Comparative Evaluation of the 

Effectiveness of a High-Performance, 

Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted 

Turret to the Performance of a P-19 

Roof-Mounted Turret 

June 2005 

DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/18 

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

ote technical note technic

a

ote technical note technic

a
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The 

United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use 

thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. This 

document does not constitute FAA certification policy. Consult your local 

FAA airports office as to its use. 

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 

Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page: 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AR-TN05/18 

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A HIGH5. Report Date

June 2005

PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED TURRET TO THE 

PERFORMANCE OF A P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET 

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

James W. Patterson, Charles Risinger*, and Jennifer Kalberer* 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Federal Aviation Administration 

William J. Hughes Technical Center 

Airport and Aircraft Safety 

Research and Development Division 

Airport Technology Research and 

Development Branch 

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 

 *Air Force Research Laboratory 

Deployed Air Base Systems 

Fire Research Group 

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 2 

Tyndal AFB, FL 32403-5323 

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Technical Note 

Office of Aviation Research 

Washington, DC 20591 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

AAS-200 

15. Supplementary Notes

This research was conducted through an Interagency Agreement with the Air Force Research Laboratory, Tyndall Air Force Base, 

Florida, and the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center Airport Technology R&D Branch. 

16. Abstract

Advances in firefighting research have brought forth new concepts that have the potential for greatly enhancing firefighting 

capabilities of airport fire fighters. One such concept is the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret. The 

research described in this report evaluated various operating characteristics of the high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret and compared those characteristics to the roof-mounted turret. Specific items addressed included extinguishment

times for various types of fires, amount of agent required for extinguishment, throw ranges, and overall performance. To 

investigate these items, a high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was mounted on the Federal Aviation 

Administration high-performance research vehicle. This vehicle was brought to the Air Force Research Laboratory at Tyndall Air

Force Base, Florida, for the comparative evaluation. Testing involved three-dimensional engine nacelle and high engine nacelle

tail fires, two-dimensional pool fires, water and agent throw range tests, and turret operations. 

The evaluation concluded that the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was superior in performance to that of

the roof-mounted turret. In all aspects of the evaluation, the data for throw ranges, extinguishment times, the amount of agent 

dispersed, and overall performance of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret far exceeded those from the 

roof-mounted turret. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret enabled the driver/operator to extinguish the 

test fires in less time and with less agent consumption than with the roof-mounted turret. 

17. Key Words

Bumper-mounted turret, Rhino, P-19, Comparison, Throw 

range, Extinguishment time, Turret performance 

18. Distribution Statement

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 

22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages

46 

22. Price

Form DOT F1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

INTRODUCTION 1 

Purpose 1 

Objectives 2 

Background 2 

METHODS AND PROCEDURES 3 

Test Equipment 4 

Test Vehicles, Test Devices, and Agents 4 

The FAA HPRV 4 

The P-19 Truck 4 

Extinguishing Agents 6 

Test Description 6 

F-100 Engine Nacelle and 30-ft-Diameter Ring Test Device 6 

Tail-Mounted, High Engine Nacelle Test Device 8 

Large Diameter Fire Burn Area 10 

Water Stream Throw Range Tests 11 

Agent Stream Throw Range Tests 14 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 15 

Results of the F-100 Engine Nacelle Fire Tests 15 

Results of the Tail-Mounted, High Engine Nacelle Fire Tests 17 

Results of the Large-Scale (100-ft-Diameter) Pool Fire Tests 20 

Results of the Water Stream Throw Range Tests 22 

Results of the Agent Stream Throw Range Tests 25 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 28 

APPENDIX A—TEST RESULTS

iii
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1 High-Performance Research Vehicle With Bumper-Mounted Turret 1 

2 United States Air Force P-19 With Roof-Mounted Turret 1 

3 The HPRV With 500-gpm High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted 

Turret 5 

4 The P-19 With a Standard 500-gpm Roof-Mounted Turret 5 

5 F-100 Engine Nacelle and 30-ft-Diameter Ring Test Device 7 

6 Typical Vehicle Positioning for the F-100 Engine Nacelle and 30-ft Ring Fire 

Tests 8 

7 Tail-Mounted, High Engine Nacelle Fire Test Device 9 

8 Large Diameter Fire Burn Area 10 

9 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Full-Up Position 

With the Turret at 30° 13 

10 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Nozzle Joystick 

Control 13 

11 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Jig Set at 20° 14 

12 Average Results of the F-100 Engine Nacelle Fire Tests 16 

13 View of the F-100 Fire Scene From the P-19 Cab 17 

14 Average Results of the Tail-Mounted, High Engine Nacelle Fire Tests 18 

15 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Using AFFF on a 

2-D Pool Fire 19 

16 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Using Both 

AFFF and PKP on a 3-D Flowing Fuel Fire 19 

17 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Using AFFF 20 

18 Average Results of the Large-Scale Pool Fire Tests 21 

19a The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Water Stream 

Throw Range Tests, Set to DIF Position at Various Degrees of Elevation 22 

iv
19b The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Water Stream 

Throw Range Tests, Set to Fully Extended Position at Various Degrees of 

Elevation 23 

19c The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Water Stream 

Throw Range Tests, Set to Full-Up Position at Various Degrees of Elevation 24 

20 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Water Stream Throw Range Tests at Various 

Degrees of Elevation 24 

21 Comparison of the High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret 

and the P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Water Stream Throw Range Tests at a 30°

Elevation 25 

22 Comparison of the High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret 

Agent Stream Throw Range Test Results With the P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Set 

at Various Positions and Degrees of Elevation 26 

23 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Agent Stream Throw Range Tests at Various 

Degrees of Elevation 27 

24 Typical Agent Pattern Results Using AFFF 27 

25 Comparison of the Turrets at an Elevation of 30° 28 

v
LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret F-100 Engine 

Nacelle Fire Test Matrices 8 

2 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret F-100 Engine Nacelle Fire Test Matrices 8 

3 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret High Engine 

Nacelle Fire Test Matrices 10 

4 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret High Engine Nacelle Fire Test Matrices 10 

5 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Large-Scale Fire 

Test Matrices 11 

6 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Large-Scale Fire Test Matrices 11 

7 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Water Stream 

Throw Range Test Matrices 12 

8 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Water Stream Throw Range Test Matrices 12 

9 The High-Performance, Multiposition, Bumper-Mounted Turret Agent Stream 

Throw Range Test Matrices 15 

10 The P-19 Roof-Mounted Turret Agent Stream Throw Range Test Matrices 15 

vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS 

2-D Two-dimensional 

3-D Three-dimensional 

AFB Air Force Base 

AFFF Aqueous film-forming foam 

ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting 

DEVS Driver’s Enhanced Vision System 

DIF Down-in-front 

DNE Did not extinguish 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FFOD Firefighting operational distance 

gpm Gallons per minute 

gps Gallons per second 

HPRV High-performance research vehicle 

HRET High-reach extendable turret 

mph Miles per hour 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

PCA Practical critical area 

PKP Potassium bicarbonate 

psi Per square inch 

rpm Revolutions per minute 

USAF United States Air Force 

vii/viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Advances in firefighting research have brought forth new concepts that have the potential for 

greatly enhancing firefighting capabilities of airport fire fighters. One such concept is the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret. The research described in this report 

evaluated various operating characteristics of the high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret and compared those characteristics to the roof-mounted turret. Specific items 

addressed included extinguishment times for various types of fires, amount of agent required for 

extinguishment throw ranges, and overall performance. To investigate these items, a highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was mounted on the Federal Aviation 

Administration high-performance research vehicle and was transferred to the Air Force Research 

Laboratory at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, for the comparative evaluation. Testing involved 

three-dimensional engine nacelle and high engine nacelle tail fires, two-dimensional pool fires, 

water and agent throw range tests, and turret operations. 

The evaluation concluded that the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was 

superior in performance compared to the roof-mounted turret. In all aspects of the evaluation, 

the data for throw ranges, extinguishment times, the amount of agent dispersed, and overall 

performance of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret far exceeded those 

of the roof-mounted turret. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret 

enabled the driver/operator to extinguish the test fires in less time and with less agent 

consumption than with the roof-mounted turret. 

ix/x
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE. 

The test series compared the effectiveness and flow performance of a high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret (National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 402 defines 

a turret as a vehicle-mounted master stream appliance) mounted on the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) high-performance research vehicle (HPRV) to the flow performance and 

known operational capability of a United States Air Force (USAF) P-19 roof-mounted turret. 

The HPRV, with the bumper-mounted turret, is shown in figure 1, and the USAF P-19 with the 

roof-mounted turret, is shown in figure 2. 

FIGURE 1. HIGH-PERFORMANCE RESEARCH VEHICLE WITH 

BUMPER-MOUNTED TURRET 

FIGURE 2. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE P-19 WITH ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET 

1
OBJECTIVES. 

The objectives of the test series were to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the HPRV 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret and compare it to the performance of a 

P-19 roof-mounted turret. To document these objectives, the following test criteria were 

established: 

• Compare both turrets in extinguishment and agent used during F-100 engine nacelle test 

fires. 

• Compare both turrets in extinguishment and agent used during tail-mounted, high engine 

nacelle fires. 

• Compare both turrets in extinguishment and agent used during large-scale, twodimensional (2-D) pool fires. 

• Evaluate the performance of each turret in simulated aircraft crash firefighting situations 

using a large-scale aircraft mockup. 

• Evaluate the water stream throw range performance of the high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret at various boom and turret elevations, and the P-19 

roof-mounted turret at various elevations. 

• Evaluate the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) throw range and pattern width of the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret at various boom and turret 

elevations, and the P-19 roof-mounted turret at various elevations. 

• Evaluate and compare the driver/operator performance using the high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret and the P-19 roof-mounted turret while driving and 

operating the vehicles under test conditions. 

BACKGROUND. 

The HPRV is a test platform for new and innovative concepts of interest to civil and military 

aviation fire protection. In the past, a high-reach extendable turret (HRET) was mounted and 

tested on the HPRV. Similarly, an all-weather Driver’s Enhanced Vision System (DEVS) was 

developed and tested on the HPRV. These state-of-the-art devices provide significant 

advantages to responding aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) personnel and are now 

commonly specified for new vehicle purchases or for retrofitting existing vehicles. The HPRV 

was equipped with a high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret developed by 

Crash Rescue System, Inc., Dallas, Texas, which was given the trade name RhinoTM. The Rhino 

is an innovative product design that could significantly advance commercially available bumpermounted turret designs and firefighting concepts. It has not been tested or evaluated in largescale, 1000-gallon, open-air fossil fuel fires to determine its effectiveness or its limitations, nor 

has it been compared to the proven performance of a roof-mounted turret mounted on an ARFF 

vehicle. To date, the only manufacturer information or performance data related to the bumpermounted turret is in the form of an owner’s manual and operating instructions. Information 

2
obtained from the tests and evaluations of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret can be transitioned to the U.S. military. This device, or a similar concept, could enhance 

the firefighting capability of current ARFF vehicles and serve as a low-cost alternative to an 

elevated platform or HRET for airport operators. The Air Force Research Laboratory’s 100-ftdiameter, open-air burn facility (located at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida), which 

contains a large-scale aircraft mock-up with test engine nacelles, is designed and instrumented to 

collect and validate aircraft crash parameters and to document the actual firefighting 

performance of new aviation industry devices such as the Rhino. The P-19 provides an 

accessible and realistic platform to perform comparison tests in a large-scale, live fire test 

environment. 

METHODS AND PROCEDURES 

All live fire and agent throw range tests were conducted in a controlled, outside 100-ft-diameter 

fire burn area. Every effort was made to simulate the same firefighting environment that might 

be encountered at actual aircraft crash fire incidents or accidents. Each test was replicated to 

ensure the accuracy of the data being collected. Multiple test fires i.e., simulated crash 

firefighting with a large-scale aircraft mock-up; large-scale, 2-D pool fires; F-100 engine nacelle 

test fires; and high engine nacelle tail-mounted fires were conducted in the presence of a variety 

of hot metal surfaces. Reignition sources, such as cascading over heated surfaces, fuel collecting 

in small pools, debris piles adjacent to the large-scale aircraft mockup, or fire within the engine 

nacelles, were also present. 

A series of three tests of each turret type were conducted, and the results were averaged to 

achieve the final test results. If one of the test results varied by more than 25%, the tests were 

repeated and that average was used to establish the final test results. Extinguishment time, 

defined as the time required to completely extinguish all visible fire on or within the contained 

area or test apparatus, takes into consideration all the time needed to extinguish all visible fire, 

including the time to reposition around the periphery of the fire area. Fires occurring outside the 

test area, including those that might occur in the large-scale aircraft mockup, were not considered 

as part of the test. 

Discharge time, defined as the recorded time of an actual discharge, was also recorded as a 

means to determine the actual amount of agent used during each live fire test. This data was 

compared to the amount of agent each vehicle needed to extinguish the same amount of fire in a 

given test situation following a predetermined test matrix. 

In addition to an extensive number of live fire tests, throw range tests were also conducted. A 

comparison of the throw performance of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret on the HPRV and the roof-mounted turret on the P-19 was performed. Both turrets 

delivered 500 gpm of water or foam solution at 210 and 225 pounds per square inch (psi), 

respectively. Each head-to-head test series established the means to compare and evaluate the 

performance of the turrets during a range of operational tests. Throw range tests were conducted 

in calm wind conditions of 3 to 5 miles per hour, with the vehicle facing downwind. 

3
TEST EQUIPMENT. 

Data collection for the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret and the P-19 

roof-mounted turret was accomplished by using. 

• Stopwatches to record fire extinguishment and preburn. 

• A 250-foot measuring tape was used to measure throw distance and pattern widths. 

• An inclinometer to measure elevation settings. 

• Precut blocks of wood were used to ensure the stability of the P-19 roof-mounted turret 

during testing. 

• Video was taken to record the fire tests and to verify all times. 

TEST VEHICLES, TEST DEVICES, AND AGENTS. 

THE FAA HPRV. Figure 1 shows that the HPRV is equipped with an HRET device (used to 

extinguish fires on the interior of aircraft), and a DEVS device to aid the ARFF (used at night 

and during adverse weather), which are mounted on the top of the vehicle. The HPRV is also 

equipped with the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret (in the full-up home 

position), which is mounted on the front bumper. The HPRV engine provides pump and roll 

capabilities to the transmission and simultaneously provides power to the fire pump. When the 

HRPV is not involved in fire experiments, it is assigned to the Atlantic City International Airport 

Fire Department. 

The HPRV was configured with the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret 

shown in figure 3. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret, normally set to 

deliver 750 gallons per minute (gpm) at a high-flow setting and 375 gpm at a low-flow setting, 

was preset to discharge 500 gpm of AFFF solution at a rate of 8.3 gallons per second (gps). The 

500-gpm discharge rate equals the discharge rate of the P-19 roof-mounted turret, thus making 

the two vehicles have comparable performance qualities. The high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret operates within a wide range of vertical and horizontal elevations. 

Joystick controls very similar to the controls found on other fixed roof-mounted turrets and deck 

guns control the dual agent extinguishing capability of the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret. 

THE P-19 TRUCK. A P-19 aircraft crash and structural firefighting truck, without the structural 

firefighting kit, was used in the comparison tests. Similar to the HPRV, the P-19 engine 

provides pump and roll capabilities to the transmission and simultaneously provides power to the 

fire pump. The P-19 shown in figure 4, with a roof-mounted, 500-gpm turret, was one of two 

P-19s used in the comparison tests. 

The P-19’s firefighting system is driven by a single-stage centrifugal water pump. The variablestream, roof-mounted turret is made by Akron Brass and is rated at 500 gpm with a discharge 

pressure of 225 psi at the turret, delivering 8.3 gps. The P-19 roof-mounted turret is manually 

4
FIGURE 3. THE HPRV WITH 500-gpm HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, 

BUMPER-MOUNTED TURRET 

FIGURE 4. THE P-19 WITH A STANDARD 500-gpm ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET 

5
operated, aimed, and controlled by the driver/operator inside the cab. Directional control is 

maintained by a single handle, which moves the turret in both the horizontal and vertical planes. 

The position of the handle corresponds to the position of the turret. The turret discharge valve is 

activated by pressing the button on the grip-end of the turret’s directional control handle once, 

and pressing the button again stops the discharge. 

EXTINGUISHING AGENTS. Most aircraft incidents and accidents involve some type of threedimensional (3-D) flowing fuel fires. The potential for igniting flowing fuel that comes in 

contact with hot metal surfaces is present in virtually every aircraft fire situation. Threedimensional fires occur when fuel or hydraulic fluid from damaged lines and equipment on the 

aircraft continuously drain into normally dry bay compartments or external openings. The 2-D 

pool fire is constantly resupplied by a 3-D flowing fuel column and generally requires constant 

aggressive agent application for control. These factors make control and extinguishment of the 

combination 2-D and 3-D fires difficult when only a foam agent is applied. Three-dimensional 

agents are highly effective knockdown agents but do not possess adequate cooling and burn-back 

resistance to prevent reignition, and they are limited in their ability to be thrown (discharged) 

over long distances. The Mil Spec 3% AFFF concentrate used in this test is the most widely 

used foam agent in the world for extinguishing 2-D ground or surface pool Class B fires. 

Military and civil aviation crash fire trucks are equipped with foam/water pumps designed 

specifically for discharging AFFF. The AFFF has superior burn-back resistance to impinging 

fire by creating foam that quickly spreads across the surface of burning fuel and sealing 

flammable vapors. 

The dry chemical chosen for the test was potassium bicarbonate (PKP). PKP has a good 

knockdown capability and is effective against pressurized 3-D fires, such as those occurring on 

oil wellhead fires. In commercial use, a purple dye is added to the dry chemical to visually aid 

fire fighters in discharging the agent into the fire. Similarly, the purple dye aided in determining 

how the agent interacted with the AFFF when it was discharged into the dual agent stream. 

When discharged by itself, slight breezes can easily influence the direction of the dry chemical. 

A gust of wind could diffuse the agent rendering it ineffective. A downwind approach was 

necessary to prevent the agent from being carried away in the wind. 

TEST DESCRIPTION. 

F-100 ENGINE NACELLE AND 30-ft-DIAMETER RING TEST DEVICE. The F-100 engine 

nacelle and 30-ft-diameter ring, shown in figure 5, were used to compare the ability of the turrets 

to extinguish flowing fuel fires from fixed ground-level fire threats that might occur from fires 

under wing engines. 

The test configuration established a medium-scale 2-D and 3-D test apparatus for the initial 

comparison and evaluation of the turrets. The fire area in this test corresponds to the practical 

critical area (PCA) of a category 1 airport based on the NFPA 403 document titled “Standard for 

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Services at Airports.” A category 1 airport, as described in 

NFPA 403, would include aircraft such as the Cessna 206 or Beech Bonanza 35. A 6-inch-high 

steel ring was placed on a level concrete slab to form a 30-ft diameter ring to contain the fuel 

within the ring and create the kind of fire scenario most likely to occur on a tarmac or other 

6
aircraft parking area. The hot metal surfaces on the F-100 engine nacelle and the 30-ft-diameter 

metal ring were sufficient to keep the JP-8 fuel vaporizing until the foam extinguished the fire 

and cooled the hot metal. Approximately 3 inches of water was put into the ring to establish a 

smooth, level surface for the 100 gallons of JP-8 jet fuel. The ring contained the fuel and 

prevented the fire from propagating outside the ring. Fuel spilling from the F-100 engine nacelle 

was ignited and allowed to flow into the 30-ft ring. The fuel was allowed to flow continuously 

throughout the test at a rate of 5 gpm. The fuel within the 30-ft ring was ignited immediately 

following ignition of the engine nacelle and allowed to preburn for 30 seconds to ensure a steady 

burn rate. Prior to the tests, each vehicle was placed in a stationary position 50 ft upwind of the 

engine nacelle and the 30-ft ring, as shown in figure 6. In this figure, the P-19 is shown 

attacking the fire from its prepositioned location upwind of the engine nacelle. To ensure a 

similarity in attack procedures, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret 

remained stationary in the fully extended position with articulation occurring at the turret. The 

driver/operator was permitted to move the nozzle as needed to extinguish the fire. This closely 

duplicated the action of the P-19 roof-mounted turret, resulting in a better comparison of the two 

devices. Once the optimum attack position was assumed, the fire vehicles were not allowed to 

reposition, but the driver/operator could move the turrets as necessary to extinguish the fire. The 

driver/operator was instructed to attack the fire as aggressively as possible and complete the 

extinguishment as quickly as possible. At the conclusion of each test, all water, foam, and fuel 

were removed from the ring and test fixture. Three tests of each agent or combination of agents 

were conducted to determine the unique suppression capability of each turret and the agent 

application technique. The test matrices shown in tables 1 and 2 were used as a guide for

conducting the F-100 engine nacelle and 30-ft-diameter ring fire tests. 

FIGURE 5. F-100 ENGINE NACELLE AND 30-ft-DIAMETER RING TEST DEVICE 

7
FIGURE 6. TYPICAL VEHICLE POSITIONING FOR THE F-100 ENGINE NACELLE AND 

30-ft RING FIRE TESTS 

TABLE 1. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET F-100 ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent No. of Fires 

1-1A through 1-1C 3% AFFF (Mil Spec) 3 

1-2A and 1-2B Dry Chemical 2 

1-3A through 1-3C Combination Agent 3 

TABLE 2. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET F-100 ENGINE NACELLE 

FIRE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent No. of Fires 

2-1A through 2-1C 3% AFFF (Mil Spec) 3 

TAIL-MOUNTED, HIGH ENGINE NACELLE TEST DEVICE. The high engine nacelle test 

device shown in figure 7 was used to establish a baseline of performance for the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret. The high engine nacelle is tail-mounted on 

the aircraft mockup approximately 25 ft above ground level and is equipped with high-pressure 

fuel spray nozzles similar to those used in the F-100 engine nacelle. In this fire scenario, fuel is 

8
sprayed from two orifices within the engine nacelle at a rate of 5 gpm. Initially, the fuel pools in 

the engine nacelle and then cascades downward over the simulated aircraft frame into a pool on 

each side of the aircraft. Fires occurred within the engine nacelle, on the aircraft surface, and in 

the pool formed by the flowing fuel. The pool fire is approximately 30 ft in diameter, contains 

100 gallons of JP-8 on ignition, and generally corresponds to the PCA of a category 1 airport, 

based on NFPA 403. The degree of difficulty in extinguishing the fire was a test parameter. To 

ensure a similarity in attack procedures, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret remained stationary in the full-up position, with articulation occurring at the turret. This 

closely duplicated the action of the P-19 roof-mounted turret, resulting in a better comparison of 

the technologies used. Once the optimum attack position was assumed, the fire vehicles were 

not allowed to reposition, but the drivers/operators were free to move the turrets as necessary 

extinguish to the fire. 

FIGURE 7. TAIL-MOUNTED, HIGH ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TEST DEVICE 

The fire was attacked from an upwind stationary position approximately 50 ft from the engine 

nacelle. The driver/operator was instructed to attack the fire aggressively and complete the 

extinguishment as quickly as possible. At the conclusion of each test, all water, foam, and fuel 

were removed from the engine nacelle, aircraft, and pool fire area. 

The matrices shown in tables 3 and 4 were used to establish the minimum number of fires 

needed to determine a baseline of performance for evaluating turret performance when 

combating a fire in high engine nacelles. At the discretion of the test director, additional fires 

could be conducted as necessary to ensure that the data collected was accurate and to determine 

if the vehicle’s fire suppression system was performing normally. 

9
TABLE 3. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET HIGH ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent No. of Fires 

3-1A through 3-1C 3% AFFF (Mil Spec) 3 

3-2A through 3-2C Dry Chemical 3 

3-3A through 3-3C Combination Agent 3 

TABLE 4. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET HIGH ENGINE NACELLE 

FIRE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent No. of Fires 

4-1A through 4-1C 3% AFFF (Mil Spec) 3 

LARGE DIAMETER FIRE BURN AREA. The 100-ft-diameter (7854-square-foot) fire burn 

area shown in figure 8 was used to compare and evaluate the firefighting performance of the two 

turrets in a large-scale test environment. 

FIGURE 8. LARGE DIAMETER FIRE BURN AREA 

The fire area in this test corresponds to the PCA of a category 6 airport, based on NFPA 403. 

This is equivalent to the FAA Index B under Title 14 Code of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 

139. A British Aerospace 146-200 is a representative aircraft to this FAA Index or NFPA 

category 6. 

Approximately 2 inches of water was put into the 100-ft-diameter burn area to establish a 

smooth, level surface on which the 1000 gallons of JP-8 jet fuel floated. This open-air fire 

10
environment allowed the fuel to pool or flow as surface winds dictated. Similarly, turret streams 

moved the fuel across the surface of water in the same manner that occurs on wide-open tarmacs 

or runways. The intent of the spill was to ensure that sufficient fuel flowed into the fire burn 

area, requiring the fire fighters to maneuver the test vehicles around the 100-ft-diameter fire burn 

area. A 1000-gallon fuel spill covered over 90% of the fire burn area’s surface. The existing 

aircraft mock-up, including supports, helped maintain a heat sink sufficient to keep the JP-8 fuel 

vaporizing until the firefighting agents, or combination of agents, extinguished the fire and 

cooled the hot metal below its reignition temperature. In these tests, only one driver/operator 

was selected to perform all large-scale tests. The driver/operator was instructed to preposition 

the vehicles upwind, select an optimum approach path, approach the fire from upwind, and apply 

the agent or combination of agents uniformly to the fire surface while in a pump and roll 

operation rather than from a stationary position. The HPRV driver/operator was also instructed 

to position the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret in a downward, out in 

front position to expedite the extinguishment of the fire. This position maximized the likelihood 

that the agent(s) was being applied uniformly to the fire surface at a sufficient depth to reduce 

burn-back. Additionally, the driver/operator was instructed to extinguish the fire as rapidly and 

as safely as possible. The actual duration of the extinguishment effort was determined to be the 

length of time it took the driver/operator to fully extinguish the fire. Extinguishment time began 

when the agent was first applied to the fire and continued until the fire was fully extinguished. 

Extinguishment time did not include discharge time, as a function of extinguishment. The 

amount of agent used in the fire is related to actual nozzle discharge time, as discussed in 

appendix A. The fire test matrices shown in tables 5 and 6 were used to conduct the large-scale 

fire test experiments. 

TABLE 5. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET LARGE-SCALE FIRE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent No. of Fires 

5-1A through 5-1E 3% AFFF (Mil Spec) 5 

5-2A through 5-2D Combination Agent 4 

TABLE 6. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET LARGE-SCALE 

FIRE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent No. of Fires 

6-1A through 6-1C 3% AFFF (Mil Spec) 3 

WATER STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS. The test matrices shown in tables 7 and 8 show 

the number and types of tests conducted to measure the water stream throw range distances 

produced by the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret and the P-19 roofmounted turret. In these tests, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was 

placed in three firefighting positions: full-up, fully extended, and down-in-front (DIF). 

Likewise, the P-19 roof-mounted turret was positioned at 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30°, respectively, to 

obtain maximum reach. Figure 9 shows a technician using an inclinometer to position the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret to the desired elevation prior to the test. The 

11
inclinometer was used at the end of the test to ensure that the turret did not move, and that it 

remained steady under pressure and during discharge. Each vehicle was prepositioned in a 

downwind position. In a near calm wind condition, water was discharged from the turret to 

ascertain the longest possible throw distance at the preset elevation. Following an agent 

discharge, the distance from the turret to the end point of the agent pattern that best established, 

the furthest point the agent had reached was measured. This measurement did not include any 

forward movement of the agent as it flowed forward of the agent stream. During the flow, the 

effective mass was established, that is, the point at which the agent begins to fall out of the agent 

stream and become an effective firefighting operational distance (FFOD). The width of the 

agent was measured and the water stream patterns were documented and are tabulated in table A1 of appendix A. 

TABLE 7. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Boom Position 

Turret 

Position

0°

Turret 

Position

10°

Turret 

Position 

20°

Turret 

Position

30°

7-1A through 7-1C Full-up 3 

7-2A through 7-2C Full-up 3 

7-3A through 7-3C Full-up 3 

7-4A through 7-4C Fully extended 3 

7-5A through 7-5C Fully extended 3 

7-6A through 7-6C DIF 3 

7-7A through 7-7C DIF 3 

7-8A through 7-8C DIF 3 

7-9A through 7-9C DIF 3 

7-10A through 7-10C Full-up 3 

7-11A through 7-11C Fully extended 3 

7-12A through 7-12C Fully extended 3 

TABLE 8. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE 

TEST MATRICES 

Test No. 

Turret 

Position 0° 10° 20° 30°

8-1A through 8-1C N/A 3 

8-2A through 8-2C N/A 3 

8-3A through 8-3C N/A 3 

8-4A through 8-4C N/A 3 

12
FIGURE 9. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET FULL-UP POSITION WITH THE TURRET AT 30°

The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was placed in position by using the 

control system joystick shown in figure 10. 

FIGURE 10. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET NOZZLE JOYSTICK CONTROL 

13
Because the P-19 roof-mounted turret is bolted to the top of the vehicle’s roof, it cannot be 

evaluated in the same manner as the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret. 

Therefore, a jig was fabricated to allow the turret to be elevated to the desired test positions of 

0°, 10°, 20°, and 30°, respectively. A common rooftop tie-down strap was used to hold the jig 

securely in place while the fire pump was engaged, as shown in figure 11. Water was then 

discharged from each of these positions. 

FIGURE 11. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET JIG SET AT 20°

AGENT STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS. The test matrices shown in tables 9 and 10 show 

the number and types of tests conducted to measure the agent stream throw range distances. 

These tests were conducted to compare the ability of the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret and the P-19 roof-mounted turret to discharge AFFF at the distances 

previously measured during the water stream throw range tests. The high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was placed in its three normal firefighting positions, fullup, fully extended, and DIF. The turret was placed at 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30°, respectively, to 

obtain the maximum reach at those elevations. The P-19 roof-mounted turret was placed at a 0°, 

10°, 20°, and 30° elevation using the jig and tie down strap shown in figure 11. Each vehicle 

was prepositioned in a stationary position facing downwind. In a calm wind condition, AFFF 

was then discharged from each of the turret positions to ascertain the longest possible throw 

distance at the preset elevation. In this series of tests, laboratory personnel evaluated the 

performance of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret to discharge agents, 

maintain a coherent dry chemical agent pattern, and measure the results of the discharge. In each 

test, the distance from the turret to the point in the agent pattern that best established the effective 

FFOD was measured. The width of the agent pattern was measured and an outline of the water 

stream pattern was drawn on a data collection sheet. 

14
TABLE 9. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET AGENT STREAM THROW RANGE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent Turret Position 

Elevation 

(degrees) 

No. of 

Tests 

9-1A through 9-1C AFFF DIF 10 3 

9-2A through 9-2C AFFF Fully extended 10 3 

9-3A and 9-3B AFFF Full-up 10 3 

9-4A and 9-4B PKP DIF 10 2 

9-5A PKP Full-up 10 1 

9-6A through 9-6C AFFF Full-up 30 3 

9-7A through 9-7C AFFF Full-up 30 3 

TABLE 10. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET AGENT STREAM THROW 

RANGE TEST MATRICES 

Test No. Agent Turret Position 

Elevation 

(degrees) 

No. of 

Tests 

10-1A through 10-1C AFFF N/A 0 3 

10-2A through 10-2C AFFF N/A 10 3 

10-3A through 10-3C AFFF N/A 20 3 

10-4A through 10-4C AFFF N/A 30 3 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

RESULTS OF THE F-100 ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TESTS. 

The results of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret F-100 engine nacelle 

fire tests are shown in figure 12 and in tables A-1 and A-2 of appendix A. 

The timed differential between tests 1-1A and 1-1B in table A-1 was substantial and misleading; 

therefore, it could not be used to establish a baseline of performance for fires of this type. Due to 

a lack of driver/operator proficiency and knowledge of the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret, test 1-1A did not extinguish (DNE). The results of test 1-1B, on the 

other hand, were significantly lower due to insufficient heat sync in the F-100 engine cavity, 

which was not representative of an aircraft engine in a fire condition. Thus, three more tests 

were conducted to attain more accurate data. 

Tests 1-1C through 1-1E, as shown in table A-1 and summarized in figure 12, show that the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret successfully extinguished the F-100 

engine nacelle fires. Averaging 32 seconds for extinguishment in the latter three fires, the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret used an average of slightly over 265 gallons 

of AFFF solution to completely extinguish the F-100 engine nacelle fires. 

15
c 

44 sec. 

32 sec. 

13.3 sec.

DNE 

 HPRV HPRV HPRV P-19 

 AFFF PKP AFFF/PKP AFFF 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

(seconds) 

FIGURE 12. AVERAGE RESULTS OF THE F-100 ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TESTS 

In test 1-2A, the PKP failed to extinguish the fire, even though a full load (500 pounds) of PKP 

was expended. It was determined that further attempts to combat fires of this magnitude without 

benefit of a supplemental AFFF solution cooling agent would achieve similar results. 

In tests 1-3A through 1-3D in table A-1, the combination of AFFF and PKP delivered from the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret extinguished the F-100 engine nacelle 

fires in an average of 13.3 seconds. Slightly over 117 gallons of AFFF solution and 284 pounds 

of PKP were used in the suppression effort. An analysis of this data, based on the average 

extinguishment time, showed that the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret, 

when used in the dual agent mode, extinguished the F-100 engine nacelle fires agent in 42% of 

the time that it took when using AFFF alone. In addition, the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret took 30% of the time the P-19 roof-mounted turret took using AFFF 

solution alone. The efficiency of the HPRV’s dual agent turret to attack and extinguish 3-D fires 

resulted in a 58% savings in AFFF solution compared to using only AFFF, and nearly a 70% 

savings in AFFF compared to the P-19 roof-mounted turret. 

The results of the P-19 roof-mounted turret F-100 engine nacelle fire tests are also shown in 

figure 12 and in table A-2. In tests 2-1A through 2-1C in table A-2, the P-19 roof-mounted turret 

extinguished the F-100 engine nacelle fires in an average of 44 seconds, using approximately 

365 gallons of AFFF solution to completely extinguish the fire. 

An important issue to observe is the view from the P-19’s cab during fire suppression, as shown 

in figure 13. This figure shows the difficulty the P-19 driver/operator has in viewing the fire 

scene and in locating the fire. Given the limited view of the fire scene and virtually no view of 

16
the test device from the vehicle’s stationary position, the driver/operator occasionally stops the 

flow of agent to determine whether or not the fire has been extinguished. This operation resulted 

in increased firefighting time and increased the amount of agent needed to suppress the fire. 

FIGURE 13. VIEW OF THE F-100 FIRE SCENE FROM THE P-19 CAB 

RESULTS OF THE TAIL-MOUNTED, HIGH ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TESTS. 

The results of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret high engine nacelle 

fire tests are shown in figure 14 and table A-3 of appendix A. In tests 3-1A through 3-1C in 

table A-3 using AFFF only, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret 

extinguished the fires in an average of 43.6 seconds, and used an average of 361.8 gallons of 

agent. Figure 15 shows the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret’s attack on 

the high engine nacelle fire using AFFF only. In test 3-2A in table A-3 using PKP only, the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret failed to extinguish the fire, even 

though the full load (500 pounds) of PKP was expended. Therefore, no other fire tests were 

attempted because it was determined the outcome would be the same. The P-19 roof-mounted 

turret did not contain PKP, therefore a performance comparison could not be made. In 

tests 3-3A through 3-3E in table A-3, covering a 2-day period, the dual agent capability of the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was evaluated. 

In tests 3-3A and 3-3B in table A-3, the timed difference was significant, and the results were 

determined to be misleading in terms of establishing a baseline of performance. Consequently, 

three additional tests were initiated to establish the high-performance, multiposition, bumper17
mounted turret’s baseline performance. In tests 3-3C through test 3-3E in table A-3, the high 

engine nacelle flowing fuel fires were extinguished in an average of 36.3 seconds. Slightly over 

301 gallons of AFFF solution was continuously discharged on the pool fire and into the high 

engine nacelle. The PKP dry chemical agent was used to combat the high engine nacelle fire 

only. The PKP was discharged for an average of 11 seconds per fire and an average of 220 

pounds of PKP was used to suppress this fire. 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

53 sec. 

seconds)

43 sec. 

36 sec.

DNE 

(

 HPRV HPRV HPRV P-19 

 AFFF PKP AFFF/PKP AFFF 

FIGURE 14. AVERAGE RESULTS OF THE TAIL-MOUNTED, HIGH ENGINE 

NACELLE FIRE TESTS 

Figures 15 and 16 show the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret attack on 

the 25-ft-high engine nacelle using only AFFF in tests 3-1A through 3-1C in table A-3 and AFFF 

and PKP in tests 3-3A through 3-3E in table A-3. The purple dye in the PKP allows the 

driver/operator to see exactly where the agent is being placed. Because the turret is mounted on 

the bumper, the driver/operator has a clear view of the fire scene. Figure 15 shows the turret in 

the low position. Figure 16 shows the turret in the full-up position. 

The results of the P-19 roof-mounted turret high engine nacelle fire tests are also shown in 

figure 14 and in table A-4 of appendix A. The results of the four test fires were mixed, but these 

results did reveal the difficulty AFFF had in extinguishing 3-D flowing fuel fires. In test 4-1A in 

table A-4, an insufficient heat sync at the outset of the fire test resulted in a unrealistic 

extinguishment of the fire, therefore, the fire test was discounted. In test 4-1B in table A-4, the 

P-19 roof-mounted turret failed to extinguish the fire, resulting in a DNE. This fire was not 

measurable and was also discounted. The P-19’s full load of 1000 gallons of water and 

18
FIGURE 15. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET USING AFFF ON A 2-D POOL FIRE 

FIGURE 16. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET USING BOTH AFFF AND PKP ON A 3-D FLOWING FUEL FIRE 

30 gallons of AFFF were discharged onto the fire without effect. The two test fires (4-1C and 

4-10D) that were measured resulted in an average extinguishment time of 53 seconds. On 

average, nearly 440 gallons of AFFF solution was needed to extinguish test fires 4-1C and 4-1D. 

19
The P-19 roof-mounted turret attack on the high engine nacelle fire is shown in figure 17. Note 

the obscured view from the driver/operator’s perspective. 

FIGURE 17. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET USING AFFF 

A comparison of the results of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret and 

the P-19 roof-mounted turret during high engine nacelle fire tests, based upon the performance 

average of that turret, is shown in appendix A. An analysis of this data, based on the average 

time to complete extinguishments, shows that the dual agent, high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret extinguished the high engine nacelle fires 15 times faster than AFFF 

alone, and 19 times faster than AFFF discharged from the P-19 roof-mounted turret. Further, the 

efficiency of the dual agent, high-performance, multiposition, bumper turret to attack and 

extinguish 3-D flowing fuel fires resulted in a nearly 11% savings in AFFF compared to the 

same turret delivering AFFF alone, and a 13% savings in AFFF compared to the P-19 roofmounted turret. An important issue to compare is the view from the HPRV cab during fire 

suppression, as shown in figures 15 and 16. These figures show that the driver/operator of the 

HPRV has a clear view of the fire scene, while the driver/operator of the P-19, as shown in figure 

17, has a limited view of the fire scene and virtually no view of the test device from the vehicle’s 

stationary position. 

RESULTS OF THE LARGE-SCALE (100-ft-DIAMETER) POOL FIRE TESTS. 

The results of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret large-scale (100-ftdiameter) JP-8 pool fire tests are shown in figure 18. In tests 5-1A through 5-1C in table A-5 of 

appendix A, AFFF was used exclusively for fire suppression. In tests 5-1A through 5-1C in table 

A-5, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret suppressed the large-scale 

pool fires in an average of 1 minute and 8 seconds (68 seconds), inclusive of the time needed to 

modulate to a better position of attack. The average actual agent discharge time was 50 seconds, 

indicating the HPRV used 415 gallons of AFFF solution to extinguish the large-scale pool fires. 

20
120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

104 

sec. 

81 

sec. 68 

sec. 50 

sec. 

109 

sec. 

87 

sec. 

 P-19 HPRV HPRV 

 High Flow Low Flow 

Ext. 

Time

Discharge 

Time

(seconds) 

FIGURE 18. AVERAGE RESULTS OF THE LARGE-SCALE POOL FIRE TESTS 

A comparison of the high- and low-flow capability of the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret is also depicted in figure 18. The low-flow results shown in figure 18 

were used in the comparison merely to document the capability of the turret to extinguish fire in 

a low-flow condition. In tests 5-1D and 5-1E in table A-5, the low-flow discharge setting on the 

remote control was selected in an effort to compare the high- and low-flow performance of the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret in a large fire situation. In a low-flow 

setting, the HPRV dispenses AFFF solution at 250 gpm at 160 psi at approximately 1250 

revolutions per minute (rpm). This compares to the higher-flow setting of 500 gpm at 210 psi at 

1500 rpm. In tests 5-1D and 5-1E in table A-5, the high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret extinguished the test fires in an average of 1 minute and 49 seconds (109 

seconds). The actual discharge time averaged 1 minute and 27 seconds (87 seconds). The 

HPRV is estimated to have used approximately 722 gallons of AFFF solution at the lower 

setting. 

In tests 6-1A through 6-1C shown in table A-6 and summarized in figure 18, AFFF was used 

exclusively for fire suppression. In these three tests, the P-19 roof-mounted turret suppressed the 

100-ft-diameter pool fires in an average of 1 minute and 44 seconds (104 seconds). This is 

inclusive of the time needed to reposition to the next firefighting position for the best angle of 

attack on the fire. The average discharge time of the three tests was 1 minute and 21 seconds 

(81 seconds). At 8.3 gps, the average amount of agent discharged to extinguish the fully 

involved 100-ft-diameter pool fire was 672 gallons. 

A comparison of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret in a high-flow 

setting and the P-19 roof-mounted turret at an equivalent flow shows that the high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret suppressed the large-scale pool fire in 62% of the time it 

took the roof-mounted turret, thus using 38% less AFFF solution than the P-19 roof-mounted 

turret.

21
RESULTS OF THE WATER STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS.

Many throw tests were conducted to document the performance of the high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret at various nozzle and turret elevations. These nonfire tests 

were conducted and recorded to compare the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret’s performance to itself and to record these results in a report containing similar background 

information. These results, shown in table A-7 of appendix A, form an essential part of the 

report, but were not used in comparing high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret 

and nozzle performance at lesser elevations to the fixed elevations on the P-19. For example, in 

tests 7-1A through 7-1C in table A-7, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret produced an average throw distance of 121 ft 6 in. with the boom in the full-up position 

and the turret level at 0°. In tests 7-2A through 7-2C in table A-7, with the boom raised to the 

full-up position and the turret set at 10°, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret produced an average water stream measuring nearly 147 ft, an increase of nearly 26 ft. In 

tests 7-3A through 7-3C in table A-7, with the boom full-up and the turret elevated to 20°, throw 

distance was measured at an average of 164 ft 5 in., an increase of nearly 43 ft over the level 

setting and 17 ft over the 10° setting. In tests 7-10A through 7-10C in table A-7, the boom 

remained in the full-up position and the turret was elevated to 30°. In this configuration, the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret produced an average throw distance of 

200 ft 2 in., nearly 79 ft further than the level turret settings recorded in tests 7-1A through 7-1C 

in table A-7. 

The performance of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret, when placed 

in the DIF position with the turret positioned at 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30° of elevation during water 

stream throw range tests, is shown in figure 19a and in table A-7. This data is an average of the 

three tests conducted for each turret setting. Each turret position setting and turret elevation is 

compared to the other to determine the performance of the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret at the respective turret setting indicated. The most important data to be 

observed are the increasing distances achieved by elevating the turret from a DIF level position 

to a full-up 30° position. 

119′ 3′′

153′ 7′′ 161′ 2′′

44′ 7′′

0° 10° 20° 30°

225 

200 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

(seconds) 

(elevation) 

FIGURE 19a. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS, SET TO DIF 

POSITION AT VARIOUS DEGREES OF ELEVATION 

22
The performance of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret when placed in 

the fully extended position with the turret positioned at 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30° of elevation during 

water stream throw range tests is shown in figure 19b and in table A-7. This data is an average 

of the three tests conducted for each turret setting. Each turret position setting and turret 

elevation is compared to the other to determine the performance of the high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret at the respective turret setting indicated. 

155′ 4′′ 161′ 1′′

192′ 0′′

64′ 1′′

 0° 10° 20° 30°

225 

200 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

(seconds) 

(elevation) 

FIGURE 19b. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS, SET TO FULLY EXTENDED 

POSITION AT VARIOUS DEGREES OF ELEVATION 

The performance of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret, when placed 

in the full-up position with the turret positioned at 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30° of elevation during water 

stream throw range tests, is shown in figure 19c and in table A-7. This data is an average of the 

three tests conducted for each turret setting. Each turret position setting and turret elevation is 

compared to the other to determine the performance of the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret at the respective turret setting indicated. 

The results of the P-19 roof-mounted turret water stream throw range tests are shown in figure 20 

and in table A-8 in appendix A. The data are an average of the three tests conducted for each 

preselected turret setting. Each turret elevation was compared to the other to determine the 

performance of the P-19 roof-mounted turret at the turret setting indicated and comparing that 

performance to an equivalent high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret setting. 

23
147′ 1′′

164′ 5′′

200′ 2′′

121′ 6′′

 0° 10° 20° 30°

225 

200 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

(seconds) 

(elevation)

FIGURE 19c. THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPER-MOUNTED 

TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS, SET TO FULL-UP 

POSITION AT VARIOUS DEGREES OF ELEVATION 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

168′ 5′′

136′ 1′′ 123′ 2′′

(seconds) 

54′ 0′′

 0° 10° 20° 30°

(elevation) 

FIGURE 20. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE 

TESTS AT VARIOUS DEGREES OF ELEVATION 

24
A comparison of the HPRV and P-19 turrets water stream throw range test results at an elevation 

of 30° are shown in figure 21. 

225 

200 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

200′

2′′ 192′

0′′ 168′

5′′ 161′

2′′

(seconds) 

HPRV DIF P-19 HPRV Fully HPRV Full

 at 30° at 30° Ext at 30° Up at 30°

(elevation) 

FIGURE 21. COMPARISON OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, 

BUMPER-MOUNTED TURRET AND THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET 

WATER STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS AT A 30° ELEVATION 

RESULTS OF THE AGENT STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS. 

The results of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret agent stream throw 

range tests are shown in figure 22 and in table A-9 of appendix A. In this series of tests, 

laboratory personnel conducted a series of tests designed not only to measure agent throw, but to 

compare the throw distances to the various turret positions at the same level produced by the 

same vehicle. The one common factor in this series of tests was the 10° and 30° elevation in 

each test. Incrementally, as the turret was raised from the DIF position to the full-up position, 

the throw distances increased. In tests 9-1A though 9-1C in table A-9, a 10° setting on the DIF 

turret attained an average reach of 144 ft 9 in. with an effective mass of 84 ft 4 in. At the fully 

extended position, tests 9-2A through 9-2C in table A-9, the agent throw stream measured 149 ft 

3 in. with an effective mass measured at 85 ft 6 in. In tests 9-3A through 9-3C in table A-9, with 

the turret in the full-up position and the turret set to a 10° of elevation, agent throw was 

measured at 157 ft 4 in. with an average effective mass of 96 ft 3 in. The pattern widths in 

tests 9-2A and 9-3A in table A-9 were very similar, showing the higher elevations on the turret 

did not affect pattern widths. In tests 9-4A and 9-4B in table A-9, laboratory personnel measured 

the throw distance of the PKP dry chemical agent. In a DIF position at a 10° elevation, the agent 

was discharged at an average of 140 ft 2 in. with an average effective mass of 104 ft. It is 

important to point out that the slightest gust of wind affects both throw and effective mass. In 

25
test 9-5A, the slight wind at 4 mph affected the agent throw stream resulting in a pattern width of 

54 ft 8 in. As a result, no other attempts to discharge PKP in the full-up position at a 10°

elevation were attempted. In tests 9-6A through 9-6C in table A-9, with the turret in the full-up 

position and the turret set at a 30° elevation, the high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret produced an average agent throw stream of 168 ft 8 in. in length. The effective 

mass averaged 96 ft 4 in. in length and an average agent pattern width of 16 ft 1 in. In tests 9-7A 

through 9-7C in table A-9, with the turret in the DIF position and the turret set at a 30° elevation, 

the HPRV produced an average agent throw stream of 164 ft 1 in. in length. The effective mass 

averaged 105 ft 4 in. in length and an average agent pattern width of 13 ft. In tests 9-8A through 

9-8C in table A-9, with the turret in the fully extended position and the turret set at a 30°

elevation, the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret produced an average 

agent throw stream of 166 ft in length. The effective mass averaged 99 ft 4 in. in length and an 

average agent pattern width of 14 ft 1 in. 

200 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

149′ 3′′ 157′ 4′′ 164′ 1′′

144′ 9′′

166′ 0′′ 168′ 8′′

 DIF F EXT FULL-UP DIF F EXT FULL-UP

 10° 10° 10° 30° 30° 30°

(seconds) 

(elevation) 

FIGURE 22. COMPARISON OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, 

BUMPER-MOUNTED TURRET AGENT STREAM THROW RANGE TEST RESULTS 

WITH THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET SET AT VARIOUS POSITIONS AND 

DEGREES OF ELEVATION 

The results of the P-19 roof-mounted turret agent stream throw range tests are shown in figure 23 

and in table A-10 of appendix A. In tests 10-1A through 10-1C in table A-10, with the turret in a 

level position, the P-19 roof-mounted turret produced an average agent throw distance of 62 ft 2 

in. with an effective mass of 37 ft 8 in. Agent pattern width averaged 8 ft 2 in. in a level turret 

configuration. Tests 10-2A through 10-2C in table A-10, with the turret set at a 10° elevation, 

the agent throw stream measured 123 ft 5 in. in length, an effective mass measuring 81 ft 9 in., 

and an agent pattern width averaging 8 ft 8 in. in width. At 20° of elevation in tests 10-3A 

through 10-3C in table A-10, the P-19 discharged AFFF an average of 134 ft 8 in. in length, 

producing an effective mass of 93 ft 7 in. and an average agent pattern width of 7 ft 9 in. Test 

26
10-4A in table A-10 was discounted due to mechanical problems attributed to the P-19’s fire 

pump. Tests 10-4B through 10-4D in table A-10 produced an average agent stream reaching 

156 ft, an average effective mass measuring 96 ft 5 in. length, and an agent pattern width of 5 ft 

8 in. Taken from atop a P-19, figure 24 shows the measurable results of a typical agent stream 

throw range test and the narrow width of agent pattern stream inherent to the P-19 roof-mounted 

turret. 

200 

175 

150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

123′ 2′′ 134′ 8′′

156′ 5′′

62′ 6′′

 0° 10° 20° 30°

(seconds) 

(elevation)

FIGURE 23. THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET AGENT STREAM THROW RANGE 

TESTS AT VARIOUS DEGREES OF ELEVATION 

FIGURE 24. TYPICAL AGENT PATTERN RESULTS USING AFFF 

27
A comparison of the results of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret and 

the P-19 roof-mounted turret agent stream throw range tests at a maximum elevation of 30° are 

shown in figure 25. The data showed that the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret set at 30° surpassed the throw distance of the P-19 roof-mounted turret. With the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret set to its full-up position, the turret projected 

an agent stream 12 ft 8 in. further than the P-19 roof-mounted turret at the same setting. Each 

turret produced an effective coverage area of 96 ft long, but the agent pattern width was 

significantly different. The pattern widths of the high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret was much greater than the pattern widths of the P-19 roof-mounted turret. The 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret produced an agent pattern width of 16 

ft at 30°, while at the same elevation, the P-19 roof-mounted turret produced an agent pattern 

width of 6 to 8 ft. 

200 

175 

168′ 8′′ 166 0 150 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

FIGURE 25. COMPARISON OF THE TURRETS AT AN ELEVATION OF 30°

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was found to be superior in 

performance compared to the P-19 roof-mounted turret. In all aspects of the comparison and 

evaluation, the data for extinguishment times, total agent used, throw ranges, and overall 

performance during the evaluation far exceeded those values collected from the P-19 roofmounted turret. 

In comparing the performance of both turrets during the F-100 engine nacelle test fires, the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was faster during extinguishment and less 

water was used. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret averaged a 

156′ 0′′ 164′ 1′′ ′ ′′

 P-19 at HPRV DIF HPRV Fully HPRV Full 

 30° at 30° Ext at 30° Up at 30°

(elevation) 

(seconds) 

28
12-second faster extinguishment time using, on average, less than 100 gallons of aqueous filmforming foam (AFFF) than the P-19 roof-mounted turret. The tests of the high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret, using a combination of AFFF and dry chemicals, 

averaged 31 seconds faster than the tests of the P-19 roof-mounted turret. 

In comparing the performance of both turrets during the high engine nacelle tail test fires, the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was faster during extinguishment and 

less water was used. The extinguishment time of the high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret averaged 10 seconds faster using AFFF, and 17 seconds faster using a 

combination of AFFF and dry chemicals. The high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret used on average, 79 gallons less of AFFF compared to the P-19 roof-mounted 

turret. 

In comparing the performance of the both turrets during large-scale, two-dimensional pool fires, 

the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was faster than the roof-mounted 

turret in all aspects of the evaluation. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted 

turret averaged a 36-second faster extinguishment time and a 31-second faster agent discharge 

time. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was also able to extinguish 

fire more effectively at greater distances than the P-19 roof-mounted turret. 

In evaluating the performance of both turrets in simulated aircraft crash firefighting situations in 

the presence of a large-scale aircraft mock-up, the results of the evaluation showed that 

extinguishment times were reduced, and the distance needed between the vehicle and the fire to 

produce an effective extinguishing agent stream was also increased. This distance reduces the 

ARFF vehicle and driver/operator’s exposure to the fire. It was also determined that the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret provided the driver/operator with an 

improved view of the fire. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret’s wide 

range of movement provides an increased ability to place an agent stream in hard to get 

locations, particularly under an aircraft, in a wheel well, or into engines nacelles. The ability of 

the driver/operator to select any elevation while positioning around the fire area gives the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret an advantage over the P-19 roof-mounted 

turret. It also was accurate and able to deliver a consistent stream of AFFF or a combination of 

AFFF and dry chemicals into engine nacelles, resulting in a quicker extinguishment. 

In evaluating the water stream throw range performance, the high-performance, multiposition, 

bumper-mounted turret produced its longest throw range distance in every boom position with 

the nozzle elevated at 30°. The P-19 roof-mounted turret using water also produced its longest 

throw range distance at 30°. The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret’s 

range with water was greater in two of the three boom positions at 30° than the P-19 roofmounted turret at 30°. When the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was 

in the full-up position at 30°, it had a longer throw range by 31′9′′ compared to the P-19 roofmounted turret. When the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was in the 

fully extended position at 30°, it had a longer throw range by 23′7′′. 

In evaluating the AFFF throw range performance, the high-performance, multiposition, bumpermounted turret produced its longest throw range distance in every boom position at 30°. The 

29
P-19 roof-mounted turret using AFFF also produced its greatest throw range distance at 30°. 

The high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret’s range with AFFF was longer in 

all three boom positions with the nozzle at 30° than the roof-mounted turret at 30°. When the 

high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was in the down-in-front position with 

the nozzle at 30° with AFFF, it had a longer throw range by 8′1′′ compared to the P-19 roofmounted turret. When the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was in the 

full-extended position with the nozzle at 30° with AFFF, it had a greater throw range by 10 ft. 

When the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret was in the full-up position 

with the nozzle at 30°, it had a longer throw range by 12′8′′. The high-performance, 

multiposition, bumper-mounted turret also produced a maximum wider agent pattern by 7′5′′

compared to the maximum wide pattern of the P-19 roof-mounted turret. An increase in pattern 

width of the high-performance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret creates a large effective 

mass of agent resulting in a faster extinguishing time, particularly in two-dimensional pool fires. 

The high-performance research vehicle driver/operator had no difficulty seeing the highperformance, multiposition, bumper-mounted turret and selecting the boom and nozzle settings 

desired during testing. Conversely, the P-19 driver/operator occasionally had to shut down 

pumping operations to determine if the fire had been extinguished. By shutting down the pump 

during the fire test, the extinguishment time was significantly increased. 

30
APPENDIX A—TEST RESULTS

Tables A-1 through A-10 contain the field data collected from this evaluation. 

TABLE A-1. RESULTS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPERMOUNTED TURRET F-100 ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TESTS 

Test No. Date Agent Boom Position 

Turret 

Position

(degrees)

Extinguish 

Time 

(sec) 

Wind 

(direction/

mph) 

Temp. 

(°F) 

*1-1A 16/07/01 AFFF Fully extended 0 DNE 080 at 5 74 

*1-1B 16/07/01 AFFF Fully extended 0 13 084 at 6 74 

1-1C 16/07/01 AFFF Fully extended 0 31 088 at 6 76 

1-1D 24/07/01 AFFF Fully extended 0 25 090 at 4 80 

1-1E 24/07/01 AFFF Fully extended 0 40 090 at 4 80 

Average 32 

1-2A 17/07/01 PKP Fully extended 0 DNE 060 at 5 82 

*1-3A 17/07/01 AFFF/PKP Fully extended 0 17 060 at 5 84 

1-3B 17/07/01 AFFF/PKP Fully extended 0 13 060 at 5 84 

1-3C 17/07/01 AFFF/PKP Fully extended 0 12 060 at 5 85 

1-3D 24/07/01 AFFF/PKP Fully extended 0 15 070 at 5 84 

Average 13.3 

*Discounted 

DNE = Did not extinguish 

TABLE A-2. RESULTS OF THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET F-100 ENGINE 

NACELLE FIRE TESTS 

Test No. Date Agent 

Extinguish 

Time 

(sec) 

Wind 

(direction/mph) 

Temp. 

(°F) 

2-1A 14/08/01 AFFF 45 020 at 5 85 

2-1B 14/08/01 AFFF 44 020 at 5 85 

2-1C 15/08/01 AFFF 43 360 at 6 80 

Average 44 

A-1 
TABLE A-3. RESULTS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPERMOUNTED TURRET HIGH ENGINE NACELLE FIRE TESTS 

Test No. Date Agent 

Extinguish 

Time 

(sec) 

Wind 

(direction/mph) 

Temp. 

(°F) 

3-1A 14/08/01 AFFF 45 030 at 5 80 

3-1B 14/08/01 AFFF 44 030 at 5 80 

3-1C 15/08/01 AFFF 42 010 at 3 81 

Average 43.6 

3-2A 15/08/01 PKP DNE 050 at 4 82 

Average DNE 

*3-3A 14/08/01 AFFF/PKP 46 050 at 4 83 

*3-3B 14/08/01 AFFF/PKP 18 050 at 4 83 

3-3C 15/08/01 AFFF/PKP 35 030 at 3 84 

3-3D 15/08/01 AFFF/PKP 40 360 at 5 85 

3-3E 15/08/01 AFFF/PKP 34 360 at 5 85 

Average 36.3 

*Discounted 

DNE = Did not extinguish 

TABLE A-4. RESULTS OF THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET HIGH ENGINE 

NACELLE FIRE TESTS 

Test No. Date Agent 

Extinguish 

Time 

(sec) 

Wind 

(direction/

mph) 

Temp. 

(°F) 

*4-1A 14/08/01 AFFF 20 050 at 4 80 

*4-1B 20/11/01 AFFF DNE 070 at 7 75 

4-1C 20/11/01 AFFF 40 080 at 7 78 

4-1D 20/11/01 AFFF 1 min 6 sec. 080 at 7 78 

Average 53 sec. 

*Discounted 

DNE = Did not extinguish

A-2 
TABLE A-5. RESULTS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPERMOUNTED TURRET LARGE-SCALE (100-ft DIAMETER) POOL FIRE TESTS 

Test 

No. Date Agent 

Extinguish 

Time 

Discharge 

Time 

Wind 

(direction/

mph) 

Temp. 

(°F) 

5-1A 23/06/01 AFFF 1 min 8 sec. 43 sec. 360 at 2 78 

5-1B 23/06/01 AFFF 1 min 18 sec. 54 sec. 360 at 4 80 

5-1C 23/06/01 AFFF 58 sec. 53 sec. 010 at 4 81 

Average 1 min 8 sec. 50 sec. 

5-1D 23/07/01 AFFF 1 min 39 sec. 1 min 19 sec. 060 at 5 85 

5-1E 23/07/01 AFFF 1 min 59 sec. 1 min 36 sec. 060 at 6 85 

Average 1 min 49 sec. 1 min 27 sec. 

TABLE A-6. RESULTS OF THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET LARGE-SCALE 

(100-ft DIAMETER) POOL FIRE TESTS 

Test 

No. Date Agent 

Extinguish 

Time 

Discharge 

Time 

Wind 

(direction/

mph) 

Temp. 

(°F) 

6-1A 05/06/03 AFFF 1 min 38 sec. 1 min 15 sec. 150 at 3 79 

6-1B 05/03/03 AFFF 1 min 46 sec. 1 min 23 sec. 150 at 4 80 

6-1C 05/06/03 AFFF 1 min 48 sec. 1 min 26 sec. 150 at 4 80 

Average 1 min 44 sec. 1 min 21 sec. 

TABLE A-7. RESULTS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPERMOUNTED TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE 

Test 

No. Date Agent 

Boom 

Position 

Turret 

Position 

(degrees) 

Distance

(ft) 

Effective 

Mass 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

7-1A 21/06/01 Water Full-up 0 121′ 7′′ 83′ 9′′ 10′ 9′′

7-1B 21/06/01 Water Full-up 0 119′ 2′′ 79′ 3′′ 9′ 9′′

7-1C 21/06/01 Water Full-up 0 123′ 9′′ 82′ 6′′ 10′ 5′′

Average 121′ 6′′

7-2A 21/06/01 Water Full-up 10 144′ 8′′ 88′ 7′′ 12′ 2′′

7-2B 21/06/01 Water Full-up 10 149′ 0′′ 86′ 11′′ 11′ 8′′

7-2C 21/06/01 Water Full-up 10 147′ 5′′ 88′ 10′′ 12′ 6′′

Average 147′ 1′′

A-3 
TABLE A-7. RESULTS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPERMOUNTED TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE (Continued) 

Test No. Date Agent 

Boom 

Position 

Turret 

Position 

(degrees) 

Distance

(ft) 

Effective 

Mass 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

7-3A 21/06/01 Water Full-up 20 165′ 2′′ 91′ 0′′ 10′ 11′′

7-3B 21/06/01 Water Full-up 20 162′ 4′′ 97′ 2′′ 13′ 4′′

7-3C 21/06/01 Water Full-up 20 166′ 1′′ 96′ 1′′ 12′ 3′′

Average 164′ 5′′

7-4A 21/06/01 Water Fully extended 10 156′ 0′′ 95′ 11′′ 13′ 6′′

7-4B 21/06/01 Water Fully extended 10 156′ 11′′ 96′ 6′′ 14′ 5′′

7-4C 21/06/01 Water Fully extended 10 154′ 10′′ 92′ 7′′ 14′ 1′′

Average 155′ 4′′

7-5A 21/06/01 Water Fully extended 20 160′ 10′′ 90′ 2′′ 13′ 6′′

7-5B 21/06/01 Water Fully extended 20 165′ 4′′ 88′ 4′′ 12′ 3′′

7-5C 21/06/01 Water Fully extended 20 158′ 0′′ 92′ 7′′ 13′ 0′′

Average 161′ 1′′

7-6A 21/06/01 Water DIF 0 44′ 2′′ 22′ 2′′ 6′ 3′′

7-6B 21/06/01 Water DIF 0 43′ 0′′ 21′ 0′′ 6′ 10′′

7-6C 21/06/01 Water DIF 0 47′ 10′′ 22′ 7′′ 6′ 4′′

Average 44′ 7′′

7-7A 21/06/01 Water DIF 10 119′ 6′′ 56′ 6′′ 9′ 0′′

7-7B 21/06/01 Water DIF 10 117′ 10′′ 58′ 2′′ 10′ 11′′

7-7C 21/06/01 Water DIF 10 121′ 2′′ 53′ 7′′ 9′ 0′′

Average 119′ 3′′

7-8A 22/06/01 Water DIF 20 155′ 0′′ 78′ 4′′ 13′ 0′′

7-8B 22/06/01 Water DIF 20 152′ 10′′ 72′ 8′′ 11′ 6′′

7-8C 22/06/01 Water DIF 20 154′ 0′′ 76′ 9′′ 11′ 4′′

Average 153′ 7′′

7-9A 12/06/03 Water DIF 30 161′ 3′′ 91′ 4′′ 17′ 1′′

7-9B 12/06/03 Water DIF 30 159′ 8′′ 89′ 7′′ 18′ 2′′

7-9C 12/06/03 Water DIF 30 162′ 7′′ 88′ 5′′ 16′ 9′′

Average 161′ 2′′

A-4 
TABLE A-7. RESULTS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPERMOUNTED TURRET WATER STREAM THROW RANGE (Continued) 

Test 

No. Date Agent 

Boom 

Position 

Turret Position

(degrees) 

Distance

(ft) 

Effective Mass

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

7-10A 12/06/03 Water Full-up 30 202′ 6′′ 120′ 9′′ 17′ 6′′

7-10B 12/06/03 Water Full-up 30 197′ 3′′ 124′ 6′′ 18′ 2′′

7-10C 12/06/03 Water Full-up 30 200′ 6′′ 121′ 1′′ 17′ 1′′

Average 200′ 2′′

7-11A 13/06/03 Water Fully extended 0 62′ 6′′ 33′ 8′′ 8′ 6′′

7-11B 13/06/03 Water Fully extended 0 65′ 7′′ 41′ 0′′ 7′ 9′′

7-11C 13/06/03 Water Fully extended 0 60′ 1′′ 42′ 8′′ 7′ 4′′

Average 64′ 1′′ 39′ 2′′ 7′ 9′′

7-12A 13/06/03 Water Fully extended 30 192′ 3′′ 111′ 4′′ 13′ 6′′

7-12B 13/06/03 Water Fully extended 30 186′ 7′′ 99′ 9′′ 14′ 1′′

7-12C 13/06/03 Water Fully extended 30 194′ 0′′ 103′ 10′′ 12′ 11′′

Average 192′ 0′′ 104′ 8′′ 13′ 2′′

TABLE A-8. RESULTS OF THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET WATER STREAM 

THROW RANGE TESTS 

Test 

No. Date Agent 

Boom 

Position

Turret Position 

(degrees) 

Distance

(ft) 

Effective Mass 

(ft) 

Width

(ft) 

8-1A 07/24/03 Water N/A 0 54′ 9′′ 23′ 3′′ 8′ 9′′

8-1B 07/24/03 Water N/A 0 53′ 5′′ 24′ 0′′ 8′ 7′′

8-1C 07/24/03 Water N/A 0 53′ 8′′ 24′ 3′′ 8′ 9′′

Average 54′ 0′′ 23′ 8′′ 8′ 8′′

8-2A 07/24/03 Water N/A 10 112′10′′ 35′ 4′′ 11′ 0′′

8-2B 07/24/03 Water N/A 10 122′ 6′′ 35′ 11′′ 10′ 7′′

8-2C 07/24/03 Water N/A 10 129′ 6′′ 33′ 9′′ 9′ 4′′

Average 123′ 2′′ 34′ 8′′ 10′ 3′′

8-3A 07/24/03 Water N/A 20 135′ 8′′ 43′ 8′′ 11′ 0′′

8-3B 07/24/03 Water N/A 20 133′ 5′′ 52′ 5′′ 10′ 5′′

8-3C 07/24/03 Water N/A 20 139′ 3′′ 51′ 6′′ 11′ 6′′

Average 136′ 1′′ 49′ 3′′ 11′ 0′′

8-4A 06/30/03 Water N/A 30 174′ 6′′ 87′ 0′′ 7′ 9′′

8-4B 06/30/03 Water N/A 30 164′ 3′′ 94′ 5′′ 7′ 1′′

8-4C 06/30/03 Water N/A 30 166′ 8′′ 95′ 9′′ 6′ 2′′

Average 168’ 5′′ 89′ 1′′ 7′ 0′′

A-5 
TABLE A-9. RESULTS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE, MULTIPOSITION, BUMPERMOUNTED TURRET AGENT STREAM THROW RANGE TESTS 

Test 

No. Date Agent Boom Position 

Turret 

Position 

(degrees) 

Distance 

(ft) 

Effective 

Mass 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

9-1A 20/06/01 AFFF DIF 10 149′ 4′′ 86′ 4′′ 9′ 0′′

9-1B 20/06/01 AFFF DIF 10 146′ 3′′ 82′ 5′′ 8′ 4′′

9-1C 20/06/01 AFFF DIF 10 139′ 11′′ 85′ 6′′ 8′ 6′′

Average 144′ 9′′ 84′ 8′′ 8′ 6′′

9-2A 20/06/01 AFFF Fully extended 10 144′ 10′′ 84′ 5′′ 10′ 1′′

9-2B 20/06/01 AFFF Fully extended 10 155′ 0′′ 84′ 2′′ 12′ 9′′

9-2C 20/06/01 AFFF Fully extended 10 148′ 9′′ 88′ 2′′ 11′ 6′′

Average 149′ 3′′ 85′ 6′′ 11′ 5′′

9-3A 20/06/01 AFFF Full-up 10 157′ 0′′ 94′ 7′′ 13′ 2′′

9-3B 20/06/01 AFFF Full-up 10 157′ 8′′ 98′ 11′′ 11′ 8′′

9-3C 20/06/01 AFFF Full-up 10 157′ 5′′ 96′ 10′′ 12′ 6′′

Average 157′ 4′′ 96′ 3′′ 12′ 5′′

9-4A 24/07/01 PKP DIF 10 138′ 0′′ 100′ 0′′ 41′ 4′′

9-4B 24/07/01 PKP DIF 10 142′ 4′′ 108′ 0′′ 42′ 8′′

Average 140′ 2′′ 104′ 0′′ 42′ 1′′

9-5A 24/07/01 PKP Full-up 10 131′ 0′′ 103′ 0′′ 54′ 8′′

Average 131′ 0′′ 103′ 0′′ 54′ 8′′

9-6A 13/06/03 AFFF Full-up 30 169′ 2′′ 96′ 7′′ 16′ 7′′

9-6B 13/06/03 AFFF Full-up 30 170′ 0′′ 98′ 4′′ 16′ 2′′

9-6C 13/06/03 AFFF Full-up 30 167′ 3′′ 94′ 10′′ 15′ 5′′

Average 168′ 8′′ 96′ 4′′ 16′ 1′′

9-7A 13/06/03 AFFF DIF 30 164′ 3′′ 103′ 4′′ 12′ 11′′

9-7B 14/06/03 AFFF DIF 30 165′ 9′′ 103′ 3′′ 14′ 1′′

9-7C 14/06/03 AFFF DIF 30 162′ 3′′ 109′ 6′′ 12′ 8′′

Average 164′ 1′′ 105′ 4′′ 13′ 0′′

9-8A 17/06/03 AFFF Fully extended 30 167′ 9′′ 96′ 5′′ 14′ 9′′

9-8B 17/06/03 AFFF Fully extended 30 164′ 0′′ 99′ 8′′ 13′ 6′′

9-8C 17/06/03 AFFF Fully extended 30 166′ 10′′ 101′ 9′′ 14′ 0′′

Average 166′ 0′′ 99′ 4′′ 14′ 1′′

A-6 
TABLE A-10. RESULTS OF THE P-19 ROOF-MOUNTED TURRET AGENT STREAM 

THROW RANGE TESTS 

Test 

No. Date Agent 

Boom 

Position 

Turret 

Position 

(degrees) 

Distance 

(ft) 

Effective 

Mass 

(ft) 

Width 

(ft) 

10-1A 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 0 6′ 2′′ 39′ 0′′ 8′ 2′′

10-1B 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 0 62′ 3′′ 38′ 0′′ 8′ 0′′

10-1C 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 0 55′ 3′′ 36′ 6′′ 8′ 4′′

Average 62′ 6′′ 37′ 8′′ 8′ 2′′

10-2A 30/12/02 AFFF N/A 10 125′ 6′′ 81′ 3′′ 8′ 2′′

10-2B 30/12/02 AFFF N/A 10 124′ 8′′ 83′ 3′′ 9′ 4′′

10-2C 30/12/02 AFFF N/A 10 120′ 2′′ 81′ 2′′ 8′ 8′′

Average 123′ 5′′ 81′ 9′′ 8′ 8′′

10-3A 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 20 135′ 5′′ 93′ 3′′ 7′ 9′′

10-3B 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 20 134′ 9′′ 92′ 2′′ 8′ 0′′

10-3C 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 20 134′ 0′′ 95′ 7′′ 7′ 8′′

Average 134′ 8′′ 93′ 7′′ 7′ 9′′

*10-4A 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 30 114′ 3′′ 48′ 3′′ 9′ 3′′

10-4B 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 30 157′ 2′′ 96′ 6′′ 5′ 9′′

10-4C 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 30 154′ 9′′ 95′ 7′′ 6′ 3′′

10-4D 02/01/03 AFFF N/A 30 156′ 0′′ 97′ 4′′ 5′ 2′′

Average 156′ 0′′ 96′ 5′′ 5′ 8′′

*Discounted 

A-7/A-8