SCAT15F From United States, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7643 times:
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its Airbus commercial aircraft manufacturing subsidiary is not planning to compete against Boeing for the prestigious contract to supply three planes to transport future U.S. presidents, according to company officials.
"EADS North America's strategy for growth in the U.S. is based on bringing value to the U.S. warfighter; making industrial investments in the U.S. and in-sourcing high-technology defense and aerospace jobs," says Guy Hicks, the company's spokesman in Washington. "After careful review, we've determined that participation in the Air Force One program will not help us meet these business objectives."
Responses to a request for information from the U.S. Air Force are due today. This leaves Boeing as the only provider for an Air Force One platform. Boeing is exploring the 747-8 and 787 as candidates, according to a company official...
Art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7599 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter): Responses to a request for information from the U.S. Air Force are due today. This leaves Boeing as the only provider for an Air Force One platform.
Good. Boeing knows how to build Air Force One's. 3 more sales for the 748-I at super good margins?
PDXCessna206 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7505 times:
You could see, for example, two 747-8Is and one 787.
You never know.
Maybe they are ordering three 747s for mission backups. Because when the two 747s are flying overseas, there is no complete backup that can take the place of one when one of the two used on those missions is being maintained.
It would make sense if they indeed needed a third as a backup since the current backup is not always there to backup.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7367 times:
I think the 787 is just smokescreen. AF1 will be a 748, period. And I think Airbus was smart to back out; the political fallout were they to win would make the tanker fuss look like a squabble in a kid's sandbox. For just three planes it wouldn't be worth it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Charles79 From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1076 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7315 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7): the political fallout were they to win would make the tanker fuss look like a squabble in a kid's sandbox. For just three planes it wouldn't be worth it.
The unfortunate truth. Looks like my tax dollars won't be spent on the "best alternative" as chosen by a source selection board. Single source is seldom good news, nothing to keep the source's pricing honest. Sad.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7309 times:
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3): Why bid for a contract that you can not win.
Or it could be a case of why bid on a contract that even if you win, will cost you more to fulfill then you're being paid?
Airbus doesn't need to lose money just to fly POTUS around. I doubt the prestige is that great. Having him flying in a 747-200 certainly hasn't help 747-400 or 747-8I sales, has it?
I still would not count out alternatives. New president, new wind, new rationality.
As I suggested as example in another thread. Say NG or Lockheed buys 2-3 QF 747-400ER's and contracts Spirit to rebuild them to AF1 standard using basic mods from the current aircraft (doors, refuel, APU etc).
Low risk upgrade meeting all the specs, more range, more room, the QF machines are so new they haven't even had their first HMV yet.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7251 times:
Quoting Art (Reply 1): Good. Boeing knows how to build Air Force One's. 3 more sales for the 748-I at super good margins?
Let's just hope that Boeing doesn't let it go to their head and get lazy on the project - how about at least adding head's up guidance displays from the 737NG and 787 to the 748i flight deck which will otherwise resemble the current 744 flight but with LCD displays rather than CRT's; in that regard, how about special one-off flight decks for AF1 using larger LCD's from the 787 while their at it?
Quoting AC788 (Reply 2): I have a question though, wouldn't the 787 be lacking in size as a contender for Air Force One?
The 787 will replace the C-32 someday, but that isn't part of this deal.
QF reduces their 747-400 fleet while replacing them with A380's. I don't know the AF's original budget for this project, but I guess they could work something out.
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 11): Secondly if the USAF were interested in the B747-400ER, they could have bought them new rather than buying S/H and then gut them.
They could have bought them a yrs ago. The RFI went out recently, Boeing stopped 747 production to reconfigure the assembly line (did they?).
It would mean much less uncertainty (the 747-8 / GENX will not be certified for a while). Contrary to the other QF 747-400s (Rolls Royce) the -400ER's have GE CF6-80C2 engines.
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 13 Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7241 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): As I suggested as example in another thread. Say NG or Lockheed buys 2-3 QF 747-400ER's and contracts Spirit to rebuild them to AF1 standard using basic mods from the current aircraft (doors, refuel, APU etc).
The request specifically states "The PAR aircraft will be a new-build, commercial derivative, wide-body aircraft..." A refurbished 744 is a non-starter.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7221 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 14): The request specifically states "The PAR aircraft will be a new-build, commercial derivative, wide-body aircraft..." A refurbished 744 is a non-starter.
If e.g. Boeing cans the 747-8i or DOD wants some competition they'll simply adjust their request.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7167 times:
One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts. The same problem is going to affect the 747-400, eventually.
Also, with the amount of modifications that need to be made, it is likely easier with a new-build plane then a "previously flown" frame.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 19, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6940 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): As I suggested as example in another thread. Say NG or Lockheed buys 2-3 QF 747-400ER's and contracts Spirit to rebuild them to AF1 standard using basic mods from the current aircraft (doors, refuel, APU etc).
Not a chance. The AF maintains the VC-25's like no other 747's in the world; they are just as interested in buying someone else's problems as you are in investing in real estate on Pluto.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts. The same problem is going to affect the 747-400, eventually.
Also, with the amount of modifications that need to be made, it is likely easier with a new-build plane then a "previously flown" frame.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
DL767captain From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1707 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6755 times:
two 748s and one 788 would be interesting, use the 748s when the president goes out of the country and the 787 when he's traveling between states. But who knows. Maybe some 787/777 to replace the 757s. All i know is the 748 will be carrying the president and will look amazing!
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 1822 posts, RR: 8 Reply 25, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6539 times:
All this talk about the 748, would the US consider getting the 77W? It is probably comparative size with the 742s that they use now. The 748 is bigger, and as far as I am aware alot of the equiment in AF1 is outdated and can be fit into a much smaller area.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 27, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6833 times:
Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 25): All this talk about the 748, would the US consider getting the 77W?
I think they want a four engined aircraft, not for safety but to avoid diversions. On a twin you have to divert to the nearest suitable airport in the event of an engine failure; on a quad you don't. I think this factor alone will dictate that if a quad is available AF1 will be a quad. It has nothing to do with the relative safety of twins vs. quads.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 28, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6783 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19): Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
As I suggested as example in another thread. Say NG or Lockheed buys 2-3 QF 747-400ER's and contracts Spirit to rebuild them to AF1 standard using basic mods from the current aircraft (doors, refuel, APU etc).
Not a chance. The AF maintains the VC-25's like no other 747's in the world; they are just as interested in buying someone else's problems as you are in investing in real estate on Pluto.
Yes, but that is exactly what they would do by going for a 747-8i.
By the time a 747-8i is in service for 2 yrs (2013) and the dod can order it, they could have a rebuild 747-400ER in the sky.
I think for the AF1 it's more about the modifications then the original airframe anyway.
Boeing still has 8 unfilled 747-400ERF orders, are they converted ? has -400 assembly really stopped?
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2403 posts, RR: 3 Reply 29, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6656 times:
Quoting Charles79 (Reply 8): The unfortunate truth. Looks like my tax dollars won't be spent on the "best alternative" as chosen by a source selection board. Single source is seldom good news, nothing to keep the source's pricing honest. Sad.
Lets look at a couple things here:
1. Airbus builds cockpit commonality in the a/c as a main selling point, so unless Boeing uses Airbus type ratings, you are going sole supplier. Airbus has done pretty well with that strategy, getting more and more airlines to have single OEM fleets or at least much greater than 50%, price gouging does not seem to be a problem, as they became the largest OEM in short order. Unless you think only Boeing is capable of such practices?
2. You are heading out to buy a new Honda, the list price is say $20,000.00, how exactly are they going to get you to spend $50,000.00?
A lot of the customizations required by the US Air Force may have to be done after the a/c is built, possible by other sub-contractors, their cost will not be included in Boeing's, so for the purchaser to get "hosed", a conspiracy will have to be created. Remember Boeing will build the a/c, engines by another company, avionics, comminications, security, etc. etc. etc. this might be one case where the a/c builder is not the main contractor in terms of cost and installation, the basic air frame may be the simpliest part of the deal.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 30, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6651 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 28):
Yes, but that is exactly what they would do by going for a 747-8i.
By the time a 747-8i is in service for 2 yrs (2013) and the dod can order it, they could have a rebuild 747-400ER in the sky.
They are not looking for the first one until 2016. By that time the 748 should have plenty of experience. And they do not want a previously used airframe, period. I can't say that I blame them; doesn't everyone prefer a new car if they can afford it, with the sole exception being if you really want a model that is no longer in production? And I cannot see any reason on earth why the AF would prefer a 744 in any variation over a 748. You must also figure that since one of the reasons they give for replacing the two they have is spare parts price and availability, and the reason for that is the model they bought was at the tail end of its production run (in fact they were the last -200 models delivered); the AF clearly does not want to do the same thing again. With the 748 they will be close to the beginning of the model run, not at the end of it. Remember that these planes will probably still be flying after almost all 744's will be parked.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4743 posts, RR: 65 Reply 31, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6628 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter): The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its Airbus commercial aircraft manufacturing subsidiary is not planning to compete against Boeing for the prestigious contract to supply three planes to transport future U.S. presidents, according to company officials.
Seen almost the exact same words before for the KC-X being used before, the changed the terms of the competition, NG and EADS/Airbus submit a bit, and everyone cries fowl when Boeing does not win.
I hope in this case the USAF does not change their mind, US tax payer is set to pay for the most expensive 747s in history. I hope this is the bone Boeing needs, and NG gets the tanker.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts.
Will keep that in mind next time you contribute to a tanker thread, such a "young" 747 to be replaced with an aircraft that supposedly has a high parts commonality with the new 747-8.
I remember you saying they have high part commonality with earlier 747 models, and those aircraft hardly every fly, what spare parts do they need ?
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 32, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6619 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 27): I think they want a four engined aircraft, not for safety but to avoid diversions. On a twin you have to divert to the nearest suitable airport in the event of an engine failure; on a quad you don't.
I think even a quad with the POTUS on board would divert in the event of an engine out. A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target, one engine out on a quad is still probably better than one engine out on a twin, at least one with the POTUS on board.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 33, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6620 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32): I think even a quad with the POTUS on board would divert in the event of an engine out. A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target, one engine out on a quad is still probably better than one engine out on a twin, at least one with the POTUS on board.
You have a point about missiles; however, on the National Geographic program just aired they made a point about not having to divert if they lost an engine. They take extraordinary care of the plane, though, and replace or overhaul the engines at the slightest sign of wear or problems. So I suspect that they very, very seldom have an engine failure. One of the points made on the program was that diversion was very much a last resort, and once they take off they intend to land at the planned destination.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4743 posts, RR: 65 Reply 34, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6614 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32): A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target, one engine out on a quad is still probably better than one engine out on a twin, at least one with the POTUS on board.
Red, you cannot have it both ways, either the people who were claiming ETOPS is safer than a quad are right, or ETOPS is for accountants, and Boeing mainly builds for "affordable" safety. The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 35, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6603 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 31): I remember you saying they have high part commonality with earlier 747 models, and those aircraft hardly every fly, what spare parts do they need ?
All I have said on the subject of the VC-25A is that I didn't see a reason to replace them in the near term (i.e. - the next few years) as some have advocated because both frames have both low hours and low cycles on them. I've never brought up the subject of spares because it wasn't one that occurred to me.
They have, however, evidently occurred to the USAF and the Presidential Airlift Group. And they appear to have come to the opinion that even though both VA-25A's are structurally good for a significant period of time, the fact that Boeing last assembled a 747-200 was in 1990 and those two frames were VC-25As, the supply of spares will have the largest impact on continued VC-25A (and E-4B) operations. *shrug*
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 36, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6569 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 34): The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.
Well, if your family is an equal target for missiles as POTUS I congratulate you. Actually, I suspect there is far more attention paid to avoiding and counteracting missiles than just adding engines. And my issue is not safety (I actually think twins are safer) but the ability to continue the mission without diversion. If I am flying somewhere and the plane has to divert it is an inconvenience, but to the POTUS it may be far more, and the AF has decided that they don't want it to happen.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4743 posts, RR: 65 Reply 37, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6552 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36): Well, if your family is an equal target for missiles as POTUS I congratulate you.
That would be every EL-Al flight, and every aircraft in and out of war zones, e.g. the DLH A300 @ SDA. Why are those people less important ?
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36): Actually, I suspect there is far more attention paid to avoiding and counteracting missiles than just adding engines
Yes, that is the dummy AF1 and all the ground work that is out in.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36): And my issue is not safety (I actually think twins are safer) but the ability to continue the mission without diversion.
Why would AF1 NEED to divert if it was a twin ? AF1 is not an airline. it is a state aircraft, it does not operate under an AOC, it would not follow FAA ETOPS requirements. If a twin AF1 would not need to divert for safety reasons (as you "actually think twins are safer"), what reasons would it need to divert for that quad would not ?
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2403 posts, RR: 3 Reply 38, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6527 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 37): Why would AF1 NEED to divert if it was a twin ? AF1 is not an airline. it is a state aircraft, it does not operate under an AOC, it would not follow FAA ETOPS requirements. If a twin AF1 would not need to divert for safety reasons (as you "actually think twins are safer"), what reasons would it need to divert for that quad would not ?
Good points which some may not have thought of, but as it relates to the current B-747 that the US Air Force use, are they FAA certified and is it required? If FAA certification is required, would the normal ETOPS requirement have to be applied?
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 39, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6524 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 37): That would be every EL-Al flight, and every aircraft in and out of war zones, e.g. the DLH A300 @ SDA. Why are those people less important ?
Good point. However, the risks here are known, and everybody flying in and out of these areas should be aware of them. AF1, however, has got to be near the top of any terrorist's "dream target list," and as such is a potential target just about anywhere. While as long as there is terrorism every airliner is a potential target, I for one have no problem with providing the president with every safety measure that can reasonably be implemented, even when economic considerations deny me and my family the same protection.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 37): Why would AF1 NEED to divert if it was a twin ?
For the same reason that airlines do. I certainly expect that the POTUS be granted AT LEAST the same safety considerations that I receive. I fly single engine aircraft by choice, knowing the risks involved; I do not expect to carry the POTUS as a passenger. A twin with one engine out is now a single engined airliner, and while I think the current ETOPS regulations are good and prudent, they DO require landing at the first suitable place. When the authorities decide that ETOPS flights can continue to the destination on one engine then I will consider the possibilities of having AF1 be a twin.
[Edited 2009-01-30 10:57:17]
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 40, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6531 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 38): Good points which some may not have thought of, but as it relates to the current B-747 that the US Air Force use, are they FAA certified and is it required? If FAA certification is required, would the normal ETOPS requirement have to be applied?
The 747 that is used for AF1 is technically not a 747 at all, but an Air Force VC-25. As such it is not subject to FAA regulations at all, AFAIK. However, I would think that they follow the FAA procedures at a very minimum.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4743 posts, RR: 65 Reply 41, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6529 times:
Quoting Par13del (Reply 38): the current B-747 that the US Air Force use, are they FAA certified and is it required?
No AF1 is military VC-25 (USAF i.e. state aircraft), it is not FAA registered, the USAF does not need to follow any FAA regulations.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39): However, the risks here are known, and everybody flying in and out of these areas should be aware of them
Double standards
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39): however, has got to be near the top of any terrorist's "dream target list
Depends on your background.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39): For the same reason that airlines do.
AF1 is not an airline, AF1, marine 1 etc are military aircraft.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 39): A twin with one engine out is now a single engined airliner, and while I think the current ETOPS regulations are good and prudent, they DO require landing at the first suitable place.
Not in the military.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Why? As I said in my earlier post, I fly single engine planes, but I do not expect the AF to fly the president in them. Same with war zones; if people choose to fly there for whatever reason, good for them. But that is no justification for ignoring threats to the president. Perhaps you feel that the head of state of any country is just any other citizen and should not be getting special treatment; I disagree strongly. I feel that the president is deserving of every protection that can be reasonably devised; after all, being the POTUS is more dangerous than being a soldier in most of the wars that we have fought. Out of 44 presidents 4 have been assassinated; that is a fatality rate of 9%. That qualifies it as one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
Depends on your background.
What target do you think they would prefer?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 41): AF1 is not an airline, AF1, marine 1 etc are military aircraft.
Granted; however, when flying the president I would expect them to follow airline procedures that have been written in the blood of many, many crash victims at the very least.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 43, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6402 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 34): Red, you cannot have it both ways, either the people who were claiming ETOPS is safer than a quad are right, or ETOPS is for accountants, and Boeing mainly builds for "affordable" safety. The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.
Ah, Zeke, my old friend, then if you expect your family to fly by the same standards as the POTUS then you better book them on an airline that has planes equipped with an on-board medical pharmacy and medical facilities, including an operating table; a on-call staff doctor skilled in treating trauma patients; shielding to protect against EMP from a nuclear blast; in-flight refueling capabilities; secure communications capabilities; a communications network designed to enable the plane to act as a combat operations center for all-out nuclear war; flares for counter-measures against incoming heat-seeking missiles; ECM capabilities for jamming radar; and a self-loading baggage system.
But, more to the point, commercial airliners are at far less risk of being hit by a heat-seeking missile than is a high-profile target such as AF-1. Airlines need only concern themselves with an occasional in-flight engine shut down and nothing worse. If a missile strike were a very real and every day threat for commercial airliners, then I'm sure your beloved quad argument would win the day. But if you want to rehash for the millionth time the quad vs. twin argument then let's head over to CivAv and bring up some of the old threads.
Lexy From United States, joined Jun 2006, 2258 posts, RR: 7 Reply 44, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6327 times:
As far as I remember, the aerial refueling capability on both AF1's is gone. The "hump" is still there but it has since been covered up and determined too risky to undertake.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7507 posts, RR: 51 Reply 45, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6332 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): Airbus doesn't need to lose money just to fly POTUS around. I doubt the prestige is that great.
They would give their left nut to get to build the next AF-1. But, they also know they have no chance of winning this contract, even if they offered three A-340-600s, or A-380-800s for free.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): One of the reasons the VC-25 (and E-4) fleet is being replaced is the unavailability of spare parts.
Not true at all. There are still plenty of sourses for B-747-200/-400 parts, including from Boeing. Additionally, why does the USAF still fly the B-52H (production ended in 1963) or KC-135R/T (production ended in 1965)? No one is building spares for the basic airframes.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23): Not if they continue to pass $850 Billion dollar spending bills, there won't be a country left to preside over!
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 26): IMO, there is no way that AF1 will be a B777/B787.
Why? The C-20A/B/C, C-32A/B, C-37A, and C-40B have all flown as Air Force-1. The C-32A did it over a long strech of the Pacific Ocean last year when the VC-25A had a flat tire.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 29): Airbus builds cockpit commonality in the a/c as a main selling point, so unless Boeing uses Airbus type ratings, you are going sole supplier. Airbus has done pretty well with that strategy
So does Boeing. The B-757 and B-767 have the same type rating. The B-737-700/ER, -800, and -900ER all have the same type rating. The A-318, -319, -320, and -321 all have the same type rating, as does the A-330 and A-340.
Quoting Par13del (Reply 29): A lot of the customizations required by the US Air Force may have to be done after the a/c is built, possible by other sub-contractors, their cost will not be included in Boeing's, so for the purchaser to get "hosed", a conspiracy will have to be created.
It still comes under the same contract. The sub-contractors are accountable to the prime-contractor. In the case of the VC-135C and VC-25A, the basic airframes were built in Renton and modified in Witcha.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 31): hope in this case the USAF does not change their mind, US tax payer is set to pay for the most expensive 747s in history.
We already own the 7 most expensive B-747s ever built, four E-4Bs, two VC-25As, and the YAL-1A. But, you are correct, these next three USAF B-747s will cost more than the current E-4Bs and VC-25s, perhaps even more than the AL-1. The two VC-25s were ordered in 1987 at a total cost of $500M
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32): A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target,
Air Force-1, which ever aircraft it is is equipped with missile defense systems.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 34): ETOPS is safer than a quad are right, or ETOPS is for accountants,
Mathamaticly, a quad is safer than a twin. And you are right, Zeke, ETOPS is for the accountants. It was the bean counters (in the form of airline execs) that wanted it back in the early 1980s. The bean counters were the ones who proposed it to the FAA to adjaust (change) their rules. IIRC, the first change was the 120 minute ETOPS, followed by less than a year later by the 180 minute ETOPS.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 34): The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.
I agree with you on this one, Zeke.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 41): Quoting Par13del (Reply 38):
the current B-747 that the US Air Force use, are they FAA certified and is it required?
No AF1 is military VC-25
Well, yes, and no. The B-747-200 airframe is a FAA certified airframe, but it never received a supplemential certification because the VC-25 has the same GE engines that only come on the B-747-400 (as far as B-747s go), not the B-747-200. The VC-25A is equipped with GE CF-6-80C2B1 engines, it also has duel APUs that airline B-747s of any model do not have, and the landing gear of the heavier B-747-300.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 46, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6235 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 32):
A quad does make sense from a safety standpoint because if a small missile finds its target,
Air Force-1, which ever aircraft it is is equipped with missile defense systems.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 47, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6133 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45): They would give their left nut to get to build the next AF-1. But, they also know they have no chance of winning this contract, even if they offered three A-340-600s, or A-380-800s for free.
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but clearly, an A380 flying as Air Force 1 would be worth a lot to Airbus. It'd lift their prestige even more that it already is, and would be a heck of an advertisement for A380. Pretty much every time it arrives somewhere with POTUS on-board it ends up on dozens of newscasts.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7507 posts, RR: 51 Reply 49, posted (9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5881 times:
Quoting Lexy (Reply 44): As far as I remember, the aerial refueling capability on both AF1's is gone. The "hump" is still there but it has since been covered up and determined too risky to undertake.
Am I wrong in that thinking?
The USAF VC-25As are still air refuelable. The president's pilots still maintane their currency in air refueling, and the VC-25s each must refuel aver so often to maintane system reliability.
Not according to the accident statistics. According to the research that I have done, exactly the same number of twins have crashed due to engine issues as airliners with more than two engines. Since far more twins are flying, that makes twins statistically safer.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45): Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.
I agree with you on this one, Zeke.
The issue is not ultimate safety but flexibility and not having to divert. I do agree with Zeke's argument for quads based on this issue; I do not agree with it based on safety. As I said before, a diversion to a lonely island in the Pacific is an inconvenience to me and my family; to the President it could be a nightmare and have many unintended consequences.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 33 Reply 51, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5385 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45): And you are right, Zeke, ETOPS is for the accountants. It was the bean counters (in the form of airline execs) that wanted it back in the early 1980s. The bean counters were the ones who proposed it to the FAA to adjust (change) their rules.
In any commercial venture the bean counters will always rule. That is why so many things are done the way they are. It doesn't mean it is necessarily any less safe, only more efficient. It was a bean counter that required airplanes to be built lighter and less robust, because weight is a cost penalty in aviation. I don't see anyone pissing-and-moaning about the travesty of airplane components being built to the bare minimums in order to exact more efficiency in the form of weight savings out of them. But we tar-and-feather the poor soul who dared to suggest jet engines have evolved to the point where we only need two on an airplane - and can prove it through hard facts and statistics.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7507 posts, RR: 51 Reply 52, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5344 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 50): Not according to the accident statistics. According to the research that I have done, exactly the same number of twins have crashed due to engine issues as airliners with more than two engines. Since far more twins are flying, that makes twins statistically safer.
That is true when you include the early B-707 and DC-8 operations, of the 1960s and late 1950s. It was also true in the early days of the B-737-100/-200 and DC-9s. But as pilots (who many at the time came out of propeller driven airplanes) learned more to keep ahead of the airplanes, and the airplanes themselves became more reliable, the 3 and 4 engine airplanes had fewer and fewer engine out related accidents.
But, compare the modern 3 engine (MD-11) and 4 engine (B-747-200B/-300/-400/ER, A-340-200/-300/-500/-600, A-380, and even the BAC-146-100/-200) to the modern twin (A-330, B-767, B-777), the numbers are almost exact because, in most cases, the engines on all the big twins and the four engine airplanes are the same, or a close derivitive.
Statistics can say almost anything you want. But, one thing is certain, if any twin looses two engines, it is going down. But, if a four engine airplane is light enough, and looses two engines, it has a miuch better chance of a safe landing than the twin does.
Additionally there is the psycologic effect that most people feel safer with 3 or 4 simply because there are more than two engines. But that in itself is meaningless.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5235 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 52): That is true when you include the early B-707 and DC-8 operations, of the 1960s and late 1950s. It was also true in the early days of the B-737-100/-200 and DC-9s. But as pilots (who many at the time came out of propeller driven airplanes) learned more to keep ahead of the airplanes, and the airplanes themselves became more reliable, the 3 and 4 engine airplanes had fewer and fewer engine out related accidents.
Actually, the accidents I found were all in the late 70's, 80's and 90's, and none were early jets. I have forgotten the exact number, but I believe there were about six of each (twins and quads/tris). I included accidents caused by engines failing and engines falling off. I did not include engines blowing up while the plane was still on the ground.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 52): Statistics can say almost anything you want. But, one thing is certain, if any twin looses two engines, it is going down. But, if a four engine airplane is light enough, and looses two engines, it has a miuch better chance of a safe landing than the twin does.
Quite true, but the simple fact is that as far as I can determine no jet (going back to the B-47) has ever lost two engines on one flight except for a common cause, i.e. running out of fuel or flying into a volcanic cloud, or a flight of birds. And the fact is that if you have double the number of engines you have double the chance of one failing, and a catastrophic engine failure (like UA 232) is much more likely to bring a plane down than are two unrelated failures.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
MadameConcorde From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 4586 posts, RR: 17 Reply 54, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5230 times:
The POTUS new limo is nicknamed "The Beast".
I wonder what nickame they will find for the new AF1(s).
Also I wonder if these new aircrafts will be as "secret" as the new limo.
There was a better way to fly. It was called Concorde.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, RR: 51 Reply 56, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5251 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 34): The passengers on board should not determine FAA safety standards, if a quad is only safe enough for POTUS, I would ask for the same standard for my family, nothing less.
In another thread I did a quick & dirty VIP machine based on the 747-8F. Maybe an option for AF1 and the VIP's if Boeing deffers the -8i. Nett more space then the current -200's.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 58, posted (9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5163 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 56): In another thread I did a quick & dirty VIP machine based on the 747-8F. Maybe an option for AF1 and the VIP's...
I think such a thing would be perfectly viable for those roles. The USAF birds put the communications gear on the upper deck so they certainly don't need any extra space. And VIP birds would just use it for crew rest, so they wouldn't need it, either.
LMP737 From United States, joined May 2002, 3909 posts, RR: 26 Reply 59, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4883 times:
With companies catching heat for taking delivery of corporate jets I don't think the decision ona new AF1 is going to happen very soon. In fact I would be suprised if it happened in President Obama's first term.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 60, posted (9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4874 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 59): With companies catching heat for taking delivery of corporate jets I don't think the decision ona new AF1 is going to happen very soon. In fact I would be suprised if it happened in President Obama's first term.
I don't think it will become an issue unless the economy really tanks. Then all bets are off. Besides, if they're smart, they'll pitch it as part of the stimulus.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
LMP737 From United States, joined May 2002, 3909 posts, RR: 26 Reply 61, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4669 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 60): I don't think it will become an issue unless the economy really tanks. Then all bets are off. Besides, if they're smart, they'll pitch it as part of the stimulus.
It would be an issue, just look at the heat those companies took over the issue of corporate jets. A new AF1 is the ultimate in corporate jets. Those Congressman who blasted the CEO's of the big three would be the same one's having to appropriate a lot of money for a new Air Force 1. I'm preety sure there a lot of people who would be more than happy to point this out.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 62, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4639 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 61): It would be an issue, just look at the heat those companies took over the issue of corporate jets.
I don't think anyone disputes the need for the President to travel by "private jet." Do you really expect him to travel on the airlines like the rest of us? The company CEO's can; they are not the high profile target that the president is. The argument put forth by the Air Force, that the VC-25's are getting old and expensive to maintain, may well be valid. That will justify new planes regardless of the economy. The only issue will be what size they will be, and if the economy does really tank, they may be downsized. But the president will not lose his special transport.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
LMP737 From United States, joined May 2002, 3909 posts, RR: 26 Reply 63, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4547 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 62): Do you really expect him to travel on the airlines like the rest of us?
No and I never said he should. What I have said is given the way companies have caught heat over corprate jets I think the President would be a bit hesitant for the governement to place an order for a new AF 1 at the present moment.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 62): The argument put forth by the Air Force, that the VC-25's are getting old and expensive to maintain, may well be valid. That will justify new planes regardless of the economy.
The 707's that served as Air Force one were in service almost twenty and thirty years respectively. Even after they were no longer AF 1 they continued to my as executive transports.
The current AF 1 have not yet hit twenty. Given the low utilization and meticulous care they recieve I think they can soldier on for a little while longer.
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 13 Reply 64, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4538 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 63): The current AF 1 have not yet hit twenty. Given the low utilization and meticulous care they recieve I think they can soldier on for a little while longer.
They will - based on the RFI, they do not anticipate bringing the new aircraft into service for nearly 10 years. The current VC-25s will be pushing 30 years old by then.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15918 posts, RR: 64 Reply 66, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4444 times:
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 65): You see, private jets are a corporate excess, a new presidential transport is economic stimulus.
The CEOs should have flown in on brand new jets. Starbucks, for example, is taking stick for preparing to acquire a new Gulfstream IV after laying off 6000+ people, but that's a new plane so it's employing folks at the Gulfstream factory.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 67, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4414 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 63): No and I never said he should. What I have said is given the way companies have caught heat over corprate jets I think the President would be a bit hesitant for the governement to place an order for a new AF 1 at the present moment.
Why? The president is trying to fling money in every direction possible; why not in this one?
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 63):
The current AF 1 have not yet hit twenty. Given the low utilization and meticulous care they recieve I think they can soldier on for a little while longer.
Of course they can. But the 748 will be more efficient and cost less to maintain (they will say). Don't let logic interfere with some general's desire for a shiny new toy.
Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 65): You see, private jets are a corporate excess, a new presidential transport is economic stimulus.
Now you're understanding the lingo.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Al Presidential Limos, since the Kennedy assasination have been called the beast.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 59): With companies catching heat for taking delivery of corporate jets
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 61): It would be an issue, just look at the heat those companies took over the issue of corporate jets.
But, no one objects to Nancy Pelosi demanding, and getting a USAF C-32A at her personal disposal. She was offered a C-20A (G-III) two years ago, but demanded to have the longer ranged and bigger USAF B-757 corprate jet.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 62): I don't think anyone disputes the need for the President to travel by "private jet." Do you really expect him to travel on the airlines like the rest of us?
When the British PM travels anywhere, he charters a BA B-777-200ER or B-747-400.
Moose135 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 1115 posts, RR: 13 Reply 69, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3911 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68): But, no one objects to Nancy Pelosi demanding, and getting a USAF C-32A at her personal disposal. She was offered a C-20A (G-III) two years ago, but demanded to have the longer ranged and bigger USAF B-757 corprate jet.
I'm surprised at you Boom, I thought you would know better than to repeat that old, misinformed, long-debunked story. At no time did she demand a C-32. The House Sergeant at Arms (who has held that post since 1995 under Newt Gingrich) requested that for security reasons, an aircraft capable of reaching California non-stop be available for use, but never specifically requested the C-32. In fact, Pelosi normally flies on either the C-20 (G-III) or the C-37 (G-V). According to AF Public Affairs, she has used the C-32 only one time, when no other aircraft were available.
FlyingClrs727 From United States, joined Apr 2007, 444 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3737 times:
Quoting Charles79 (Reply 8): Looks like my tax dollars won't be spent on the "best alternative" as chosen by a source selection board.
How many airports in the US can handle an A380 anyway? Even major airports like LAX that have handled 747's for four decades require upgrades to taxiways just for A380's, avoiding having to shut down runways and taxiways while an A380 is moving around the airport. Air Force One doesn't just fly between major international airports the way most wide bodied aircraft and especially A380's do.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 162 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3739 times:
Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 70): How many airports in the US can handle an A380 anyway? Even major airports like LAX that have handled 747's for four decades require upgrades to taxiways just for A380's, avoiding having to shut down runways and taxiways while an A380 is moving around the airport. Air Force One doesn't just fly between major international airports the way most wide bodied aircraft and especially A380's do.
Doesn't matter if the airport get shut down because a A380 arrives; if POTUS is arriving, the airport is shut down anyways for security reasons.
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7122 posts, RR: 44 Reply 72, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3682 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 52):
Statistics can say almost anything you want. But, one thing is certain, if any twin looses two engines, it is going down. But, if a four engine airplane is light enough, and looses two engines, it has a miuch better chance of a safe landing than the twin does.
Please list the conditions that can cause two of four engines on a quad to fail without affecting the other two.
I can only think of a spectacularly unlikely bird strike.
Anyway, in the argument of 787 vs 747, the important factor is size, not engines. The President often travels with a large retinue and the 747 is a flying White House. The 787 is simply not big enough for some of those missions. However, it can operate out of fields that the 747 can't, so having one on hand is a good idea.
Euclid From South Africa, joined Apr 2005, 354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3637 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 35): the fact that Boeing last assembled a 747-200 was in 1990 and those two frames were VC-25As
Sorry, but no. The very last 747-200 off the assembly line was a freighter for I think JAL.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 72): Please list the conditions that can cause two of four engines on a quad to fail without affecting the other two.
The SAA 747-200 Helderberg, that later crashed into the Indian Ocean as flight SA295 once did have an uncontained engine failure that blew pieces into the other engine on the same wing, leaving it to land with just the other two engines on the other wing.
Don't know if the engine failures occurred on the left or right side, though.
Please do not ask me for sources to this story, as I am unable to provide one. Typical of the press sensationalism so well known to us all on this site, when the plane crashed one newspaper did carry a story of its "troubled past" that obviously mentioned this incident.
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7122 posts, RR: 44 Reply 75, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
Quoting Euclid (Reply 73):
The SAA 747-200 Helderberg, that later crashed into the Indian Ocean as flight SA295 once did have an uncontained engine failure that blew pieces into the other engine on the same wing, leaving it to land with just the other two engines on the other wing.
And had it been a twin, then the other engine would have been unaffected. So that doesn't count.
I still can't imagine a situation other than a repeat of the Hudson Floater where two engines on different wings could be affected without affecting the other two.
You start to get into the realm of probabilities so low that they are uncalculable.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 77, posted (9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 68): When the British PM travels anywhere, he charters a BA B-777-200ER or B-747-400.
Not to belittle the British PM, but he does not have the same role in the world as does the POTUS. And if I were a Brit, I would think it appropriate for the government to have aircraft suitable for carrying the PM and/or Queen on international trips for security reasons. The chartered aircraft do not have the security or communications capability that AF1 requires.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 72):
Please list the conditions that can cause two of four engines on a quad to fail without affecting the other two.
I have never heard of any jet suffering two unrelated engine failures on the same flight, period. And that is going back to the B-47 and B-52, which certainly had a much greater chance of suffering such an event. Doc Lightning has it right; while it is possible it is unlikely to the point of irrelevance. But I still think that AF1 should be a quad, not because of the possibility of dual engine failures, but to avoid having to divert unexpectedly if one engine does fail.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7507 posts, RR: 51 Reply 78, posted (9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 72): Please list the conditions that can cause two of four engines on a quad to fail without affecting the other two.
Quoting Euclid (Reply 73): The SAA 747-200 Helderberg, that later crashed into the Indian Ocean as flight SA295 once did have an uncontained engine failure that blew pieces into the other engine on the same wing, leaving it to land with just the other two engines on the other wing.
Correct. IIRC, the El Al B-747-200F that crashed into and apartment complex in Amsterdam several years ago had a two engine failure on departure. A WIANG KC-135E ran in to sevear CAT in ODS, and engines # 3 and # 4 seperated from the airplane, he recovered and landed safely. When I went through the central flight instructors course (CFIC) in SAC (1978), they taught the pilots who were upgrading to instructors how to fly, and land with two engines out on one side in the KC-135A. Also, IIRC the BOAC B-707-320B that came apart in CAT over Mt. Fuji in the 1960s initially had two engines seperate just before the wing failed.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7507 posts, RR: 51 Reply 80, posted (9 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2602 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 79): Well an uncontained engine failure on one engine of a twin is unlikely to make it all the way through the fuselage to take out the other engine.
And twins are designed to drop an engine off the wing and still fly, though I am not sure if a twin has ever actually dropped an engine off the wing.
And if a wing fails, well at that point it might not matter how many engines you have left depending on how much of the wing did leave the airframe.
It really depends on how the engine comes aprat in the uncontaimed failure. Those are unpredictable.
All engines mounted in pods below the wing are designed to fall off. This is mostly for ditching purposes, but the US A-320 into the Hudson River proves that doesn't always happen. The # 1 engine did seperate from the wing, but # 2 did not.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3980 posts, RR: 4 Reply 81, posted (9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2487 times:
And BA demonstrated how one can fly from LA to MAN with one engine out on the 747. That's a pretty nice capability to have A twin can get 3-4 hour ETOPS certification, but as BA fans will tell you, the 747 is certified to keep flying on three whereas twins need to find the nearest airport and land. With POTUS on-board the rules can be bended, but still, the four-holer is pretty impressive from a safety point of view. I really don't see USAF going for anything other than the 747-8i for the next presidential transport.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3936 posts, RR: 24 Reply 82, posted (9 months 12 hours ago) and read 2471 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 79):
And twins are designed to drop an engine off the wing and still fly, though I am not sure if a twin has ever actually dropped an engine off the wing.
There have been at least two 737's (and one 727) that have had engines fall off in flight. They all landed safely.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Feb 2007, 318 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2273 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 56 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 4557 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9843 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 831 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3162 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2403 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4743 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Feb 2007, 4586 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Apr 2005, 354 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
