Talk:747 Supertanker

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joelonex. Peer reviewers: HMW.1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest Information
This forum contains some further information that seems correct and fills several gaps in the information on the main page, but is un-verifiable.

Extract (9/7/2008):

Since I now work for the engineering firm responsible for the SuperTanker redesign, I can share some inside info on this system.

''The aircraft (N470EV, Tanker 947) and the public videos are of the original system designed for a 747-200C. This was STC approved in 2006, but suffered from system weight problems which prevented it from carrying a full load of retardant that the USFS demanded. Therefore, it could only successfully carry water which is less effective.''

''Apparently, Mr. Smith, the owner of Evergreen, was so upset over this after spending many $ millions that he fired everyone in his employ responsible as well as all of the vendors and the engineering firm that designed it in late 2006 and disbanded the SuperTanker subsidiary. Unfortunately, it was just ended abruptly with no further design vetting or attempt to make it better. Aircraft N470EV was completely de-modified and has reverted to a freighter. The only remnants are its red tail and old tanker number, but it no longer is an air tanker.''

''The system is basically made up of 10 retardant tanks in pairs in the main deck cargo hold which are interconnected to 8 pressurized air tanks. The entire load is forced out of four 16" nozzles in the aft fuselage belly just aft of the wing to body fairing.''

''Jump to late 2007, another engineering firm out of southern CA was hired by Evergreen to redesign the existing system to reduce the system weight to allow a full retardant load of 25,000 gallons. The redesign consists mostly of a new aluminum tank design that replaces the rather crude steel tanks used previously. Also, the system is to be installed on 747-100F aircraft instead as the prior design was only STC approved for the 747-200C series. Another difference is that this will be a permanent modification and not removable as was with the previous design. The desire is to use 747-100F aircraft that are nearing the end of their commercial service lives and permanently modify them to air tanker configuration.''

''The Evergreen SuperTanker division has been resurrected and the new 747 SuperTanker will be aircraft N479EV and its Tanker number is 979. This aircraft is painted and currently being modified in MZJ for a completion and STC issuance next month. It will go through some flight testing and USFS testing with a plan for it to go on contract yet this year.''

A300st (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The evergreen supertanker made an appearance in fairbanks alaska during the wildfire season. It is in operation, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.104.148 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Evergreen 747 Supertanker regarding the Fukushima I nuclear accidents?
From what _little_ information I have been able to find, it seems that the Japanese Government has not even bothered to pick up the phone and give Evergreen Air a call about their 747 SuperTanker.

I do not understand the pathetic attempts to use a helicopter to drop water on the Fukushima nuclear plants when a much more effective tool is ready and (apparently LITERALLY) waiting for the Japanese to give them a call. I'm talking about the Evergreen 747 Supertanker.

Does anyone have any information about why Evergreen apparently has not even received a phone call from the Japanese about hiring out their plane? 20,500 US gallons (77, 600 liters) in one precision drop seems like a good idea to me! LP-mn (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that 20,500 gallons not very well aimed would be a bit over the top rather than a few well aimed 2,000 gallon chinook loads. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problems with that is/are: 1st, the Chinook didn't do a very good job of aiming.  2nd, small amounts of water that it did carry got dispursed in the air, and not much hit the target.  3rd, the 747 Supertanker CAN do a very well aimed job with the _3_ GPS systems it has on board. LP-mn (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You clearly think that the Supertanker is the solution and as this is not really a forum in that any discussion will not improve the article I think we can close this. Nothing wrong with raising the question on one of the reference desks like Reference desk/Science. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne: No, I actually am not convinced one way or another. I admit I am leaning towards it being a logical tool, but there are at least two legitimate argument against it: (1) Nuke plant operators don't like doing things in a dramatic fashion, they prefer slow gradual changes; that much water at once may not be to their liking, and (2) If they should happen to have exceptional accuracy at their drop, then at 7 or 8 pounds per gallon, I for one don't know if there are any weakened structural elements that may fail.
 * But most of my comments are moot. What is relevant is that it _SEEMS_ that the relevant Japanese Government officials have not even investigated if the Evergreen 747 Supertanker's abilities could be used or not.  Anyway, as you implied, it would seem that no one on this side of the Pacific knows enough to add to this discussion.  later, LP-mn (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

this doesn't need the advert tag
it has at least a dozen citations 208.100.189.155 (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, now that the last uncited promotional material has been removed. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Two full listing periods, and if there is a consensus here, I'm not seeing it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Evergreen 747 Supertanker → Boeing 747 Supertanker – I would like to re-name the webpage "Evergreen 747 Supertanker" to become "Boeing 747 Supertanker" The reason because Evergreen filed for Bankruptcy in 2013 and a newer company has salvaged the air spray equipment and is resurrecting this fire bomber into newer 747-400 aircraft. The article should be representative of the 747 as an airtanker, not a specific Evergreen platform. Norsemanmick (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Might be misleading as the new 400 based aircraft is not the same thing as this article is talking about, if the new tanker appears for the time being it just needs a mention in the variants section of the -400 article. This article is about aircraft modified using the Evergreen Supplementary Type Certificate (hence the article name). MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to your feedback, thank you. The problem is see though, is the first two Evergreen Tankers are now retired and are being broken up for parts. The 747-400 is a continuation of the 747 concept as an aerial firefighter. With the Evergreen company now out of business and the assets and intellectual property now sold, they are no longer the authority on the concept and they no longer hold the Evergreen Supplementary type cert. I didn't think it made sense to make a new sheet to cover the newer 747-400 as a aerial firefighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norsemanmick (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the company that bought the air tanker and STC also bought the Evergreen name. Cinteotl (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 747 Supertanker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902095408/http://www.rimoftheworld.net/incident/7175 to http://www.rimoftheworld.net/incident/7175
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110215611/http://www.inciweb.org/incident/1873 to http://www.inciweb.org/incident/1873/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 747 Supertanker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2Faw073106p1.xml&headline=Evergreen%20747%20Supertanker%20Promises%20to%20Alter%20Aerial%20Firefighting%20Tenets
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424095206/http://www.kgw.com/news/Evergreen-International-files-Chapter-7-petition-238385681.html to http://www.kgw.com/news/Evergreen-International-files-Chapter-7-petition-238385681.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Help!
I accidently messed up the article! I don't know how to manually undo it, please help 67.218.121.149 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)