Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
Closed Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 87
  1. #61
    MembersZone Subscriber npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    AH Stock has a new swivel dump that will go on the end of their existing dumps (behind the valve). Run you around $1300 with extension chute for the end.
    Beware of this, while a very cool product, if you retrofit an existing tank make sure that the dump chute on the swivel will clear the top of your current drop tanks.
    Last edited by npfd801; 05-24-2009 at 11:37 PM.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program


  2. #62
    Forum Member HSFDChief600's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    132

    Default

    I have wondered about that chute. It has to slow the flow down with that bend.
    Forrest Gregg
    Chief
    Holtville/Slapout
    Fire & Rescue Inc.
    District 10 Director
    AAVFD
    IAFC
    www.holtvilleslapoutfd.org

  3. #63
    MembersZone Subscriber npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HSFDChief600 View Post
    I have wondered about that chute. It has to slow the flow down with that bend.
    I may have an opportunity to see how fast an apparatus equipped with such a dump can dump its load. If I can get times, I'll advise.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  4. #64
    Forum Member Fyrtrks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Binghamton,N.Y.
    Posts
    265

    Default Thoughts to think about.

    The fly boys have a disagreement on the exact weight of Jet fuel depending upon it's grade. It can be from 1.5 to 2 pounds lighter. Now I would agree with Tom and say that tanker, while it was nice that it is being reused it is over loaded. That truck was designed to carry from 9,000 to 12,000 pounds of jet fuel less than the water it has on it now.

    I am sure it could still be usefull but also be safe with some modifications. You could cut the back 1,000 gallons off of the truck and while that compartment is nice to have, maybe it would best to remove that and relocate the tank and rear axles foward more. This would transfer some weight to the front axle.

    Tom isn't a dang shame that the lawyers have scared everyone into beliveing all of this bunk and that they and the NFPA have destroyed the business of firefighting. There was a day and time where a tanker like the Purdy unit was a great idea and even greater thing that the town was resourcefull enough to buld it. Now they have brain washed us into scolding the customer.

    Catch22 don't be mislead I am not faulting you nor the FD. I know how hard it is for you guys to get money. I do not think you did a bad job. I imagine that if you had the money you would have prefered to buy something new.

    Rember those who served and were lost for us today.
    Fyrtrks

  5. #65
    Savage / Hyneman 08'
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    This is our version of a "Super Tanker". 6,000 gallons. We don't know what the pump is "rated" at, but we calculated it putting out 1,250 on day when we were playing around with it.

    Fortunately, there's only a few bridges that can't handle it. The bigger problem is it takes the entire back 40 to turn it around.

    Until we get some of the other departments into the tanker shuttle game, we're pulling it to a scene and laying LDH to it and pumping the water to the attack engine. As other tankers come in, they pump off into this truck, using it as a massive dump tank.

    And before it's thrown out there, yes, it's a little overweight. We haven't put it on the scale yet to see how much, but our calculations from dry weight on the scale to full put it pretty close to the GVW. Only certain people are authorized to drive it, all of which have CDL's and/or are accustomed to driving large apparatus.
    Ya know... just an idea here. It looks like there is room ahead of the drive axles for a lift axle, tag, pusher, whatever the local term is in your parts.

    An older, simple axle with some life left in it can be had from a salvage dealer for not much. Gives you better handling of the weight, and most importantly another set of brakes.

    Unless the military has some differences like different frame rail spacing, or something else I don't know about.
    Last edited by DFDMAXX; 05-25-2009 at 07:12 PM.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  6. #66
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    Default

    In my 30 years, and several departments, i have worked with 2 primary systems.

    The first was up north, primarily in VT, with 3 departments.

    Tankers were either nurse tankers ranging from 1200 to 2000 gallons (mostly 1500g), or engines with quick dump and quick fills most kicking in at about 1000g with a few 1250's. Portable ponds 1000-1500g.

    Very easy to turn in tight places. Quick to fill and dump.

    2nd system is the system down here in LA.

    Most tankers are 3000g and most have pumps and full compliment of engine equipment. Most departments also have a tractor-trailer tanker 7000-8000g, that are generally reserved for operations at commercial and larger structures. They often function as the initial water supply and either get out of the way, refill and then standby as an emergency tanker if the shuttle has problems. Some departments have their 1000-1500g engines setup with dumps and fills as "rabbit tankers". Ponds are generally 3000g.

    Since all tankers, with the exception of the TT units have pump, pump-off operations are far more common than dump-off operations.

    Down here things are fairly flat so hills are not an issue. Obviously the 3000g tankers are slower and less maneuverable than the smaller yankee tankers.

    Given my choice, I prefer the systems that I worked in up north. Though, that being said, the systems work well down here and are designed around what the rating system water shuttle demands for performance to meet thier gpm criteria.

  7. #67
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801 View Post
    Beware of this, while a very cool product, if you retrofit an existing tank make sure that the dump chute on the swivel will clear the top of your current drop tanks.
    Correct.

    Max height from top of chute to bottom is 23.72" We're on a F900 w/Marmon Herrington 6x6 so plenty of clearance. May not fit your truck and still clear a standard 30" portatank (you can order portatank in whatever height you want).

  8. #68
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    438

    Default Not just lawyers

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyrtrks View Post
    The fly boys have a disagreement on the exact weight of Jet fuel depending upon it's grade. It can be from 1.5 to 2 pounds lighter. Now I would agree with Tom and say that tanker, while it was nice that it is being reused it is over loaded. That truck was designed to carry from 9,000 to 12,000 pounds of jet fuel less than the water it has on it now.

    I am sure it could still be usefull but also be safe with some modifications. You could cut the back 1,000 gallons off of the truck and while that compartment is nice to have, maybe it would best to remove that and relocate the tank and rear axles foward more. This would transfer some weight to the front axle.

    Tom isn't a dang shame that the lawyers have scared everyone into beliveing all of this bunk and that they and the NFPA have destroyed the business of firefighting. There was a day and time where a tanker like the Purdy unit was a great idea and even greater thing that the town was resourcefull enough to buld it. Now they have brain washed us into scolding the customer.

    Catch22 don't be mislead I am not faulting you nor the FD. I know how hard it is for you guys to get money. I do not think you did a bad job. I imagine that if you had the money you would have prefered to buy something new.

    Rember those who served and were lost for us today.
    Dan, I agree that they did a good job taking an older truck and recycling it and I don't mean to come off like I am scolding them but like you say, lawyers today have us thinking in these terms. Lawyers are out there just looking for their next payday. I've seen to many departments, apparatus dealers and manufacturers sued over the years for no other reason than some lawyer looking at them as deep pockets to be picked. Thirty years ago people would never consider suing a fire dept. Today, they sue if they don't think you got to thier house fast enough.

    If they were ever involved in an accident with that truck they would have no defense. He has admitted here in print that the truck is difficult to stop and it is over the GVW. My opinion, they should find some way to cut down on the amount of water carried for their own protection.

  9. #69
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Or add another axle,which MIGHT be easier on this west coaster. A pusher similar to the little wheeled version Anchor motor freight used to use would fit nicely and still give you the big brake drum.

  10. #70
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomwnh View Post
    You wouldn't catch me behind the wheel of that truck. You say you are not sure of the gross weight but do know about what the GVW rating and dry weight is. Doing some quick calculations using your numbers I would guess that truck is about 7,000 pounds over the rated GVW.

    Weight of water 8.35 lbs. X 6,000 50,100
    Dry weight of truck 26,000
    TOTAL WEIGHT 76,100
    GVW of truck loaded -69,000
    AMOUNT OVER GVW 7,100

    If it was me I would be looking at the limits of the department's liability insurance first thing tomorrow. Your statement on it taking a country mile to stop it scares the hell out of me. What happens if someone stops short or pulls out in front of you? Experienced driver or not, that truck is a lawyers dream.
    Now I'm going to have to go to the farm center and put it on their scales. I know my calculations when we did it had it a LOT closer to GVW than that. Mind you, I'm citing numbers off of memory, which isn't so good anymore. It seems like we were within 2,000 lbs of GVW. Maybe I got the dry weight without the filters mixed up with the weight with the filters or something. The paperwork with the numbers is at the station, so I don't have access to it when I'm messing around on the forums here. I'll see if I can't find the time to get to the station and get the actual numbers to throw up here.

    Also keep in mind that a "country mile" is just a phrase. All I mean is that it takes a bit more distance than an engine or smaller tanker to shut down. Of course, it only gets to 45 mph running flat or downhill, and literally takes a mile to get to that speed. Uphill, it's a LOT slower.

    Our current plan is to try to get another one for our second station, which will be in the hilly/curvy portion of our district. It's sole purpose will be to fill tankers from the station (which is a lot closer than running back to town), and be replaced with this one while it goes to fill, and then transition between the two. With the biggest tankers in the area being 2,500 gallons (ours and one other), we've got at least two fills out of each truck.

    I'm also aware of the attorney factor. That's the big reason we're DAMN careful who's driving it. There's only about 4 guys on the department authorized, and they're guys that don't get all wound up when the tones go off and don't get in a hurry, not that you can with this rig. If one of them aren't available, it doesn't leave the station.

  11. #71
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFDMAXX View Post
    Ya know... just an idea here. It looks like there is room ahead of the drive axles for a lift axle, tag, pusher, whatever the local term is in your parts.

    An older, simple axle with some life left in it can be had from a salvage dealer for not much. Gives you better handling of the weight, and most importantly another set of brakes.

    Unless the military has some differences like different frame rail spacing, or something else I don't know about.
    We were looking at just that very closely during the conversion process. Our Deputy Chief has a trucking company and has a couple of tag axles running around we were going to throw under it. Like I say, though, I know we were a lot closer to GVW than 7,000 lbs, so it wasn't a major issue at the time.

    We actually meant to throw it on the scales to see what the fully loaded weight was and where it was in reference to GVW as opposed to calculations when we got it done. We just never got around to it for some reason. Now that the wife's out of school for the summer and can watch kids, maybe I can get that done.

  12. #72
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Around here the smallest taker is 2000 gallons (the county minmum) but most of them are 3500 to 4000 gallons.

    We only have 1 tractor drawn left in the county, and that company also has a 4000 gallon sister tanker. Most of the tankers in the county have pumps and minimal hose, a few are also Pumper-Tankers and run as such.

    In anyone is in the market for a "Super Tanker", Bakerton WV is selling thier tractor drawn 9000 gallon rig which has a 2000GPM pump hanging off the tail end of the rig. It's in good shape, needs a minor bit of TLC, but would serve well for years to come. It's formerally of Minitola (Buena Twp) New Jersey.
    FTM-PTB DTRT

    Everything I state on here is to support and aid my fellow firefighters. Everything I post is my opinion only, and in no way should be taken as an official opinion of any Company, Department, or Municipality I represent... oh and this includes Pierce Mfg, as so their legal department has advised me; since they apparently also invented the right to control "Free Speech".

  13. #73
    Savage / Hyneman 08'
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    We were looking at just that very closely during the conversion process. Our Deputy Chief has a trucking company and has a couple of tag axles running around we were going to throw under it. Like I say, though, I know we were a lot closer to GVW than 7,000 lbs, so it wasn't a major issue at the time.

    We actually meant to throw it on the scales to see what the fully loaded weight was and where it was in reference to GVW as opposed to calculations when we got it done. We just never got around to it for some reason. Now that the wife's out of school for the summer and can watch kids, maybe I can get that done.
    Even if it is under the GVW rating, a pusher is nice. We have a 4000gal tanker that is 3000 UNDER the GVW rating, but the way it stops we are getting a tag axle on the next one.

    It isn't always about the GVW rating. Just because the axle is rated for the load, do you think you get bigger brakes? Nope. I've worked on them myself. Same brakes on 34K drives as on the 56K drives. Front brakes do get a bit wider with a heavier axle.

    That's why I don't get the guys who put a 53K quint on 2 axles. A 22K front and a 31K rear. They claim it's rated for it, which it is. But the brake performance suffers a lot. Our tanker is 53K on 3 axles and it needs a fourth.

    A neighbor has a 37 ton ladder on 3 axles. It is within the manufactures GVW rating. But I bet you can guess how well it stops.

    This goes double for volunteer departments. They don't always have a "qualified" person driving, so they need a truck that is a little more forgiving.

    If you do get a used tag axle, stay away from the little ones with the 16" dual wheels. They may be rated for 10K but they have bent under that weight, and the little 12" brake drum don't perform as well. And the cost for parts is VERY high compared to a standard tag. I know, my truck has 2 such axles. Little bit of weight savings, much higher maintenance costs and less longevity.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  14. #74
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Udall, Kansas
    Posts
    434

    Default Semi's

    We have a auto aid neighbor that has a semi with 5k with a 750 gpm pump. It also has a 6" dump system.

    I know it takes the right driver, but I have seen him turn his tanker around in a much shorter distance than our 2500 gallon tandom.

  15. #75
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    866

    Default Stopping Heavy Rigs

    DFDMAXX:
    I think one of the reasons manufactuers get away with putting 50,000#+ on two axle chassis is that NFPA requires an auxilary braking device such as a JAKE Brake, transmission retarder, or a Telma electric retarder. These devices go a long way on stopping the rig without a lot of load on the brakes. The Air Force refueler is probably over the GVW and probably has no auxilary braking device. It was desiged to drive around air bases at 25 - 30 mph. I think a self steer tag axle would be their best choice to make it a legal rig GVW wise, and pick up some additional braking capability.
    Last edited by donethat; 05-27-2009 at 09:41 AM. Reason: Spelling

  16. #76
    Savage / Hyneman 08'
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donethat View Post
    DFDMAXX:
    I think one of the reasons manufactuers get away with putting 50,000#+ on two axle chassis is that NFPA requires an auxilary braking device such as a JAKE Brake, transmission retarder, or a Telma electric retarder. These devices go a long way on stopping the rig without a lot of load on the brakes. The Air Force refueler is probably over the GVW and probably has no auxilary braking device. It was desiged to drive around air bases at 25 - 30 mph. I think a self steer tag axle would be their best choice to make it a legal rig GVW wise, and pick up some additional braking capability.
    I understand why they do it. We are not covered by any of the weight restrictions imposed by the state ( at least here in Wisconsin ) regarding axle weights or spacing, we are only expected to work within the confines of the manufactures specification.

    The individual states make laws regarding weight in part to protect the roads or bridges from to much deterioration, but the other part is safety.

    If they have deemed that safe operation of a large truck requires a certain amount of brake capacity to be safe, then why the exemption? By their own criteria a truck with fewer foundation brakes is not safe, regardless if a truck has an auxiliary braking system such as a Jake, Telma, transmision retarder, etc. They are called "auxiliary" braking systems for a reason. They do not take the place of the "foundation" brakes found at each wheel position.

    Now I am not saying that a large ladder truck needs two more axles under it to meet state weight laws. By the time you put them on, you would have a lot less compartment space and I have no idea where you would put the outriggers.

    I'm just saying that maybe we need to be somewhere in between. The state grants us permits to run heavy with standard equipment, it's just a money issue. But there are limits. The state will not grant us a permit to run the way some fire apparatus do. Why? They say it's unsafe.

    Now, I'm not some safety sally who wants to change your firetruck. My experience with braking systems as an operator and a mechanic makes me believe that this is a serious issue when the weight goes up and the brake capacity goes down. Maybe the disc brakes help the brake capacity vs. weight ratio. Any info would be appreciated.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  17. #77
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    866

    Cool Weight Restrictions

    In many states, exemptions for weight and size have nothing to do with safety. It's who has the most effective political lobby.
    In the mid-west state I grew up in there are weight and size exemptions for forestry trucks, mining trucks, and age exemptions for farm vehicles.

    I could drive, and did at 14 years old, a farm tractor pulling two trailers full of hay bales, and a duece and a-half straight truck full of corn or wheat even though you had to be 16 to get a drivers license. As long as you were on a back country road and not on a state or federal highway and were sponsered by an adult it was legal. Same as most states don't require CDL's for fire fighters even though the rigs are being driven very aggressively at high rates of speed.

  18. #78
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    OK, I got a chance to get to the scales today with that big sucker. We weighed in about 71K. GVW is 68,400 per the plate on the truck, and the curb weight is listed at 26,400 (I believe that's with the filters, reels, etc). Unless I transposed a number somewhere (didn't take notes since I was within an hour of being home), those should be accurate numbers.

    Yes, it's still overweight, but not by 7K. It could probably use a tag axle, but that's something we're gong to discuss with the board and the guys that know more about trucks than I do.

  19. #79
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,612

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    OK, I got a chance to get to the scales today with that big sucker. We weighed in about 71K. GVW is 68,400 per the plate on the truck, and the curb weight is listed at 26,400 (I believe that's with the filters, reels, etc). Unless I transposed a number somewhere (didn't take notes since I was within an hour of being home), those should be accurate numbers.

    Yes, it's still overweight, but not by 7K. It could probably use a tag axle, but that's something we're gong to discuss with the board and the guys that know more about trucks than I do.
    Did you weigh the axles?

  20. #80
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    498

    Default

    Catch22,
    Was the tank full?

    6000x8.3(lbs per gal)=49,800 of water.
    26,400+49,800=76,200 minimum without anything extra.

    IF it was 71k gross, then your about 5,200 minimum over Gross.

    I do think a tag would help with this just make sure it has good brakes.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts