Will the HYNAERO Frégate-F100 replace the ageing Canadair waterbomber?

[Stargazer]

With the rapid demise of the flying boat after WW2, very few such types have enjoyed a large degree of success on the world market. And if we leave out Japan, which still produces quite a few boat-types, given its unique position as a island, most countries no longer produce any — a situation which has proved to be a problem when firefighting is concerned: besides the dedicated Canadair CL-215/CL-415, which is now six decades old, the only other flying boats that could be used for the task were venerable Martin Mars dating back to the mid-1940s!

With the CL-415 design showing its age, and the exponential increase of forest fires all over the planet, there will come a time when the adaptation of vintage aircraft such as the Grumman Tracker will no longer be enough. Not only that, but the current fleets of amphibious aerial firefighting aircraft are aging, reducing aircraft availability and increasing maintenance costs. And to attack and fix the wildfires, only scooping capacity allows autonomy of action and a high rate of rotation. Aircraft of lesser capacity that need to be refueled on the ground do not allow a sufficient intervention rate. There is a need for new designs, new airframes, new construction methods and materials, so that another half-century of fires can be successfully put out.

Enter HYNAERO — HY for hydravions and NA for Nouvelle-Aquitaine, the Southwestern region of France (the entire area, especially the Biscarosse lake, was once very active in the field of what used to be called "hydraviation", the industry of seaplane making). This fledgling French aviation company, based in Bordeaux, has designed the FREGATE-F100, the very first dedicated firefighting flying boat in decades. It has developed it as a European program "to provide private and institutional operators with a modern aircraft that meets the challenges of fighting increasingly large and frequent forest fires around the world."

The FREGATE-F100 is capable of operating on the existing network of water bodies currently in use. With a payload capacity of 10 tons of water, the FREGATE-F100 would bring a real leap in capacity, compared to the aircraft that have been a reference until these days. Its 250kts cruising speed would enable early intervention when fire starts, and with more than 4 hours of flight range, it could perform 2.5-hour mission time on fire location, up to 400 km from its base location. Modern fly-by-wire controls would enable more precise piloting and improved safety during the mission, while the head-up displays would makefor better integration of information and operational environment.

The French press has been very enthusiastic about the project, and the company's website features links to about 60 separate articles, a few from aviation publications, but most from news magazines and such. But public appreciation and press support do not translate into funding! Unless the governments understand the need to back up such programs actively read: financially) the sad images of cities in flames and may well become a commonplace spectacle that we are powerless to observe.

​

More on the FREGATE-F100 project on HYNAERO's official website:
https://hynaero.com/

---

<off-topic ranting> I'd like to indulge in a personal comment about this very forum. 15 years ago, it would have seemed improbable that new aircraft designs would remain uncovered for very long. Nowadays, however, this forum has become a very frustrating place to me... When I joined back in the late 2000s, there were a LOT of topics devoted to old projects, to defunct manufacturers; there was a sharp interest for the rare and the forgotten. It seems to me that a vast majority of the topics nowadays deal with modern combat aircraft, vehicles, ordnance... in one word: war, and all the aspects thereof, seems to have become the focus of the forum.
As a lover of aircraft design and development, who has gradually shifted his interest from military to civilian types, I find that this forum is a pale reflection of what it used to be. I used to always learn and discover new stuff, but today, I can browse a list of dozens of updated topics for the day and not find a single one that I want to read. Don't get me wrong, I know there are still a handful of folks out here who are like me: but as we advance in age, it seems that the younger generation isn't very interested in either old aircraft/defunct companies or current non-airliner commercial projects.
Which leads me to the subject of this topic: browsing through aviation magazines of the past few years, I keep coming across great projects, and of course my initial reaction is always: cool! I'm sure there's already a topic on the subject at Secret Projects. The sad truth is that half of the time there isn't (unless it's a current military program of course, in which case there will be literally dozens of pages where people discuss endlessly...). So, for all it's worth, and at the risk of interesting only a handful of enthusiasts, I'm going to share more and more of those seemingly left out commercial projects, if only to balance out the current military topics in the "What's new" list... </off-topic ranting>

 

[Moose]

Pretty, but the DHC-515 update of the Canadair design is in production today. So it's more like an airlifter competing with C-130J than C-130A

 

[Archibald]

Sleek ! I love it. A radical break from the 215 / 415 / 515. Sometimes starting from a clean sheet of paper is necessary. And yes, with global warming now officially at 2°C rather than Paris 1.5°C objective, we will need a lot of water bombers (albeit the crazy aviation nerd in me just want fire fighting 747s to return, dozens of them - of course I understand their limits. Oh, and also A380 fire bombers, now that would be a sight to behold, poof, the A380F 160 tons of payload turned water...)

 

[Apophenia]

... A radical break from the 215 / 415 / 515...

Since the Sécurité Civile has been a key user of Canadairs, it kind of makes sense that any next generation comes from France.

 

[_Del_]

Pretty, but the DHC-515 update of the Canadair design is in production today. So it's more like an airlifter competing with C-130J than C-130A

DHC haven't even assembled their first airframe the last I checked. They definitely had not started actual production. They were aiming for 2028 deliveries, I believe. This has come up a couple of times.

The market is there for either or both of they get to production.

 

[Stargazer]

The market is there for either or both of they get to production.

Yes, and even more so that there has recently been a radical swing in the official attitude of the US towards the rest of the world, especially Europe, which means that the the more self-sufficient we can be, the better.

 

[_Del_]

Yes, and even more so that there has recently been a radical swing in the official attitude of the US towards the rest of the world, especially Europe, which means that the the more self-sufficient we can be, the better.

We have a lot of Herks they can put MAFFS on.

 

[dan_inbox]

Unfortunately, on reading Stargazer's article and beautiful photos, I get the feeling that this company has put the emphasis on sleek, pretty and fashionable, rather than on rugged, rough-operations-on the burning edge, forest & mountains undeveloped areas without infrastructure.
Which leaves me skeptical in general, and worse if financing is involved ...

One jaded old man's opinion.

 

[Stargazer]

Unfortunately, on reading Stargazer's article and beautiful photos, I get the feeling that this company has put the emphasis on sleek, pretty and fashionable, rather than on rugged, rough-operations-on the burning edge, forest & mountains undeveloped areas without infrastructure.
Which leaves me skeptical in general, and worse if financing is involved ...

One jaded old man's opinion.

I kind of agree with you. Doesn't look rugged enough! But I suppose that, from an aerodynamic viewpoint, the sleek fuselage is what is supposed to provide for faster access to fires and reduced fuel consumption.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Stargazer,

The FREGATE-F100 is capable of operating on the existing network of water bodies currently in use. With a payload capacity of 10 tons of water, the FREGATE-F100 would bring a real leap in capacity, compared to the aircraft that have been a reference until these days. Its 250kts cruising speed would enable early intervention when fire starts, and with more than 4 hours of flight range, it could perform 2.5-hour mission time on fire location, up to 400 km from its base location. Modern fly-by-wire controls would enable more precise piloting and improved safety during the mission, while the head-up displays would makefor better integration of information and operational environment.

Looks a bit like a turboprop implementation of the Beriyew Be-200: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berijew_Be-200

Hynaero 10000 kg of water, Beriyew 12000 kg. No amphibious capability in both cases, unlike the Canadair (CL-415 6100 kg of Water).

However, another important metric is "tonnage on target" ... I found this interesting value for the CL-415 in the German wikipedia: "54.140 l/h for 11 km distance between drop location and water scooping site". A lighter and more manoevrable aircraft might be able to use closer scooping sites and have a shorter delivery cycle than a larger, heavier, less-manoevrable one with a larger payload.

I'm sure Hynaero will have run all the numbers, though

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Hobbes]

Yes, and even more so that there has recently been a radical swing in the official attitude of the US towards the rest of the world, especially Europe, which means that the the more self-sufficient we can be, the better.

You'll note that the Canadair DHC-515 is not designed or manufactured in the USA.

 

[Hobbes]

I kind of agree with you. Doesn't look rugged enough! But I suppose that, from an aerodynamic viewpoint, the sleek fuselage is what is supposed to provide for faster access to fires and reduced fuel consumption.

Rugged is a function of how much of a safety factor has been used in the design (i.e. designing parts for higher loads than they will see in service). An aerodynamic aircraft is not necessarily any less rugged than an An-2.

 

[Stargazer]

You'll note that the Canadair DHC-515 is not designed or manufactured in the USA.

Of course!

Rugged is a function of how much of a safety factor has been used in the design (i.e. designing parts for higher loads than they will see in service). An aerodynamic aircraft is not necessarily any less rugged than an An-2.

Point taken.

 

[Apophenia]

... I found this interesting value for the CL-415 in the German wikipedia: "54.140 l/h for 11 km distance between drop location and water scooping site". A lighter and more manoevrable aircraft might be able to use closer scooping sites and have a shorter delivery cycle than a larger, heavier, less-manoevrable one with a larger payload...

Hynaero will be aiming primarily at their immediately adjacent market areas. Many Sécurité Civile ops involve scooping from open Mediterranean waters - as do the Spanish, Italian, and Greek operators of Canadairs. The arguments favouring smaller airframes hold better where lake or river scooping is involved. And, since Single Engine Air Tankers are cheaper to operate, government funders love them (even here in BC where the Viking 515 is to be built!).

 

[riggerrob]

Unfortunately, on reading Stargazer's article and beautiful photos, I get the feeling that this company has put the emphasis on sleek, pretty and fashionable, rather than on rugged, rough-operations-on the burning edge, forest & mountains undeveloped areas without infrastructure.
Which leaves me skeptical in general, and worse if financing is involved ...

One jaded old man's opinion.

Composites allow fancier, swoopier outer mold lines for not much difference in production cost.
Composites have the advantage of limiting corrosion when scooping water from the ocean. Corrosion is always a problem with seaplanes.

The longer single tail makes way more sense than the triple tail on the short aft fuselage of Canadairs.

Finally, mounting the main wheels on sponsons frees up critical fuselage volume near the center-of-gravity. That space is better filled with water. Hopefully they can elminate those annoying fiberglass water tanks - that extend above the floor on Canadairs. A straight, flat cargo floor will simplify loading sand-bags, hoses, crews, evacuees, etc.
If they make the cabin cross-section large enough for LD3 baggage containers, they can haul over-night freight during the rainy season. Notice how Fedex commissioned Cessna to build the 408 Sky Courier and tailor its cargo compartment to accommodate a triple set of LD3 containers.
To that end, make the aft cargo door sill flat and extend the sponson aft so that it can act as a loading ramp when pulled up to a dock. If you still want to load via fork-lift on asphalt, then install a second cargo door on the opposite side, and farther aft, behind the sponson. In a perfect world, airplane cargo floors are the same height as truck beds.

Similarly, making the cabin ceiling more than 6 feet tall (2 meters) will allow passengers to stand on their hind legs like gentlemen. The firefighting interior only needs fold-down cloth seats ala. C-130, but tourist versions could get fancier interiors. Mind you, when I am playing tourist on a short sight-seeing trip, I care first about large windows and seat configuration is last priority.