Pictures of Hale 8FG pumps showing intake and discharge manifolds

[txgp17]

Anyone have any links or pics they care to share?

I have some from Annaville, TX.

Also, I once had a bunch from the construction process of a rear-mount pumper from Sister Bay Liberty Grove, but I can't find them for some reason. Bear in mind that was a RME pump IIRC.

If you have links or pics, please post.

[SBLGFD]

I have some and can take some of our unit if you need - what do you want to see? I think I have the engineering drawings as well if that is of intrest?

SBLGFD

[txgp17]

I have some and can take some of our unit if you need - what do you want to see? I think I have the engineering drawings as well if that is of intrest?

SBLGFD

You know, somewhere on the web I stumbled up pics of your truck being constructed at the factory. It showed the intake and discharge manifolds in detail. I thought I saved them but for the life of me cannot locate them.

Anything you're willing to share, please send to

[CanadianFyrTrks]

Here's a link from Custom Fire, Safety Boss' (Oilfield Fire Company) Smokey Truck.

It's got a manifold set up on an 8FG

http://www.customfire.com/details.php?id=79

[txgp17]

Here's a link from Custom Fire, Safety Boss' (Oilfield Fire Company) Smokey Truck.

It's got a manifold set up on an 8FG

http://www.customfire.com/details.php?id=79

Excellent, but what I'm really looking for are pics that show the manifolds in detail, during the construction process before all the body panels are added.

[commack95]

There is no plumbing on an 8FG from Hale. They're custom made by the Apparatus builder for the specific truck that is being built.

[txgp17]

There is no plumbing on an 8FG from Hale. They're custom made by the Apparatus builder for the specific truck that is being built.

Yes, which means each one is different, which is precisely why I'd like some pictures to convince some in my Dept that think the 8FG would be a GOOD choice for a 2,000 GPM foam pumper.

[Johngagemn]

Yes, which means each one is different, which is precisely why I'd like some pictures to convince some in my Dept that think the 8FG would be a poor choice for a 2,000 GPM foam pumper.

"Poor choice" is a poor choice of words (LOL), but it would be overkill for something you are looking for a 2000 GPM rating on. Keep in mind that the bigger the pump is the more prone it is to recirculation cavitation, especially on an end suction pump. Are you looking to have the pump mounted midship or rear mounted?

[txgp17]

"Poor choice" is a poor choice of words (LOL), but it would be overkill for something you are looking for a 2000 GPM rating on. Keep in mind that the bigger the pump is the more prone it is to recirculation cavitation, especially on an end suction pump. Are you looking to have the pump mounted midship or rear mounted?

That was a typo, I corrected the post. I think the 8FG is the best choice for what we're looking for.

It will have to be midship. I prefer the rear mount, but it would be easier to convince them to install a flux-capacitor and a Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator than go to a rear mount.

I'm all about some overkill. For years, we've been buying Qmax's and rating them at 1,000 GPM. Rating a 8FG at 2,000 wouldn't be any different. I don't know that they have a real reason for rating it at 2,000 GPM. A 1,000 GPM rated Qmax will still flow 2,250 GPM from a draft, assuming you have the correct intake & discharge connections, and the horsepower to push it.

On a side note, the Qmax is advertised to flow up to 3,000 GPM from pressurized sources. For really big fires, we have ring main manifolds that can supply 4,000 GPM. In such a scenario, an 8FG would be able to take advantage of the full 4,000 GPM, while the Qmax would not, again, that's assuming you've equipped the 8FG with the proper intakes and discharges.

[sven73]

The 8FG may or may not be able to deliver 4000 gpm from a pressurized water source. Alot of it will depend on who builds the manifolds for both the intakes and discharges. If you can't get 4000 gpm in you are not going to get it out. The same holds true for the discharge side.

The 8FG is a great pump if used in a proper application. Most likely your wheelbase is going to increase in order to allow for the larger manifolds as compared to a true midship pump. Its not to say it won't work, just beware.

Are you trying to make this an industrial pumper? 2000 gpm of foam is a pretty large flow rate.

[Johngagemn]

That was a typo, I corrected the post. I think the 8FG is the best choice for what we're looking for.

It will have to be midship. I prefer the rear mount, but it would be easier to convince them to install a flux-capacitor and a Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator than go to a rear mount.

I'm all about some overkill. For years, we've been buying Qmax's and rating them at 1,000 GPM. Rating a 8FG at 2,000 wouldn't be any different. I don't know that they have a real reason for rating it at 2,000 GPM. A 1,000 GPM rated Qmax will still flow 2,250 GPM from a draft, assuming you have the correct intake & discharge connections, and the horsepower to push it.

On a side note, the Qmax is advertised to flow up to 3,000 GPM from pressurized sources. For really big fires, we have ring main manifolds that can supply 4,000 GPM. In such a scenario, an 8FG would be able to take advantage of the full 4,000 GPM, while the Qmax would not, again, that's assuming you've equipped the 8FG with the proper intakes and discharges.

QMax and 8FG is kind of an apples and broccoli comparison, one is a dual suction eye fully manifolded pump, the other is a single suction eye end suction pump. Single suction eye pumps are much more prone to problems with recirculation cavitation from operations at lower flow rates than dual suction eye manifolded pumps are. The bigger the pump, the more water you have to continuously flow to prevent it. If the pump is going to flow only when big water is required an 8FG is a good choice, if the majority of the time it's going to flow a few hand lines it is a poor choice.

By the way, ratings from positive pressure sources are bull. The limitation when operating from a hydrant is almost never the pump, it is usually (in order):

1. The hydrant
2. The supply hose
3. The number of discharges on the truck.

As an example, at an engineering class many years ago, I operated a 1978 pumper with a Waterous CM two stage pump rated at 1250 GPM from a private hydrant system at a refinery. We had all 5 discharges wide open flowing through multiple monitors and were flowing nearly 4000 GPM with plenty of residual intake pressure. Our limitation was the number of discharges on the truck.

When someone throws numbers around in an advertisement saying what a pump will do from a hydrant, it's like advertising how fast a car will get to 60 MPH if you're already driving 55.

[MG3610]

At what point is overkill too much. The 8FG is a big pump. I would think you would be just fine with a Qmax.

What I would say is having a pump with that high of a rating can gain you some advantage with longer suction hose lays if you have those issues.

We have an 8FG on an E-One. Its a beast, and since 1998, has yet to be used to even close to its capacity. If you want some pics of it (they would be looking into the pump house (don't have any from construction) let me know.

I see 8FGs on refinery rigs more commonly.

[txgp17]

At what point is overkill too much. The 8FG is a big pump. I would think you would be just fine with a Qmax.

When is overkill too much? I'd say when you spend extra money on it with anticipated gain. From what I've read, an 8FG pump is not too much more than a Qmax.

We're buying an engine with enough torque to run a 3,000 GPM pump, why not take advantage of the power, especially is your water supply can give you that much water.

We have an 8FG on an E-One. Its a beast, and since 1998, has yet to be used to even close to its capacity. If you want some pics of it (they would be looking into the pump house (don't have any from construction) let me know.

Please, if you have some time to spare, I've love to have some snap shots. The pump itself isn't as important as the suction and discharge manifolds.

[chiefengineer11]

QMax and 8FG is kind of an apples and broccoli comparison, one is a dual suction eye fully manifolded pump, the other is a single suction eye end suction pump. Single suction eye pumps are much more prone to problems with recirculation cavitation from operations at lower flow rates than dual suction eye manifolded pumps are. The bigger the pump, the more water you have to continuously flow to prevent it. If the pump is going to flow only when big water is required an 8FG is a good choice, if the majority of the time it's going to flow a few hand lines it is a poor choice.

By the way, ratings from positive pressure sources are bull. The limitation when operating from a hydrant is almost never the pump, it is usually (in order):

1. The hydrant
2. The supply hose
3. The number of discharges on the truck.

As an example, at an engineering class many years ago, I operated a 1978 pumper with a Waterous CM two stage pump rated at 1250 GPM from a private hydrant system at a refinery. We had all 5 discharges wide open flowing through multiple monitors and were flowing nearly 4000 GPM with plenty of residual intake pressure. Our limitation was the number of discharges on the truck.

When someone throws numbers around in an advertisement saying what a pump will do from a hydrant, it's like advertising how fast a car will get to 60 MPH if you're already driving 55.

Pay close attention to johngage's comments, especially with respect to recirculation cavitation. Try to contact Gary Handwerk (Global Pump Product Manager) at Hale, get his thoughts on the subject. Gary, as much as I used to torment him over single stage/two stage, is one of the more knowledgeable people on the subject, especially with regard to Hale. He's based in Florida, but if you call Hale in Conshohocken, they can give you contact info.

[txgp17]

Try to contact Gary Handwerk (Global Pump Product Manager) at Hale, get his thoughts on the subject. Gary, as much as I used to torment him over single stage/two stage, is one of the more knowledgeable people on the subject, especially with regard to Hale. He's based in Florida, but if you call Hale in Conshohocken, they can give you contact info.

I've been in contact with Gary. I have his phone # and e-mail address. He's been extremely helpful so far. He recommended the 8FK (same pump, different transmission), and offered look over our (Qmax) specs to make sure there wouldn't be any problems. I've e-mailed him twice in the last month, but he's not yet responded.

Gary told me a while back that St Louis FD switched to using the 8FG on everything.

The obstacle right now is convincing my Dept's administration.