Like Tree9Likes

Thread: prototype water truck

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default prototype water truck

    hey guys i'm building a new design of water trucks. and i would like some advice on the design. the main purpose of the truck will be to fill the 1500 gallon porta tanks. it currently has a 200gpm volume pump and a newton 10 inch dump valve. i will be adding work lights and strobes. i will also be adding a shovel, axe and pick mounts. the bumper will be a spare air tank. what are some of the things you guys have liked and disliked about these type of trucks? thanks guys
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default

    another pic
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,862

    Default

    Whatever you do don't put red lights and a siren on that thing! Talk about top heavy with a short wheel base. Throw in some firefighters that rarely drive heavy trucks with a little adrenaline and you have a vehicle designed for LODD's. Sorry to be a wet blanket but we need to be moving away from recognized dangers. Your truck isn't new in any way, it's been done with oil tanks and military surplus over and over with very similar results.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I understand that the concept of military surplus not being a new idea. I was mainly refering to how i built the truck. And you are right it wont get sirens or anything like that. Its sole purpos will be to just fill the 1500 gallon porta tanks.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Whatever you do don't put red lights and a siren on that thing! Talk about top heavy with a short wheel base. Throw in some firefighters that rarely drive heavy trucks with a little adrenaline and you have a vehicle designed for LODD's. Sorry to be a wet blanket but we need to be moving away from recognized dangers. Your truck isn't new in any way, it's been done with oil tanks and military surplus over and over with very similar results.
    This is exactly it. It has far too high of a center of gravity to be practical for emergency response by less than experienced drivers.
    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

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvanArthur View Post
    I understand that the concept of military surplus not being a new idea. I was mainly refering to how i built the truck. And you are right it wont get sirens or anything like that. Its sole purpos will be to just fill the 1500 gallon porta tanks.
    I think you don't have a complete concept of what a tender does. They ALL haul water to fill porta tanks.
    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

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Lusby, MD
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    I agree completely that the thing looks like it has too high of a center of gravity. I think that even driving it non-emergency it's going to be a roll-over hazard. Please at least tell me the tank has baffles. I agree that there is nothing new here, in fact it seems to go back to mistakes we should have learned from.

    After that, I noticed that there is only 1 dump, on the back. Newer tankers are going to dumps on either side to avoid having to back up to the dump site.

    You don't say how big the tank is, but a 200 gpm pump may be kind of small. How fast can you discharge the water through the dump valve and through the pump?
    FyredUp likes this.

  8. #8
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,313

    Default

    I have to agree with my other fire service friends on this.

    While I also don't mean to rain on your parade (and the obvious amount of work you've put into the project), here are some of the thoughts that come to mind.

    1. Who do you expect to market the vehicle to? It will be a hard sell to fire departments for number of reasons:
    • High center of gravity will make it dangerous for emergent responses
    • Fire departments rarely purchase vehicles that can't respond emergently
    • Fire departments stopped purchasing rigs with no exterior compartments about 40 years ago.
    • With only a 200GPM pump, it truly limits the vehicle to a "water hauler" - there's more of a push n the modern fire service to have vehicles that fill two or more roles (i.e.: pumper/tanker).
    • With no side dumps, the vehicle will be forced to back to off load it's water quickly, something we generally try to avoid for safety reasons.
    • Most fire departments won't, for liability reasons, purchase a piece of fire apparatus that doesn't meet NPFA 1901 guidelines for construction (like tank baffling, as mentioned above).

    2. 1500 gallon portable tanks are some of the smaller ones on the market. Why did you select this size tank to use this rig to fill?

    3. I'm not sure what your first service background is, but if you're not familiar with tanker delivery rates, look into this. This rig will have a very hard time keeping up with even the lowest GPM flows in a rural water supply situation.

    Maybe you can take some of our thoughts and put them into an updated version of the vehicle.
    FyredUp and backsteprescue123 like this.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


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

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Thanks guys for critqueing this truck...the tank does have baffles and is a 2500 gallon capacity. the truck will be offers to any rural department that thinks they could have a use for it. it also does have plenty of storage as i'm building boxes to fit between the cab and front of the tank. i do have 3 more trucks like this to build. So the idea would be to make the tank longer and just cut the hieght down to keep the center of gravity down if i'm understanding it correctly. I also will be following the NPFA 1901 construction guidlines there's no way around that. The Higher ups are giving me the full controll of the build but with a small budget. (to start).

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    97

    Default

    I believe 1901 will require warning lights and a siren. You can't build it and be compliant with only part of the standard (I like this part but I don't like that part). How will you meet the roll-over requirement? Will you test it on a tilt table or does the chassis have ESC? What is the liability if a fire department is operating it and it doesn't meet 1901 and something happens? Like maybe it rolls over. There are way too many tanker accidents with trucks that are NFPA compliant. Just make sure they spell your name correctly on the lawsuit. (Look up Peter Pirsch)

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    97

    Default

    And I forgot one thing: doesn't 1901 require dump capability to all three sides? You'll need to use a swivel dump to meet that portion of the standard. If that's one part of 1901 you like.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    FFWALT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    357

    Default

    After looking at the two pictures you posted there were a couple things that came to mind after I got past the fact that your center of gravity will be pretty high.

    How are you going to fill the tank? I didn't see intakes on the rear or the right side. If you want to fill fast you need to go large (4" or larger) and straight into the tank. Reducers are fairly cheap if they are needed to fill with smaller hose but there is nothing worse than having the ability to fill faster but being unable to do so.

    In regards to what you state is plenty of storage, NFPA will tell you what the minimum amount is for the classification you are seeking. From what I can see from the pictures, your concept of plenty of storage and a fire departments concept of plenty of storage are two different things.

    On that same note, you have a lot of wasted space on the sides of the apparatus and personally that would drive me nuts because it's there but I can't use it. I would suggest looking at a poly tank instead of the metal one. They can custom build the tank to your spec's. This would eliminate the wasted space and lower your center of gravity at the same time.

    It's been a while but that M915 has an automatic transmission, correct? How many gears? Initially they had 15 speed air transmissions in them but later went to automatics in A1, A2, etc series. I'd just initially have concerns on how an over the road (semi) tractor shifts with the load vs. a over the road (straight) truck based upon the amount of weight they were designed to pull. Something I would have to think about and do some research on.

    Walt
    SuperFire123 likes this.
    Train like you want to fight.
    www.kvfd.net

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    I'm goint to disagree with some of the posters here.

    Yes, I do agree that your center of gravity is too high, however, I do love the fact that your tanks stops over the wheels. This is an excellent design for fire departments with narrow mountain roads.

    If your current tank is 2500g, drop it to 2000g, or even 1750g, and you will, IMO, have a very practical vehicle for a department looking for a very short wheel base tanker.

    Pump size of 200gpm is, IMO, adequate for nurse operations in most situations. If you are going to nurse, you are likely operating at a smaller fire with likely a single line. 200gpm will be adequate.

    Compartments ... It's a dang tanker. A vehicle like this has one very basic function .. haul water. At most, one compartment to carry fittings and maybe a section or two of hose for filling.

    As far as side dumps, it would just complicate this truck. A swivel dump in the rear would give the option of side or rear dumping, and honestly, that would be all this truck needs.

    I really like your concept here. A vehicle who's purpose and only purpose is to haul water. Period.

    Basic. Uncomplicated. Single purpose.

    Reduce the size of the tanker a little and lower the center of gravity. Add a swivel dump and a couple of fills. Clean off some of the rough edges. And I bet that you will departments that are looking for a simple and basic tanker like this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I'm goint to disagree with some of the posters here.

    Yes, I do agree that your center of gravity is too high, however, I do love the fact that your tanks stops over the wheels. This is an excellent design for fire departments with narrow mountain roads.

    If your current tank is 2500g, drop it to 2000g, or even 1750g, and you will, IMO, have a very practical vehicle for a department looking for a very short wheel base tanker.

    Pump size of 200gpm is, IMO, adequate for nurse operations in most situations. If you are going to nurse, you are likely operating at a smaller fire with likely a single line. 200gpm will be adequate.

    Compartments ... It's a dang tanker. A vehicle like this has one very basic function .. haul water. At most, one compartment to carry fittings and maybe a section or two of hose for filling.

    As far as side dumps, it would just complicate this truck. A swivel dump in the rear would give the option of side or rear dumping, and honestly, that would be all this truck needs.

    I really like your concept here. A vehicle who's purpose and only purpose is to haul water. Period.

    Basic. Uncomplicated. Single purpose.

    Reduce the size of the tanker a little and lower the center of gravity. Add a swivel dump and a couple of fills. Clean off some of the rough edges. And I bet that you will departments that are looking for a simple and basic tanker like this.
    Single purpose trucks in this economy are a waste of money. Having single purpose trucks means you have to have a separate truck for every single purpose. Unless it's a large dept., smaller suburban and rural dept's can't afford to have those single purpose trucks. They need trucks that can handle several jobs and that overlap other trucks' functions. VERY FEW straight water hauling trucks are being built anymore, and for good reason.
    As for this truck, unless it was spraying to keep down dust on a highway construction site, I don't see a use for it. Sorry, but that's just a bad design, and if anyone gets hurt or killed in it, you may be liable.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    FFWALT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    357

    Default

    When it comes to pump size I used to think that 200-250 gpm was fine. That was until we got a tanker with a 500 gpm pump. Even if the grass rig only has a 250 gallon tank, the fill times are greatly reduced and that can make a big difference when you are filling multiple trucks or needing to do so in a hurry. Additionally, if the tanker is relay pumping to an engine the 500 gpm allows the engine to supply the hand line while refilling the on board tank. It might also supply two hand lines but that becomes a tactical debate about dropping dump tanks or not.

    Walt.
    Train like you want to fight.
    www.kvfd.net

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Single purpose trucks in this economy are a waste of money. Having single purpose trucks means you have to have a separate truck for every single purpose. Unless it's a large dept., smaller suburban and rural dept's can't afford to have those single purpose trucks. They need trucks that can handle several jobs and that overlap other trucks' functions. VERY FEW straight water hauling trucks are being built anymore, and for good reason.
    As for this truck, unless it was spraying to keep down dust on a highway construction site, I don't see a use for it. Sorry, but that's just a bad design, and if anyone gets hurt or killed in it, you may be liable.
    I agree that this truck's center of gravity is too high. That being said I do love the fact that the tank stops at the back edge of the rear wheel. I have no idea what type of terrain you respond in, but I can say from experience having spent much of my firefighting career in mountainous areas with some very narrow roads, this truck's overall length would be an absolutely perfect fit for that type of environment.

    Tankers generally perform best when they have a single function, which is to tank water. The key to any tanker shuttle is the ability for the tankers to be nimble and move easily around the fill and dump sites.

    The fact is, if you knock the tank on this truck down to 1750 gallons, it will outperform any 25000 or 3000g tanker in a hilly or mountainous environment.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    22

    Default

    [QUOTE=LaFireEducator;1388238]I have no idea what type of terrain you respond in, but I can say from experience having spent much of my firefighting career in mountainous areas with some very narrow roads, this truck's overall length would be an absolutely perfect fit for that type of environment.

    I'm with LaFire on this one. +1 on keeping it short and simple. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it'll be top-heavy either; looks like a pretty standard 2500 gallon water tender configuration... anyway, you've almost got it put together, you'll know soon enough. A lot of it has to do with the suspension, if its anything like the hendrickson walking-beam with a heavy biscuit (like my 6x6) I bet it'll do OK. I used to run a 2500 gallon Pete with air-ride, and sweet cheese that was a bad idea! But as long as I kept the tank either FULL or EMPTY and kept my foot out of it everything went OK, and she got around like a billygoat in the backcountry.

    As far as the payload goes, I don't know if its still the case but when we used to contract on state and fed fires, the payrate jumped drastically for a type 2 tender, which starts at 2500 gallons. I wouldn't put anything less than that on a tandem axle really anyway. Pretty sure you could put 1750 on a single axle, and even still be legal!

    "Tactical tenders" (as we call em out here) are a great multi-purpose buildup, with high pressure/high volume pumps and plenty of boxes for wildland gear... but they're rare. Most depts run standard tenders just like this, and the 6x6 chassis would be a big plus. 200 GPM might be a little slow, but you've got the dump for filling tanks, so you'll be all right. And if your 6x6 is the only rig that can Get There, they'll be happy to have it, even if it takes 12 minutes to unload! In the terrain we work in out here, we rarely have the luxury of a steady water supply, so water conservation is a consistent part of operational tactics.

    Last thought; if you haven't already looked at state & fed emergency equipment requirements that's a good place to start. Looks to me like you already have it met though.

    Nice work, and good luck!
    RangerJake72 likes this.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Disclaimer: I'm an engineer for an apparatus manufacturer (PM me for more info).

    Seeing things like this scare me. You're taking the two main parts of the truck, the chassis and tank, that weren't designed for each other, let alone the fire service, slapping them together and sending it down the road.

    I know that mil surplus chassis are cheap and abundant and very capable off road, but that wasn't meant to be a fire truck. Even modern commercial chassis take a lot of work to make them into fire trucks.

    If you really want to sell these things, you can make some changes and have a much more usable and safer truck:

    First, get rid of that tank and get a poly tank. These are the industry standard and come with a lifetime warranty from the manufacturer. Go with a wetside, just a big boxy tank, you can even paint it if you want. These tanks have a lower center of gravity compared to an elliptical. You should widen the tank base to somewhere around 48", this will help keep it stable from left to right. With 2500Gal, the manufacturer will require you to have 2-3 mounting brackets along the bottom of the tank. I'm not sure what you've got going on for a tank support system, but most of the tank companies can give you an idea of where to start. Make sure you add a swivel to the rear dump.

    Second, change the body to something more traditional. Add at least 1 compartment behind each of the rear wheels. A lot of manufacturers make use of the space in the fenders as well. If you don't have a dump chute going between the tandems, then there's a good place to store some gear.

    Third, you should seriously consider adding some scene lighting to this truck though, you can never have enough light.

    Lastly, take some time, sit down and read NFPA 1901 through and make notes about what applies to your truck. You're going to want to look at the chassis (specifically the part about center of gravity), crew area, body, pump, and tank sections. If you want to be compliant you'll also need warning lights, but I agree with some of the other posters here and think that putting lights and a siren on this thing is a bad idea.

    I understand that all the things I'm suggesting will add a lot of money to the price of the truck, but they will greatly add to the safety and usability of the truck. If a fire dept can't afford to spend that money today, what will they do next year when that truck rolls over?
    RangerJake72 likes this.

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    869

    Default prototype water truck

    I read an article, that if I remember correctly, stated that tanker trucks make up 2% of the fire departments fleets and account for 50% of the accidents.

    The current NFPA 1901-2009 Standard requires that the truck make a 50% tilt table test OR that the chassis be equipped with Electronic Stability Control.

    And that the tank be baffled front to rear and side to side.

    Your chassis is probably not equipped with electronic stability control and I doubt if the truck could pass a 50% tilt table test.

    Need to some more research on your project. The old days of taking a fuel hauler or milk truck and turning into an emergency response vehicle are probably over.
    Last edited by donethat; 10-30-2013 at 09:48 AM.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    EastKyFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    You'll never get this thing up to NFPA standards, and if somebody buys it anyway, your butt will be in court when they wreck it.

    What this sounds like is a volunteer firefighter who is a welder/fabricator at some kind of non-fire service employer has nagged his bosses ("higher-ups") into thinking they can take some used military chassis and some used military tank, dry-hump them together, paint them red, and sell them as a fire tanker. It is not that simple.

    Abort this project.
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    --General James Mattis, USMC


  21. #21
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,036

    Default

    If I was on the apparatus committee looking at tenders and you presented this, in its present form, even completely finished I would vote no. Despite your proposed low cost, the era of this kind of tender is over. I know a volunteer FD north of me that builds their own tenders on military surplus trucks and to be honest I would buy one of their's before this thing.

    No compartments, no hose bed, and if that rack on the officer's side is the foldatank bracket who the heck is tall enough to use that safely? Seriously, nice try but unless you do some serious redesign work and actually talk to end users about what you want I don't see too many sales in your future.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 10-31-2013 at 12:25 AM.
    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

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I agree that this truck's center of gravity is too high. That being said I do love the fact that the tank stops at the back edge of the rear wheel. I have no idea what type of terrain you respond in, but I can say from experience having spent much of my firefighting career in mountainous areas with some very narrow roads, this truck's overall length would be an absolutely perfect fit for that type of environment.

    Tankers generally perform best when they have a single function, which is to tank water. The key to any tanker shuttle is the ability for the tankers to be nimble and move easily around the fill and dump sites.

    The fact is, if you knock the tank on this truck down to 1750 gallons, it will outperform any 25000 or 3000g tanker in a hilly or mountainous environment.
    Simple math proves your theory wrong. If I have a engine/tanker with a turbodraft, I can deliver on average at least 400 gpm constantly with a water supply up to 200' away. With a tanker, if my fill site is a mile away, my turnaround time will be at least ten minutes per load, averaging 250 gallons a minute (or less) with a 2500 tanker. Being able to have a water supply on site wins every time. Now of course there are times when you have to shuttle water, but with out a pump on a tanker your are FORCED to shuttle every time. And having a pump enables you to have a way to transfer water if there is not enough area to set up a dump tank, or some other situation requires a pump. Adding pump capability has virtually NO negative effect on the ability of a truck to shuttle water, in fact, it enhances it. Nimble, and tanker, are two words that aren't used in the same sentence. Turning radius is the only real measurement in play here. Our engine/tanker has an overall length of 36', but has an inside turning radius of only 17'. It's all in how you spec the truck.
    As for the short wheel base on this truck being useful in mountainous terrain, that won't be of any use once the truck flips from being top heavy and rolls off a cliff. The fact is, this truck WILL NOT out perform a PROPERLY built tanker of any size.

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnsb View Post
    Simple math proves your theory wrong. If I have a engine/tanker with a turbodraft, I can deliver on average at least 400 gpm constantly with a water supply up to 200' away. With a tanker, if my fill site is a mile away, my turnaround time will be at least ten minutes per load, averaging 250 gallons a minute (or less) with a 2500 tanker. Being able to have a water supply on site wins every time. Now of course there are times when you have to shuttle water, but with out a pump on a tanker your are FORCED to shuttle every time. And having a pump enables you to have a way to transfer water if there is not enough area to set up a dump tank, or some other situation requires a pump. Adding pump capability has virtually NO negative effect on the ability of a truck to shuttle water, in fact, it enhances it. Nimble, and tanker, are two words that aren't used in the same sentence. Turning radius is the only real measurement in play here. Our engine/tanker has an overall length of 36', but has an inside turning radius of only 17'. It's all in how you spec the truck.
    As for the short wheel base on this truck being useful in mountainous terrain, that won't be of any use once the truck flips from being top heavy and rolls off a cliff. The fact is, this truck WILL NOT out perform a PROPERLY built tanker of any size.
    Again .. based on experience ..... Disagree.

    My previous VFD covered an area with some very narrow roads accessing lakeside camps. A neighboring VFD had 2 tankers of about this size and blew the doors off any other tanker in terms of accessing these areas.

    Now, in my current area, there is no need for a short-wheeled based tanker such as this, and you would never see one purchased.

    Again, the design needs to be modified to lower the center of gravity, but I love the concept of a plain and simple TANKER.

    As far as the commercial viability of this design, there will be a small market for departments looking for a bare-bones way to move water because of cost or they have a need for a very short wheel base tanker.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 10-30-2013 at 02:59 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Again .. based on experience ..... Disagree.

    My previous VFD covered an area with some very narrow roads accessing lakeside camps. A neighboring VFD had 2 tankers of about this size and blew the doors off any other tanker in terms of accessing these areas.

    Now, in my current area, there is no need for a short-wheeled based tanker such as this, and you would never see one purchased.

    Again, the design needs to be modified to lower the center of gravity, but I love the concept of a plain and simple TANKER.

    As far as the commercial viability of this design, there will be a small market for departments looking for a bare-bones way to move water because of cost or they have a need for a very short wheel base tanker.
    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.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    22

    Default

    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.

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