Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Force One...New Plane Ever?  
User currently offlineShamrock1Heavy From Ireland, joined Nov 2002, 250 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3704 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!

-D


when in hell, we'll do shots at the bar
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineHA_DC9 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3668 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.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3642 times:

Will they ever change it? to a 744 or mabye even a 772LR?

Oooh, a private 772LR.... nice!

That monster could hit just about anywhere on Earth nonstop from WAS without a need for any sort of refueling. Shweet! Big grin


User currently offlineFlyboy36y From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3039 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3564 times:

Actually, I think the A380 is best suited for Air Force 1. No joke.

User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2181 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3556 times:

Well, you think with all the AF1's being Boeing planes, they would have to opt for a NG 772 or similar really.

Henry


User currently offlineBoeing767-383 From Denmark, joined Nov 2001, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

i the middle of 2002 and 2 i believe on of the airforce one's had about 6000 hours on it

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Actually, I think the A380 is best suited for Air Force 1. No joke.

I think president Chirac will happily agree with you...
But the president of the USA shouldn't have to rely on an unreliable sometime ally to provide him with transportation...



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3344 times:

If I remember it, the VC-25A's are built structurally so they have a lot in common with the 747-400. Besides, the VC-25A has the range to fly from Andrews AFB to Moscow, Russia non-stop easily anyway.

The planes are so meticulously maintained that they're in better condition than most brand-new planes!  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 3313 times:

Nice of you to bring politics into this, Jt.  Big grin.

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!


User currently onlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1687 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 3307 times:

"Well, you think with all the AF1's being Boeing planes, they would have to opt for a NG 772 or similar really."

Not to fuel a 4-engine vs. 2-engine debate, but don't you think the Presidential aircraft will always have 3-4 engines to get around ETOPS issues?


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 3277 times:

VC-25's can be refuled inflight....extreme range is not important.

User currently offlineAA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 3268 times:

I could see a 777 as the next AF1 with GE most likely as the engine, definatley the LR or IGW. No way it would be an Airbus, come on guys "freedom fries"  Wink/being sarcastic


Go big or go home
User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3195 times:

The president stepping down from a 747 to a 777? Well, I hope the economical situation will never become that bad!

I bet that Boeing will have something more grand on the table when the current AF1s need to be replaced around 2015-2020!


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

When it is time to replace AF1, it'll will be with whatever 4 engined member of the 7E7 family.

User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

If you look closer at AF1's engines they are the same as the current 744, PW4000s.

[Edited 2003-05-21 18:47:40]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

I thought that AF1 had GE engines, in any case they are good for another 20 years.

User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3092 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.
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3085 times:

I believe the engines are GE CF6-80C2B1.


I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

Not to fuel a 4-engine vs. 2-engine debate, but don't you think the Presidential aircraft will always have 3-4 engines to get around ETOPS issues?

What ETOPS issues? The 777NGs are to feature ETOPS330 (if Boeing can get the approval). That will basically negate any ETOPS no-fly zones except those directly over Antarctica.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force One - New Livery? posted Tue Jul 17 2001 13:54:21 by Baldguy
New: Colombian Air Force One posted Tue Jan 20 2004 14:33:36 by Bongo
Ever See Air Force One In Person? posted Tue May 13 2003 18:56:05 by LAX
New Zealand's "Air Force One" posted Tue Nov 13 2001 06:13:11 by AM
New Air Force One posted Mon Apr 16 2001 01:42:36 by Guerosinfe
A New Air Force One? posted Fri Nov 10 2000 03:59:32 by Boeing747-400
New China "Air Force One" From Delta Air Lines posted Thu Jul 6 2000 15:59:47 by DeltaAir
New Air Force One posted Thu Mar 4 1999 22:38:25 by Paul
Air Force One At Dobbins posted Thu Sep 7 2006 16:01:25 by Positiverate
SLC - Watching Air Force One Land Tonight? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 16:46:41 by BCAInfoSys