3 INCH vs 5 INCH Hose for supply

[CKirk922]

Why do some departments still pull two crosslays on initial attack up to a 200x200 fully engulfed structure and proceed to pee on it? Because someone at some level has dropped the ball and not learned the lesson about big fire=big water. That same department will drop in excess of 1200 feet of 2 1/2 or 3 inch hose and connect directly to a hydrant and wonder why they have no water. The facts are out there and imbedded in this entire thread. Large diameter simply allows flows with less friction, lower pump pressures, and more manageable water supplies. If you can get LDH hose onto your rigs and use it then you will see the benifits. It may not be needed for the 10x10 shed fire, but it will be there when you do need it. It is not a cure all for poor tactics and poor training, but like any other tool of the fire service, when you need it, YOU NEED IT! Plan for the biggest fire you might have to fight and you will find that employing some of these tools and techniques on smaller fires will make the big ones easier to manage.

These are my own views, not those of my department or officers within my department.

[Remthedays]

We have been using a butterfly valve on the intake side of the pump. In the past we were directed to take the butterfly valve off during drafting operations. This is a time consuming process that requires a rubber mallet and lots of foul language.

Anyway all of our new engines are able to pull a draft through the butterfly valve, give it a try.

We have Butterflies on our intakes also. The majority of our larger fires involve drafting and we have had no problems.

T.J.

[Sine]

5 inch hose has less friction loss.

honestly unless your fighting a huge fire it shouldnt make much of a differance.

if you have a call that requires more than 350gpm for any length of time post pics on the site

that's 7, 50 gallon barrels of water every 60 sec... think about it

[ChiefKN]

5 inch hose has less friction loss.

honestly unless your fighting a huge fire it shouldnt make much of a differance.

if you have a call that requires more than 350gpm for any length of time post pics on the site

that's 7, 50 gallon barrels of water every 60 sec... think about it

Thanks for reviving this two and a half year old thread.

I was really curious to see if the friction loss was still less.

.

[FyredUp]

5 inch hose has less friction loss.

honestly unless your fighting a huge fire it shouldnt make much of a differance.

if you have a call that requires more than 350gpm for any length of time post pics on the site

that's 7, 50 gallon barrels of water every 60 sec... think about it

You had to revive a thread this old to post this bit of genius? Golly thanks.

[...]

I'd carry both!

[FyredUp]

I'd carry both!

My volly FD does.

[PaladinKnight]

All of these years and I just learned that 350 gallons will fit into seven 50 gallon barrels.

I had no idea. This is amazing!

I wonder if that is just water, or if it applies to other things as well.

[blaster668]

We still carry 2200 ft. of 3" supply line on each of our two engines, and have no desire to switch to LDH. What we have works very well for our area, which is mostly very rural residential structures. We do have a few large barns, and a multi-building mental retardation institution. This institution is the only area in our district that is supplied by hydrants.

We have some very long driveways and lanes in our area. We use the 3" line because it is better suited to getting us water super quick for the initial attack. If we need more water than 2 3" lines will supply, we can always lay more lines or a LDH line from a mutual aid company as more apparatus and personnel arrive on scene. The problem with 5" for us is that we can dump the tank from our second in engine and never have a drop of it reach the attack engine. With 3" we can use one hose to supply the attack engine until more water arrives. Our system is expandable as the need for water grows. Our first in engine is never going to flow more than 350gpm on the initial attack with the initial crew on that engine (1 2.5" @250gpm and 1 1.5" @90gpm). As more crews arrive, we can flow more water, but there is also lots of extra supply line available at that point. Don't even get me started about the 1.5" attack lines, that's a completely different topic, and I disagree with my departments decision on that one, especially when our pre-connects are 250ft.

LDH is awesome once you have a water supply established, but sucks for initial attack using two engines with 700gal and 1000gal respectively on board, without hydrants.

[fddd160]

trouble with 5"
http://www.firehouse.com/forums/atta...1&d=1263927463

[blaster668]

trouble with 5"
http://www.firehouse.com/forums/atta...1&d=1263927463

Says invalid attachment

[confire]

[QUOTE=PaladinKnight;1123983]All of these years and I just learned that 350 gallons will fit into seven 50 gallon barrels.
Sorry reading comprehension problem on my part.

[fddd160]

problem with 5"

[CGITCH]

problem with 5"

Attachment 18091

haha i could fill that with pee just as fast as that hydrant could

[MemphisE34a]

Nothing like debating over an 11 year old thread. Awesome.

[Acklan]

problem with 5"

Attachment 18091

Not really. Nothing a 2.5" to 5" storz adapter could not handle. We have several hydrants with 2-2.5" discharges and we just use an adapter. We carry 1500' - 5" forward lays and 600' - 2.5" in a reverse lay.
The big problem would be filling the hose on a low volume, low pressure hydrant system. We are luck, we generally have from 70 to 85 psi on our hydrant system, so it is not an issue.

[MG3610]

problem with 5"

Attachment 18091

The solution to this terrible issue is really quite simple...







And the worst part about the $125 adapter is you'll get more water from that hydrant than if you used 2 1/2" or 3" hose; shocking!

[dmleblanc]

problem with 5"

Attachment 18091

That's not a problem with 5", that's a problem with your water system....

[Rescue101]

All of these years and I just learned that 350 gallons will fit into seven 50 gallon barrels.

I had no idea. This is amazing!

I wonder if that is just water, or if it applies to other things as well.

Won't fit in 7 OPEC barrels,hehe T.C.