with a wet load. In my eyes, the biggest drawback to this build is that being ex-military I'm sure its an automatic... put a 9 or 13-speed Eaton-Fuller in there and you're a lot more likely to get a proficient driver behind the wheel.
    If I can pump through hose to the site, I will almost always be able to out deliver a tanker. If turnaround times are over an hour, I don't see how you can effectively fight a fire.
    BTW, not that many people can drive an Eaton-Fuller manual. That would limit your availibility to find someone to drive a tanker. A properly spec'd automatic is a better choice most of the time.

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I would agree that there are far fewer pure tankers being ordered, which is unfortunate. The role of a tanker should be very simple ... tanker water. Unfortunately, folks do want to make them multi-purpose which simple increases the size and weight, and conversely decreases their ability to nimbly move around dump and fill sites.
    Obviously the fact that VERY FEW "pure" tankers are being ordered shows that most dept's now think that you are wrong. And "nimble" trucks??? A good driver dictates how well a truck is able to be positioned. We're not talking semi's here.
    Every tanker here is at least 3,000g with a complete stock (seemingly) of engine company equipment. Sure, it now allows me to take it to a brush fire or structure fire, but when the time comes for it to do what it was primarily designed for ... TANK water ..... it now becomes as nimble as a 747 if I have to (heaven forbid) back it into a tight spot at the fill sight or swing it into a tight hole at the fill site.
    Maybe you should train more on setting up dump tanks if you can't back up to them. Of course if you can pump off to the engine that eliminates that problem...
    Tankers don't need high-pressure pumps. They should not be involved in fire attack or relays where pressures are required. If you have to pump water a distance from the dump point, put an ENGINE there ... That's why THEY exist.
    Who said anything about high pressure pumps?? We're talking standard single stage pumps. And if I have an enging/tanker, I have the OPTION of doing what ever is best for the particular situation calls for. If I can use an engine/tanker to draft on site, I eliminate having to have a bunch of tankers running up and down the road, (which makes things safer), and I free up more personnel to operate on the scene (which makes things safer)
    Do I miss the days of short-wheel based single purpose tankers? Hell yes! And would I love to have a couple of my combo and volunteer departments? Damn straight.
    Do I miss the days of riding standing up in an canopy cab engine?? Hell yes! But we quit doing it because it was stupid.
    Again .... take care of the center of gravity issues by squaring off the tank and extend it outward, and maybe drop it to 2000g, which would reduce the height, and you would have a TANKER ... simple and basic .. that I would love to put into the bays at both of my departments.
    Bottom line is, it's your dept., and you can screw it up how ever you want. But you'd never catch me risking my life on a piece of crap truck like this.

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Bottom line is, it's your dept., and you can screw it up how ever you want. But you'd never catch me risking my life on a piece of crap truck like this.
    Again, I have addressed that there needs to a few issues cleaned up including the height of the tank/center of gravity issues.

    You may not like the concept of a very basic short-wheeled based tanker with one very simple job .. Tank Water .... but in many places, including much of the rural terrain of my previous VFD, a truck like this would work very well. Quick into and out of fill and dump sights. minimum excess weight. 6 wheel drive. All excellent attributes on narrow roads with very small fill and dump sites ... And snow.

    I guess that I don't have the expectation that my tankers will also have to pump lines more than 50' or 100' at very low pressures off-loading water. if we need to pump any more than that, I'll have my tankers pump into a engine, and they will do the heavy pumping. Pumps add weight, and most of the time a light duty 200gpm-300gpm transfer pump will do everything that I require for a pump on a tanker.

    I guess we just have 2 very different ideas of what we want out of a tanker.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess we just have 2 very different ideas of what we want out of a tanker.
    Yes, it appears you do have a different idea...

    I want a rig designed and built for the job. Not something cobbled together with surplus parts that has a far too high center of gravity and no storage for even basic equipment like a fill hose and hydrant bag.

    The reality is too this guy probably works for a small company that if one of their trucks results in the serious injury or death of a firefighter will not have the financial backing to pay proper damages if any at all.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  10. #35
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    If I can pump through hose to the site, I will almost always be able to out deliver a tanker. If turnaround times are over an hour, I don't see how you can effectively fight a fire.
    BTW, not that many people can drive an Eaton-Fuller manual. That would limit your availibility to find someone to drive a tanker. A properly spec'd automatic is a better choice most of the time.
    That's the point; in the terrain that these rigs would shine in, pumping to the site is not even a remote option. And you would be surprised what a well-trained crew can do on a wildland fire with a small amount of water (and a lot of elbow grease).

    And the limited number of people who can drive a manual truck is also the point. At least around here, while the engine operators might only have fire response experience, most of the tender operators cut their teeth running logging trucks, dump trucks, and fuel & water tenders in the same rough country that we're fighting fire in. They've had the luxury of learning the tough lessons WITHOUT the added stress of emergency response.

    Obviously my opinion is based on a particular type of experience, and I'm definitely not trying to say that it applies to every, or even a majority of fire departments. Its clear that you and I come from very different fire backgrounds, and what traits we value in apparatus is equally disparate. I guess that's one advantage that comes from working in an area with unusually rough terrain and limited resources; there's less inclination to assume that our individual experiences somehow hold true for every other fire department.

  11. #36
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    22

    Default

    [RE: FF715's 6x6]

    Nice build! If you were pumping out of it you might find that you have a hard time getting the last few hundred gallons out (unless you're on flat ground), but as long as you're dumping you're probably OK. Small price to pay for the lower center of gravity, and most of the time it doesn't hurt to keep a little water for SHTF, or to start a draft.

    If you ever have an FAE who can't keep his foot out of it, you might considered adding (or adjusting) a governor to keep the RPM's down.

    Looks good!
    Last edited by BFD5408; 11-01-2013 at 07:46 PM.

  12. #37
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD5408 View Post
    [RE: FF715's 6x6]

    Nice build! If you were pumping out of it you might find that you have a hard time getting the last few hundred gallons out (unless you're on flat ground), but as long as you're dumping you're probably OK. Small price to pay for the lower center of gravity, and most of the time it doesn't hurt to keep a little water for SHTF, or to start a draft.

    If you ever have an FAE who can't keep his foot out of it, you might considered adding (or adjusting) a governor to keep the RPM's down.

    Looks good!
    That's one of the reasons a pump should be "engineered" in , instead of an afterthought. That's one of the biggest quandaries when designing a tanker (tender) -if you build a large sump it can be too low to attach the dump valve.
    ?

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    That's one of the reasons a pump should be "engineered" in , instead of an afterthought. That's one of the biggest quandaries when designing a tanker (tender) -if you build a large sump it can be too low to attach the dump valve.
    I don't follow. At the risk of exposing my engineering ignorance...what exactly is a sump?

  14. #39
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD5408 View Post
    That's the point; in the terrain that these rigs would shine in, pumping to the site is not even a remote option. And you would be surprised what a well-trained crew can do on a wildland fire with a small amount of water (and a lot of elbow grease).

    And the limited number of people who can drive a manual truck is also the point. At least around here, while the engine operators might only have fire response experience, most of the tender operators cut their teeth running logging trucks, dump trucks, and fuel & water tenders in the same rough country that we're fighting fire in. They've had the luxury of learning the tough lessons WITHOUT the added stress of emergency response.

    Obviously my opinion is based on a particular type of experience, and I'm definitely not trying to say that it applies to every, or even a majority of fire departments. Its clear that you and I come from very different fire backgrounds, and what traits we value in apparatus is equally disparate. I guess that's one advantage that comes from working in an area with unusually rough terrain and limited resources; there's less inclination to assume that our individual experiences somehow hold true for every other fire department.
    The role of a straight tanker is VERY limited. While it may work in YOUR particular situation, it's not the best option in MOST places. And having a pump gives you at least the option of fighting fire if you get in a bad situation. I'm all about options. We do have one straight tanker on our dept., and it's generally regarded as a mistake.

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD5408 View Post
    I don't follow. At the risk of exposing my engineering ignorance...what exactly is a sump?
    Just a small "recess or well" in the bottom of the tank with the plumbing for the tank to pump attached there. Lets you pretty much use all the water in the tank. I have seen some tanker pumpers with one in each end to allow for slope. Most tankers even if they have a small sump, the dump valve is pretty much level with the floor. So the sump stays wet (which I guess isn't a bad thing as far a priming the pump.)
    ?

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    Just a small "recess or well" in the bottom of the tank with the plumbing for the tank to pump attached there. Lets you pretty much use all the water in the tank. I have seen some tanker pumpers with one in each end to allow for slope. Most tankers even if they have a small sump, the dump valve is pretty much level with the floor. So the sump stays wet (which I guess isn't a bad thing as far a priming the pump.)
    Gotcha, that was my first guess. The tanker I'm must familiar with had the main outlet plumbed directly out of the bottom of the tank. Being a rounded tank (similar to the OP's) helped, but when pumping on any kind of slope it still couldn't deliver the full payload. It occurred to me that an outlet at each end would pretty much solve this problem, so I'm not surprised to hear that its been done. When we get to building a tender for our dept I will keep it in mind. Thanks for the education!

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Marble Rock, Iowa
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BFD5408 View Post
    [RE: FF715's 6x6]

    Nice build! If you were pumping out of it you might find that you have a hard time getting the last few hundred gallons out (unless you're on flat ground), but as long as you're dumping you're probably OK. Small price to pay for the lower center of gravity, and most of the time it doesn't hurt to keep a little water for SHTF, or to start a draft.

    If you ever have an FAE who can't keep his foot out of it, you might considered adding (or adjusting) a governor to keep the RPM's down.

    Looks good!
    Thanks for the compliments. For us it wouldn't be too hard to add a pump. It's hard to see in the picture, but there is a small sump at the back where the dump is so that we can get the tank pretty much completly empty. We could easily put a pump outlet on that sump and add a transfer pump.

    As far as the speed issue, everything on this truck is mechanical so the only way to slow down the top end would be to turn down the power or put a block under the throttle, both of which have been discussed if it becomes necesssry. Like I said before, we police our drivers very well, they don't get a second chance if we catch them speeding or being unsafe, we also do a lot of driver training so it not much of an issue.

  18. #43
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Yes, it appears you do have a different idea...

    I want a rig designed and built for the job. Not something cobbled together with surplus parts that has a far too high center of gravity and no storage for even basic equipment like a fill hose and hydrant bag.

    The reality is too this guy probably works for a small company that if one of their trucks results in the serious injury or death of a firefighter will not have the financial backing to pay proper damages if any at all.
    Again, I want a truck designed for the job as well, and I agree that the tank on the truck needs to be lowered and re-engineered, even if that means taking 500g off it's capicity.

    My point was that I very much like the concept for this truck .. A basic tanker with no other function.

    Keeping it as short as possible (while keeping the tank safe) with a bare minimum of other stuff so that the truck can be as quick (notice I did not say fast) and nibble as possible ithg one job .. Tank water.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #44
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Again, I want a truck designed for the job as well, and I agree that the tank on the truck needs to be lowered and re-engineered, even if that means taking 500g off it's capicity.

    My point was that I very much like the concept for this truck .. A basic tanker with no other function.

    Keeping it as short as possible (while keeping the tank safe) with a bare minimum of other stuff so that the truck can be as quick (notice I did not say fast) and nibble as possible ithg one job .. Tank water.
    Again my problem with this "tender" design is it isn't a design at all. It is taking a military truck chassis and a surplus military tank and cobbling them together with some "snazzy" mostly useless body work with not a single compartment and a foldatank bracket that is ridiculously high off the ground.

    To me the only redeeming quality this rig might have is low price. But like the saying goes "The sting of low quality lasts long after the joy of low price."
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  20. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Again my problem with this "tender" design is it isn't a design at all. It is taking a military truck chassis and a surplus military tank and cobbling them together with some "snazzy" mostly useless body work with not a single compartment and a foldatank bracket that is ridiculously high off the ground.

    To me the only redeeming quality this rig might have is low price. But like the saying goes "The sting of low quality lasts long after the joy of low price."
    Agreed.

    The truck needs to be better engineered as compared to being "hobbled together", and I agree that the tank bracket needs to be repositioned.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  21. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Looking at the supplied photographs, and taking some "Kentucky windage" on weights and centers of gravity for the chassis and the tank... I estimate that the loaded weight will approach 40,000 lbs with the center of gravity around 52 inches. On the tilt table the rig would fall over at about a 40% grade in the horizontal direction. As for road stability, at a normal 2 lane roadway intersection with 50 ft. right-of-way, an experienced driver will begin his turn befor the intersection, cutting across the opposite lanes of travel and then back into the proper lane on an outside curve, so I assumed a 50 ft. radius. At 25 mph, there would be a 34,000 lb centripital force, and at 20 mph there would be a 22,000 lb force. Taking the center between the duals as the pivot point (36" from the centerline) it would take about 25,000 lbs of force to turn the rig over. So there is a good possibility of overturn at 22 mph on a normal outside to outside intersection turn. Turning the other way from inside to inside travel lane, the radius reduces to about 30 ft. and the forces at 25 mph rise to 54,000 lbs and at 15 mph it would still be 20,000 lbs of force. On a good concrete or macadam road the friction coefficient between the rubber tire and road can reach about 60% so that would be a 24,000 lb grip or slide pressure. With only 25,000 lbs needed to cause turn-over, there is a very good probability that this rig would roll before it slid sideways. You might have a better chance on dirt, but only until the tires hit a ditch or curb, and then it would roll anyway. Many years ago my department built a "T" tank on a Mack B chassis. The top of the 2,000 gal tank was below the Mack's rear window. This was very stable and the design aided in the emptying of the load with the sump at the bottom of the "T". Multiple fill lines, large vents and rapid dump design are essential for any tanker shuttles. Fill rates of 1,000 gpm to 2,000 gpm should be the norm, while initial dump should be at least 1,500 gpm for 80% of the load. Internal pressures must be minimized with large vent openings when filling at rates above 1,000 gpm.
    BoxAlarm187 likes this.

  22. #47
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Agreed.

    The truck needs to be better engineered as compared to being "hobbled together", and I agree that the tank bracket needs to be repositioned.
    Its COBBLED not hobbled, you gonna live down South, learn ta talk right.
    ?

  23. #48
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    Its COBBLED not hobbled, you gonna live down South, learn ta talk right.
    Even as a life long northerner I know the word is cobbled...
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  24. #49
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Even as a life long northerner I know the word is cobbled...
    Yeah , HOBBLED is what you would be after rolling that dude over a couple of times.
    ?

  25. #50
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    Yeah , HOBBLED is what you would be after rolling that dude over a couple of times.
    You'd be lucky if you were only hobbled... I think you have more chance of being a NIOSH example.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Water resources truck
    By PeteySt1 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-06-2006, 12:32 AM
  2. Water Resource Truck
    By FFWALT in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-28-2006, 03:48 PM
  3. Water Supply Truck
    By turbodraft1 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-28-2006, 03:47 PM
  4. Prototype Bunker Gear at FDIC
    By gunnyv in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-20-2005, 01:52 PM
  5. Brush Truck Water Supply
    By BVFD2610 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-17-2003, 08:02 PM

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