Shamrock1Heavy From Ireland, joined Nov 2002, 250 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4066 times:
My brother and i were watching "Air Force One" today and he posed a question. The plane is a 747-200 specailly modified of-course, but it is still a 747-200, old, yet classic by todays standards. Will they ever change it? to a 744 or mabye even a 772LR? This made me wonder, so I came here to ask. Comments welcome!
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3708 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
Given the fact that the 2 707's previously used as Air Force One were flying for close to 30 years, it will be awhile before the next Air Force One will be flying. The first of the two current Air Force One's were delivered in 1990, so they are not old. They are also so well taken care of that they always look brand new.
It will also take several years to build the next Air Force One. The 747's were ordered during the Regan Administration and were not delivered until half way into Bush Sr.'s term.
HA_DC9 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 659 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4030 times:
Ha763 is correct, the aircraft are very well maintained and secured. Even though they are based on the 747-200 airframe, the aircraft have not logged on as much flying hours as compared to a regular commercial airliner. It is used only for Presidential flying and Air Force One doesn't fly as many daily cycles nor fly everyday as a regular commercial airliner does.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3675 times:
Nice of you to bring politics into this, Jt. .
I think if they were going to buy something for long range, The A340-500 is the obvious choice.
Of course if they want to get somewhere quickly, picking up a second hand concorde would be handy. Plus they'd be able to fly it anywhere they wanted supersonic caus its the president of the United States of America, not some crappy British airline!
CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2579 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3454 times:
When the AF-1 747-200 was selected, the 747-300 had already been in service a few years (-300 went into service in 1983). However, the 747-300 did not meet some of the requirements in the AF-1 Request for Proposal (RFP). The Air Force had total cumulative fleet hours, engine service, and other requirements that the -300 did not meet. Therefore the -200 was offered.
The reason why AF1 has in-flight refueling is interesting. The competition for the AF-1 contract was between the DC-10 and the 747. The way the RFP was written initially, the DC-10 could not meet the range requirement, but the 747 could. Then the RFP was revised to require in-flight refueling capability. This was done to keep the DC-10 in the competition, even though the 747 could meet the range without the refueling system. After Boeing won the contract they offered to not install the system and refund the savings, but the government said no. There is a book written about this by Chuck Fisher, the Boeing flight test pilot. I can't remember the name.
I don't think they have ever used the in flight refueling system on AF-1, especially with the President on board.
BTW, Boeing bid $250M for the contract for the two AF1 aircraft. $250M was the cost for two regular 747s at the time. They lost about $350M on the total project, but Boeing management did not want the President in a DC-10.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.