FDNY Squrts

firebuffkevin

firebuffkevin

Joined
Nov 27, 2008
Messages
8,531
In 1970, FDNY purchased two Mack Squrts. 

The first went to E 310:

A Different 3 Piece Aerial Attack

The other went to E 71:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f353/BGlass088/Squirt7170Mack.jpg

One of the units was retrofitted and went to E 70:

70-Engine, City Island, Bronx, Squrt

Engine 70

The other unit became a FOAM Squrt (maybe to a SI company):

http://emtbravo.net/uploads/monthly_07_2009/post-182-1246924992.jpg

I would imagine that this was an experiment for FDNY.  Does anyone know the story behind this?  How did E 310 and E 71 make out with these units?

From the looks of things from my buff perspective, this would be a good apparatus.  I know that the Tower Ladders perform a similar function.  But I would think that putting a Squrt boom up above a smokey fire would  be a lot easier on firefighters.  Any thoughts? 





 
Many years ago, I remember E310 Squrt being used at a multiple on Flatbush Ave.  It seemed very difficult to control the direction of  stream, and its variations may have been putting members at risk in other areas of the fireground (such as roofs, exposures, etc). I don't think it was what you would call a rousing success.  When one was converted to a foam rig, I think it was housed at E160, Staten Island.  The one that went to City Island (E70) may have been re-equipped with a Tele-Squrt rather than the original articulated boom.
 
I believe E 310 was given a squirt partially due to the distance a first due truck had to travel, prior to Ladder 174 being formed.  I remember riding with E 248 in the 60s and we would get in long before the first due truck on a box where E 310 was first due. Two firefighters from E 248 would do truck work until the first due truck arrived.
 
It looks like they tried one of each variety of squirt available.  The telescoping variety and the articulated one.  They both are very different and have different advantages and disadvantages.  For what I've seen there are many more of the telescoping variety in service.  One obvious advantage of them is if they have a ladder on top we should be used in emergencies for evacuations, many of the ones I've seen are being used in volunteer fire departments where the price of a ladder company is out of their financial ability.  The advantages of the articulated one is that it can be rapidly deployed by a single firefighter to provide master stream capabilities for a large fire.  I've also seen them stuck through windows for rooms fires when the company had limited Manpower available.  They probably are not well suited for FDNY but they certainly have their place in the fire service.
 
Boston had 2 Squrts.  A 1970 Maxim/Ford squrt was assigned to E-26, and a 1971 Maxim/Ford assigned to E-17. These were both second parts in a 2 engine company. Engine 17 squrt was later re-assigned to E-39. These units were used on all multiples, because of their short wheel-base you could put them anywhere. Both units had articulating booms.
 
For pixs go to Boston Fire Historical Society, go to companies, go to other. This is a great site for those interested in Boston for houses, apparatus etc. I highly recommend it!GG
 
When they were assigned to ENG*310 & ENG*71 they were the regular apparatus......when one was on City Island w/ the replacement ladder on it it was ENG*70 s regular rig during the time when LAD*53 was closed.....when one was used for foam i believe it was a Second piece.
 
My mistake in posting, where the SFDP rigs special called. BFD units ran as one compamy, engine and squrt.
 
Philadelphia has been using articulating Squrts as front line engine apparatus since the late 60s.  I think the most in service at any one time would have been six in front line service and one in reserve.  PFD currently has 21 pumpers on order and 2 of them will be equipped with Snozzles.  I do not believe the articulating model of the Squrt is made any more. GG, did Boston ever run a Squrt as part of the Tower Company ?
 
The Squirt that was at Eng 71 ended up with Eng 43 as their 1st piece. Then 310's rig went to be the Foam Unit assigned to Eng 154. Eng 70 had the modified rig with a ladder attached. That was sold to a VFD around Lake Carmel, NY if I am correct.
 
It was sold to Lake Carmel in 1987, re numbered as 17-5-1. It served in Lake Carmel until some time in 1992, when it was sold to the Wall, PA, Fire Dept. After Wall, I believe it went to Texas.
 
I think I have the information on the Squrt assignments:

1970  Mack 1000 GPM pumpers with  54" articulating Squrt booms were purchased.

(1) Assigned to E 310  in Brooklyn,  later assigned as FOAM unit to SI.  E 159  possibly E 160

(2) Assigned to E 71 in the Bronx, then for a short time to E 43, Bronx, then in 1976 this unit was retrofitted with a ladder/boom and assigned to E 70, City Island
 
My original question is still hanging out there:

I would imagine that this was an experiment for FDNY.  Does anyone know the story behind this?  How did E 310 and E 71 make out with these units?

Anybody serve in these companies when they had these rigs?
 
From seeing E71 back in the day when they were using this Squirt, the one big draw back I noticed about it was the very small hose bed due to the boom and in an area with 5 and 6 story apt buildings including the "H" type walkups, this rig was more of a disadvantage as I saw it.
 
fdce54 said:
From seeing E71 back in the day when they were using this Squirt, the one big draw back I noticed about it was the very small hose bed due to the boom and in an area with 5 and 6 story apt buildings including the "H" type walkups, this rig was more of a disadvantage as I saw it.
Click to expand...
That's certainly not the type of application they are intended for.  They're quite well suited for single family dwellings, strip malls and as a master stream appliance for large industrial fires.  Like any other piece of firefighting apparatus they do some things very well but other things quite badly.
 
kfd274 said:
My original question is still hanging out there:

I would imagine that this was an experiment for FDNY.  Does anyone know the story behind this?  How did E 310 and E 71 make out with these units?

Anybody serve in these companies when they had these rigs?............kfd..I never worked in one of the Squirts  but i think the length of the boom 54 ft as opposed to 75 on a TL & higher w/a Ladderpipe left the stream application point a little low....... also as mentioned above the lack of hosebed space was a consideration .......also the TL which was coming into more widespread play at the time was just all around more versatile due to higher reach of stream & being able to transport persons & equipt up & down.....JMO.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top