Fire rages around San Diego. 250,000 people are fleeing the area.
Why aren't houses built to be fire proof from the outside? Why can't the walls be made of concrete?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/22/wildfire.ca/index.html

The same reason cars are not made from armored plating. There is always a balance between practicality and risk....

Concrete will succumb to high enough temperatures and is only fire retardant. Ever read fairy tales of witches living in glass castles? This is a reference to real technology. The formulae hasn't been successfully duplicated, but many ancient fortress were literally fused or welded into one continuous face by superheating the stones for greater strength. California fought a hard fight to eliminate the shake cedar rooftop, mandate brush clearance and promote fire retardant landscapeing. What nobody can stop is 'development' on scale with the cancer cell in ever farther and often difficult areas to reach, a finite water resource system farther behind than the much lamented gasoline refineries doubly crippled by extended drought conditions. I watched the canadian Superscoopers pass overhead making near tree level drops. There are 3 in the whole world with a 4th hanger queen for parts. We get them from Oct to Dec. The local enterprise out of Van Nuys Airport offering 'Mile High Club' flights for couples owns 4 planes and is considering adding a 5th.

I have family in the San Marcos area I believe. Has that area been hit yet?

Gotta hand it to those pilots. Coolest sights of the day were definitely the Superscooper runs. The DC-10 Supertanker is impressive but disturbing at the same time. Don't think I can ever get used to seeing (what looks like a large passenger plane) flying that low.

The CL-215, CL-215T and Bombardier 415 are sold in the U.S. under the name of SuperscooperTM aircraft family

The size of the Superscooper family in the U.S. consists of six CL-215 currently operating across the United States, particularly in the northern region and in Alaska. Two of them were purchased by the Sate of Minnesota and one, by the State of North Carolina. Aero Flite, a private operator based in Kingman, Arizona, purchased three CL-215 in 2003. On the lease front, there is a long-term agreement between the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the government of Quebec, Canada for the services of two Bombardier 415.

http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_0.html

It takes only 12 seconds, travelling at 130 km/h (70 knots) to scoop up the 6137-litre (1621-US gallon) water load. This requires an on-water distance of only 410 metres (1350 feet). The Bombardier 415 can scoop water from sites as shallow as 2 metres (6.5 feet) and 90 metres (300 feet) wide. This means that a great number of water sites can be used to reload its tanks. The aircraft doesn't need a completely straight scooping path. Since it's still in "flying" mode while scooping, the pilots can maneuver the Bombardier 415 around river bends or avoid visible obstacles in the water. As well, if the water site is too small for a full pick-up, the Bombardier 415 can take a partial load and return to the fire.




http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_0.html

Firefighting foam is one of the newer technologies to be introduced into the world of both urban and wildland firefighting. Class "A" firefighting foam, as it is more commonly known, is designed to be mixed with water to produce a very effective fire suppressant. Foam has the following characteristics:

It improves the drop pattern. The mixture of foam and water expands and doubles the drop area.

It protects unburned vegetation and structures. It increases moisture penetration, creates an air barrier and reflects radiant heat. It also clings to tree and structure surfaces providing additional protection. The foam drop can easily be seen from air enabling pilots to maximize coverage.

It suppresses flame. Foam is used directly on the fire reducing flame height and intensity thus making it safer for ground crews. As well, foam tends to reduce smoke, making it safer for other firefighting aircraft to operate in the area.

It is economical to use. The concentrated foam chemical is carried in the Bombardier 415 in one or two 300-litre (80-gallon) reservoirs. When used, it is injected into the water load at a ratio of 0.3% to 0.6% by volume. Using a 0.4% concentration, wich is typicaly used in firefighting, a 6000-litre (1585-gallon) water load requires only 24 litres (6.4-gallons) of foam concentrate. Foam is inexpensive compared to the cost of dropping an equivalent quantity of long-term retardant (red slush commonly used as a fire barrier).

If you've ever witnessed an Avro Vulcan heavy bomber doing aerobatics at low level !!!

...with the bomb bay doors open, of course.

You can forget your Eurofighters, Su-31s, F15s, Tordano's or F22 Raptors the star of the air shows is once again the Vulcan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdKKrvWYQkI

"...pilots can maneuver the Bombardier 415 around river bends or avoid visible obstacles in the water..."

Not with me on board, I would worry too much about digging a wingtip in, floats or no floats...

Nope, but I have seen a B-52 making a low level pass, then banking into a really steep turn, while plugged with a KC-135. That impressed me a tad...

my grandfather house exterior was made concrete. It survived neighborhood fire without any problem. The house roof was covered with red tiles.

Looks like the Martin Mars firebomber will be coming down from Canada on Wed. Pretty amazing plane. Looks like a small spuce goose.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=18e69493-e075-465f-9c7f-088f17f907f2

Having lost one household to a fire, my heart goes out to these poor folks and the brave souls fighting these fires...

However...

I can't think of a quicker, more certain way to bankrupt this country than for us to continue bailing folks out of their stupidity, just because they do it en masse.

When people lose all they own to fires, floods, or economic change, it is unfortunate and sad. When it happens to individuals, they end up collecting insurance or selling at a loss if they prepared properly. Even the best insurance doesn't cover everything, so, as in my case, you take what you get, what you paid for, and you start over.

When it happens to large groups, suddenly our leaders feel this must be mitigated by taxpayer dollars, as if something is signficantly different between the losses suffered by individuals vs. the losses suffered by members of a group. To me, this is akin to buying votes with federal and state revenue.

I've cited it before, and I will continue to bring it up, because it is just as valid now as it was 200+ years ago.

Benjammin, there is truth to what you say. But I'll bet these fires are going to do some damage to the insurance companies. And watch everyone's premiums go up next year to compensate.

Sue

Yes, I see little difference on the private sector economic impact between this and Katrina, except for scale. The thing is, it is economically driven, and if I buy insurance from a company that underwrote a lot in the area in question and didn't hedge the risk by offsetting investments (after all, insurance underwriters make money by selling in a market with higher risk, and should be investing that capital accordingly), then I expect them to raise their rates to offset their losses, and I will be in the market for new insurance when my agent can no longer compete.

My point is that you are supposed to be responsible for the risks you take, whether as an individual or a group. By taking federal money to pay people for losses suffered due to fire, any fire, you are taking money from perhaps thousands, if not millions, of folks who not only probably have far less than those who lost their investment, but also will receive absolutely no benefit from such a payout.

As Mr. Bunce cited, once we open such a door, then it becomes far too easy for those with the power to distribute monies, intended only to fund governmental function, to their own constituents' personal needs at the expense of the entire population. That is the sort of fraud that corrupts the integrity of as system of trust such as ours. We've been doing it for almost a hundred years now, and it is only getting worse.

And watch them (or others) rebuild in the same location. Then the new jillion dollar homes will slide off the hill in the next heavy rain. Happens in Topanga Canyon, the Malibu hills, etc, year after year after year...

They aren't made fire proof becuase you reach a point of deminishing returns very quickly. It is an issue of weight and expense, but also a simple one of, if it strong enough, you just made an oven and everything inside will burn. Oops.

What you can do is not put ceder shakes on your roof. You want "quant" and "picturesque", "country-style" roofs, go with a metal one like the ones on half the barns I know.

Fiberglas shingles sound pretty good to me, or plan ole asphalt roofing...

Roof here is stone coated steel applied like a shake roof and the sides are a concrete stucco -- nice on top and on the side. Problem is still fire starting off the sides (fences, brush and other flammable stuff). The stucco won't last long and if a fire gets to the eaves, it's all over. Inside it's just 2x wood.

The next time you get a nice dry bale of straw and a propane torch together, try setting the bale on fire. Time it. Let me know if you succeed after an hour.

One of the most quake- and fire-retardant homes are straw-bale covered with concrete and a metal roof. Concrete block or wire fencing. No foundation plantings.

Some years ago (1995?), there was a concrete/steel roof house in Malibu surrounded by fire. The firemen took a look at the house and said, "This is where we'll make our stand". That house was the only one left standing amid blocks of ashes and chimneys.

Of course, that house was built by someone from another country, who didn't base his home on TV fantasy and wishful thinking.

Doesn't asphalt burn?

Sue

I second the straw-bale home fire-resistance. Here in New Mexico, straw-bale homes are permitted as part of the building code - not discouraged or even outlawed as they are in some areas of certain states.

Another good one is rammed earth.

I have seen stacks of "hay" bales start smoldering, and eventually burning, all on their own in central CA. Spontanious combustion the fire guys say, and very hard to put out. Do you know of any straw-bale homes doing that???

"...stacks of "hay" bales start smoldering, and eventually burning, all on their own in central CA. Spontanious combustion the fire guys say..."

Yes, that does happen with hay (probably straw, too) when they were too moist when baled. It's a form of composting, but with the large amount of hay stacked together, the heat can't dissipate.

When someone is building a straw bale house, they have a little meter with a probe on the end, and they insert it into the bales to check for moisture. It has to be less than 12 or 14%, IIRC.

Sue

Makes sense to me...