Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 To Replace Air Force One In 2017?  
User currently offlinesimplikate From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 50 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20519 times:

Interesting article and render of an A380 Air Force One. EADS said no in 2009, but the official RFP is not going out til 2015 so this article seems to think it still possible. I can't imagine the US not going with Boeing but it makes for interesting chatter:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ot-linked-to-air-force-one-362355/

95 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20524 times:

The replacement will most likely be a 748-I. I hardly can imagine the US government not going Boeing on this one. Not to mention, this topic is discussed over and over with the same results.

UAL


User currently offlineba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8561 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Never going to happen even if Airbus gave them away for free, might as well delete the thread.............


111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,77L,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333
User currently offlinesimplikate From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20407 times:

The render is fun to look at at least.

User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3122 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20097 times:

Quoting simplikate (Thread starter):
this article seems to think it still possible.

But this article doesn't:

EADS Waves Off Bid For Air Force One Replacement

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-air-force-one-replacement-321709/


User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4876 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20029 times:

Quoting simplikate (Reply 3):
The render is fun to look at at least.
.
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=19940

Enjoy it then.....for it's as far as it would get.  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 20019 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 5):
Enjoy it then.....for it's as far as it would get.  

Those must be Rollers mounted on those wings too!   



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently onlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6480 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19976 times:

With the current federal budget situation in mind it is pretty sure that we will be free to make any wild speculation about AF1 replacement at least until the end of the decade. Any plan, which the USAF has aired, is sure to be postponed.

And what's the problem? Those VC-25s are likely to have been well maintained, and they may have the lowest cycles and hours count of all 747s in the world.

Unfortunately, even if they may be replaced in 10 - 15 - 20 years, then it is too optimistic to assume that replacement can be a straight airliner like the DC-6 AF1 fifty years ago. Therefore, look out for future replacement of the E-4 planes, likely way out in the future.

Like today, any future AF1 and E-4 are likely to partly share the world's most advanced defence and communication systems, and therefore also pretty much crew training. Those system are of course classified and prone to rather frequent updates or replacements, so the planes will definitely be American. Those things are not simple bolt on units. Very likely E-4 and VC-25 planes will be replaced rather simultaneously, and once again with the same plane type as basis.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3620 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 19956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This thread continues the idea that this subject must be reviewed every 3 months... always hoping for a different response.

Ans: Never....


User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1922 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 19337 times:

An A380 FAL for just two A380's in Mobile would help Airbus/EADS a great deal in securing this order...     

Cheers!   



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 19307 times:

Even that USAF VIP paint scheme can't make the A380 look good. What an ugly airplane.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 19295 times:

Quoting simplikate (Thread starter):
Interesting article and render of an A380 Air Force One. EADS said no in 2009, but the official RFP is not going out til 2015 so this article seems to think it still possible. I can't imagine the US not going with Boeing but it makes for interesting chatter:

The president who orders an A380 for AF1 would be crucified. It's not as if we don't make something similar here, and this is a megabucks purchase employing thousands.

On top of all that, with our budget issues, I think AF1 should be a 737. Make it a 737-200. And in order to make it earn a little extra money, get rid of all the reporters in the back and convert the rear to mail/cargo.

Better yet, the presidential candidate in 2012 who declares that, until the budget is balanced, the VIP wing at Andrews will be mothballed, that AF1 will be a rented airliner from American Airlines or United (Like the Brits do), and all other travel including congress shall be commercial, would probably get an extra 20% of the vote right there.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12619 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 19133 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 4):
But this article doesn't:

EADS Waves Off Bid For Air Force One Replacement

That was nearly 3 years ago. Things may change.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks ago) and read 19006 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):

That was nearly 3 years ago. Things may change.

yea, and pigs may fly... OH WAIT! lol


User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 18885 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):

The president who orders an A380 for AF1 would be crucified. It's not as if we don't make something similar here, and this is a megabucks purchase employing thousands

The RFP is due for 2015. When Obama makes that decision, he'll be deep into his second term. I would think at that point it really won't matter what happens.

I do agree that AF1 should be less ostenstatious though, but more for practical reasons than political. A combination of say, 788 (for the VC25) & A321NEO (for the C32) would do great, as they would meet the needs assigned as well as fit into existing airfields world-wide better than a 380 would, and actually better than the current VC25 does. Kind of surprised no one has mentioned this yet...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18846 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 14):
The RFP is due for 2015. When Obama makes that decision, he'll be deep into his second term. I would think at that point it really won't matter what happens.

What makes you think Obama is going to get reelected? Even if he does, he "owes" the unions in the US. He would not order any A-380VIP for AF-1 just because of that.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 14):
A combination of say, 788 (for the VC25) & A321NEO (for the C32) would do great, as they would meet the needs assigned as well as fit into existing airfields world-wide better than a 380 would, and actually better than the current VC25 does. Kind of surprised no one has mentioned this yet...

While I believe the B-748 is going to be the replacement AF-1, I doubt the A-321NEO has any chance due to the unions. So the C-32A/B replacement (AF-2 and other VIP uses) will be either a C-46 derivitive (B-767-2C), configuered as a pax/VIP airplane, a B-767-400ER, or the B-787-800. The C-40B replacement will, most likely be the B-737-8MAX, or if Boeing offers to build, a possible B-787-700/-400.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18831 times:

For those looking for a visual...




Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18829 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):

What makes you think Obama is going to get reelected? Even if he does, he "owes" the unions in the US. He would not order any A-380VIP for AF-1 just because of that

The current crop of GOP contenders. And as far as owing unions anything, he really wouldn't. It's his second term at that point, not much for him to worry over... Anyway, to say any more than that would be off topic, so I'll leave it that...

I don't see a 380 VIP happening either, but for more than political reasons. If the VC25 is replaced with a 787-8 (mililtary VIP derrivitive no doubt...) and something in the 320 to 321 NEO size range for the C-32, we'll have a Capital transport fleet with the capabilities they need and the ability to use most airports and runways in the world. A 380 would be hideously cumbersome by comparison, & I doubt the 748i is much better there.

A C-46 to replace the C-32 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much airplane for that. I think the C-32 is already too big as it is. It would almost be better just to buy a few more C-40s (those are the military spec 73Gs, right?), if that is the only other option.

But, the process for procurement being what it is, yes it may very well be a 748i that ends up replacing both VC-25s. Even though a 788 would be better.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3620 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The C-32's still have a long life ahead of them.. however when replaced they will probably bypass the C-40 for a 737-900 or 737MAX-9 and create a new C- number for it. Heck the 737 replacement may be available by then not just the upgraded MAX.

For those who think there is lots of room on a C-32, there isn't, things are packed in with little free room.. and it's sure a lot cheaper than having the Sec. of State taking a VC-25 to meetings.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 18659 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
The C-32's still have a long life ahead of them..

I think they will be the last 757's in the air to retire, whenever it is that they do retire of course. A stretched C-40B might offer comparable room as a 757-200, but it will never match the thrust of the 757 platform.

The USAF wants options and the last thing they want to do has hand Boeing a sole-source contract for the VC-25 replacement, and pay through the nose for it. The aircraft may be a new Boeing or Airbus aircraft, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the prime contractor, especially when we are only talking 2 or 3 airframes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ot-linked-to-air-force-one-362355/


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 18619 times:

I don't even know why this thread is still going...

If we were talking about a commercial venture (airline)... Why would anyone want a smaller sub fleet (2-3 A/C) to add to the already small fleet you already have (8-9 A/C)? There tons of 747-A380 threads debating this very fact all the time! In this case its make ZERO sense??



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3620 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18593 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I tried the suggested the thread deletion button, however the moderators seem to want this to go on.. They're hoping that if enough threads suggesting the A380 are initiated, the Air Force will bend to A.Nets's will and beg Airbus..   

That said

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 19):
The USAF wants options and the last thing they want to do has hand Boeing a sole-source contract for the VC-25 replacement, and pay through the nose for it. The aircraft may be a new Boeing or Airbus aircraft, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the prime contractor, especially when we are only talking 2 or 3 airframes.

First we know your opinion of Boeing from previous threads and your statement "USAF wants options and the last thing they want to do has hand Boeing a sole-source" is blatently incorrect.

Fuurther there is so much unique stuff on board, converting a BBJ or used commercial would be even more expensive. For instance all the wiring would have to be removed and replaced with higher EMF shielded wires. This is easily done during assembly but a b***ch afterwards (we know we had to do it on the first VC-25). The Secret Service would have a fit over using a used commercial plane.


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 18525 times:

Quoting j.mo (Reply 10):
Even that USAF VIP paint scheme can't make the A380 look good. What an ugly airplane.

Well, we all have waited for such a comment, haven't we?
Without any further point, the last argument Airbus haters have, is: "It's an ugly plane!"  



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2153 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 18418 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 19):
The USAF wants options and the last thing they want to do has hand Boeing a sole-source contract for the VC-25 replacement, and pay through the nose for it.

I doubt the Air Force would want a fixed price contract for this one. There is too much risk involved. As for a cost +, doesn't matter who you chose, you will pay through the nose.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 19):
The aircraft may be a new Boeing or Airbus aircraft, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the prime contractor, especially when we are only talking 2 or 3 airframes.

  

But the airframe OEM would be in the best position to understand all the intricacy of modifying the airframe. Having them as a sub contractor add a layer of bureaucracy that sometimes makes this more complicated. Specially if the sub and the prime are using different CAD systems and databases software.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18374 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 21):

First we know your opinion of Boeing from previous threads and your statement "USAF wants options and the last thing they want to do has hand Boeing a sole-source" is blatently incorrect.

How is that "blatantly" incorrect? Besides defying common sense (who wants to pay more for less?), where have you ever read, heard, or seen the USAF say they want to buy whatever Boeing has to offer, for whatever price they have to offer? I'm sure the KC-46 will meet the USAF requirements, but let's not forget until the Boeing politicians changed the criteria for award in the final RFP, the USAF choose the KC-30 over the Boeing product. The USAF does not like being tethered to Boeing because it not only hurts the pricing that they can get, but also the level of product that they receive. Just like the GE F110 engine did for the F-16, and what the RR/GE alternative JSF engine are trying to achieve on that program, having two entities compete not only ensures best price, it also increases the product that that money buys.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I am anti-Boeing? I may not agree on everything they do, but for the most part I am an ardent advocate of most things Boeing.  
Quoting kanban (Reply 21):
Fuurther there is so much unique stuff on board, converting a BBJ or used commercial would be even more expensive. For instance all the wiring would have to be removed and replaced with higher EMF shielded wires. This is easily done during assembly but a b***ch afterwards (we know we had to do it on the first VC-25). The Secret Service would have a fit over using a used commercial plane.

The current VC-25's began as green 743's with -400 upper decks, the last two off the line. From there, they were engineered to meet the needs of the customer, but before that point there was nothing different. When you tear down any aircraft far enough, you might be surprised to find that underneath even the most extensive modifications, there is still just an airplane underneath it all.

I've seen an old Navy R4D that was heavily converted for maritime surveillance during WWII, a program so classified at the time they still can't find any info on it, but it's still flying today as an otherwise normal looking DC-3 save for some of original internal modifications done nearly 60 years ago, with the flight cables for example having four 90 degree bends near the rear to accommodate some piece of hardware that the aircraft used to carry. The mod wasn't done by Douglass.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 23):
But the airframe OEM would be in the best position to understand all the intricacy of modifying the airframe. Having them as a sub contractor add a layer of bureaucracy that sometimes makes this more complicated. Specially if the sub and the prime are using different CAD systems and databases software.

Well skip the bureaucracy and don't even include the OEM as a sub - their effort was completed when the original aircraft was assembled. It's not even really an issue, just a very surmountable obstacle at most. There are numerous examples of a variety of aircraft both civil and military, that were modified for a specific use and were not done by the aircraft's original manufacturer.

Remember what killed the VH-71? The WHMO kept wanting to add the kitchen sink and more so onto the aircraft until it just couldn't even get off the ground. The premise of the Air Force being interested in the A-380 and all that they could get in there is indeed, very exciting for they. The Air Force could theoretically buy a green A-380 from Airbus in Toulousse and then have Boeing do the conversion in PAE over to make it the next Air Force One. When you're only looking at two or three aircraft total, ANY thing is possible.


25 kanban : They were unique even before final assembly, doors, floor beams, retracting stairs, internal stairs to the lower lobe, provisions for refueling, relo
26 AirRyan : Nothing that cannot be modified long after any aircraft has rolled out of the Boeing assembly line. It may not be easy, but it certainly can be done.
27 neutronstar73 : YOu are hoping against reality. EADS won't bid, and Boeing is a lock for this deal. Unlike the tanker contract (where EADS has a better shot at winni
28 XT6Wagon : I wouldn't bring up the KC-45/KC-46 if I were you. I wouldn't want to associate my statements with EADS NA's blatent corruption of the selection proc
29 Post contains images scbriml : I'm not hoping for anything. Just saying that things change - what was then might be different to next time.
30 bikerthai : That, my friend is much harder to do now-a-day than you think. In order to mod an aircraft efficiciently today, you will need the OEM data with respe
31 par13del : I have not posted in the last few threads on this subject, but each and every time my point is consistent. The POTUS is an office not an individual, t
32 Post contains images HaveBlue : I agree 100%! The worlds leading military power, the most visible symbol of power and prestige in an airframe, it should be an in-house airframe. And
33 cmf : I'm happy to see the moderators allowing the discussion to take place. Ignorance is best handled by education. Suppression makes it worse. Also find
34 par13del : Comparing a private company - Boeing - to the government of the USA is a bit of a stretch, they may both represent the country but everyone expects B
35 bennett123 : There are few slam dunk certainties in this world. However, the replacement of all of the types, (VVIP and E4) will be boeing. The VC25/E4 will be rep
36 AirRyan : But it's still done all the time, by plenty of different folks all around the world, not named Boeing. The USAF will still seek an A380 bid on up unt
37 par13del : Why do you assume that it will be Boeing, Lockheed Martin could also build the a/c, based on the last inquiry the number of frames are now up to 3, t
38 bikerthai : Please provide source. I didn't know that Boeing own any private business jet. AFAIK the only jets they "own" are those used in testing. From what I
39 bennett123 : The starting point for AF1 will be an existing type, surely you do not think that LM will offer a clear sheet proposal for 3 airframes. The only compa
40 Post contains images PC12Fan : I also agree with others that the 748i is a shoe in for the job. Another point is that the aircraft will have a few years of experience under the belt
41 cmf : If anything the company should be more reluctant using a competitors product when they are in the same (broad) segment. How to explain to customers t
42 kanban : Doesn't Boeing use some small (smaller than a 737) aircraft to move flight test and maintenance crews around? The initial statement leaves much room
43 Post contains links cmf : http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=3365362 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...tives-airports-boeing-business-jet ht
44 cmf : If some people have an interest in discussing something why shouldn't they be allowed to? They don't force you to partake.
45 par13del : Why not, the parameters are different, why exactly do you think it takes years to bring a commercial frame to market, its not because they don't have
46 cmf : I'll always put functionality first.
47 Post contains links bikerthai : Good references. I am enlightened. A more recent reference: "Those aircraft include a Boeing 737 airliner outfitted as a flying office suite and a nu
48 PC12Fan : That still doesn't answer my question.
49 par13del : Like I said, we differ, no problem with that. Program was cancelled for cost, at least that is what President Obama stated publicy. My thought proces
50 Post contains images cmf : Just never complain about inefficient government with that position
51 NASCARAirforce : I think it looks cool as an A380 Air Force One I think US will try to be more fuel efficient and go with a 77W as a VC-25 replacement.
52 AirRyan : It's the same aircraft that this time with Boeing as the prime, will win the RFP again and do so simply because it is the best medium lift platform o
53 bikerthai : It'll be interesting to see how the 787 airframe can handle and EMP jolt. bikerthai
54 ha763 : Nope, they were ordered as, built as, and are the last -200s off the line. The USAF VC-25 fact sheet says it is a 747-200B. Boeing lists them as the
55 Post contains images PC12Fan : Or a.k.a. Sikorski.
56 FlyingCello : 787 as a possible replacement for AF1? Don't think so...no-one has mentioned it yet, but count the engines. We all know that twins are now incredibly
57 par13del : The a/c being used for Air Force One may have civil certifications but ultimately it is a military a/c, if a twin is selected and an engine fails in a
58 cmf : He frequently does. Don't think it has happened on international flights though.
59 kanban : There will be however Secret Service wanting the plane down ASAP and in a controllable environment.. that combination hould have them pulling their h
60 FlyingCello : My point was not about regulations...it was about security. An IFSD event in a twin would leave the President hostage to the one remaining engine, an
61 par13del : So if the a/c selected is a twin he will have 6 engines spread across 3 frames rather than 2, there will always be a backup a/c. Maybe the Airforce i
62 AirRyan : Boeing and AW have already teamed up to bid the H-101 for the upcoming VXX RFP.
63 par13del : Problem is that they are not even attempting to use the rights purchased to put a new a/c in service, they appear to have purchased solely to bid for
64 PC12Fan : Yea, that's what I can't figure out. What happened to the days when the winning bid was the bid that was actually paid?? Thanks, wasn't aware of that
65 na : Now that would be a poor choice. The Potus would look like the poor man (hey, he is!) when visiting the UAE, Japan, Korea and elsewhere. Smaller than
66 NASCARAirforce : Hey, we're a poor country now full of all kinds of budget cuts - if they used a 77W for AF1 replacement and a 788 for AF2 replacement, they could sav
67 NASCARAirforce : What museums do you think would get the two current Air Force One's when they retire? I'm thinking most likely one of them would go to Wright Patterso
68 PC12Fan : Incorrect. The proposal was announced in 1985 by Reagan, and delivered in 1990. Don't think that would fly, if you'll excuse the pun. When the bid we
69 Post contains images kanban : Maybe they could upgrade the 777 APU to qualify...
70 moose135 : The serial number is 82-8000, which would make you think it was a FY1982 purchase, however the Air Force changed the original number in order to main
71 Post contains images Devilfish : https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/315400_259760277395512_131974483507426_745053_1554414231_n.jpg It seems the bird isn't
72 NASCARAirforce : That was when the bid went out for the VC-25s almost 30 years ago though. There wasn't an oil crisis back then. Virign Atlantic also had a requiremen
73 PC12Fan : True, but I doubt that has any affect on the Secret Services philosophy.
74 moose135 : Don't forget - the serial number starts with the Fiscal Year in which the aircraft was ordered (and funds allocated), not when it was delivered. The
75 Post contains images redflyer : As was previously pointed out, the President will often fly on 2 engine aircraft. Heck, I even know of a recent past President that flew on a 2 holer
76 Post contains images fpetrutiu : I don't think the A380 offers the flexibility needed for the presidential plane. Given the fact that the B747-8i can operate in from the same faciliti
77 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Or to Libya on a C-17?..... . http://abcnews.go.com/International/...et-rebel-leaders/story?id=14758811 Quote: "Clinton arrived in Tripoli on a milit
78 kanban : So how'd she get to Malta?... C-32?
79 TaromA380 : Extra large VIP airplanes doesn't need typical airport infrastructure for pax (gate space, bridges, boarding or custom processing facilities...). The
80 fpetrutiu : Exactly my point... I was talking about clearances.
81 FlyingCello : Interesting statistical analysis...so a twin is safer, because it has fewer engines that are likely to fail? Hmmm...
82 Post contains images kanban : Yes, the bigbus has those small plane and building attraction devices on the wingtips...
83 NASCARAirforce : Probably a C-37 (the Air Force version of a Gulfstream 550) or the C-40 (BBJ), those are the planes that the various secretaries and high up generals
84 kanban : Seems you don't know the answer .. anyway Rice traveled all over in a C-32 and there are eight of them
85 stealthz : Seems to be a C-32(or 2) around SYD or CBR whenever Sec Rice or Clinton have been in town!! That is likely the thing most in need of change... This w
86 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : In addition to the 6 C-32As (P&W engines) flown by the 89th, the NJANG flies 2 C-32Bs (RR engines and air refuelable) and the Sec. of State often
87 cmf : Agree with the rest of your post but here you're making a couple of statistical mistakes. What are the limiting factors there? They have done one off
88 redflyer : I doubt that that particular criteria would ever be used for selection of the next primary AF1, and my point was only to show one advantage a twin ha
89 kanban : You seem to imply that the engine on a 4 holer is less reliable then and engine on 2 holer and would have twice the history of in flight shut downs.
90 redflyer : Not less reliable. But by doubling the number of engines slung under the wings, wouldn't that mean the potential for something to go wrong is also do
91 Post contains images Stitch : Dispatch reliability is statistically lower for a plane with four engines as opposed to two, but with the maintenance levels on the Presidential Airli
92 redflyer : If dispatch reliability would be lower, by extension wouldn't in-flight engine shutdowns also be more prevalent, however minuscule that might be?
93 FlyingCello : But dispatch reliability is a measure of go / no-go while on the ground...once in the air, an IFSD is much less of an issue on a quad than a twin. Wit
94 cmf : You ignore the consequence of the shutdown. A plane with 4 engines can take more shutdowns and remain airborne than a 2 engine can.
95 par13del : Another point on ETOPS, the maintenance requirements are now also being applied to 4 holers, so whereas any "nut job" could do work on any of the 4 en
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...
Japan To Replace Air Force One B747's posted Wed Jan 29 2014 20:33:06 by AF185
Usaf Looking To Replace Air Force One posted Tue Sep 10 2013 09:25:19 by 747megatop
Air Force One In Seattle posted Tue Jul 24 2012 17:06:34 by BACCALA
Air Force One In Harrisburg (MDT) Today (5/19/10)? posted Wed May 19 2010 19:14:29 by 7cubed
Air Force One In Flight posted Thu Mar 11 2010 05:23:38 by originalblis
Spotters: Brazil Air Force One In ACC posted Sun Apr 20 2008 06:57:13 by Hardiwv
Air Force One In FCO Tomorrow! posted Thu Jun 7 2007 23:35:20 by Wingedarrow
How To Spot Air Force One posted Wed Feb 15 2006 00:21:58 by Bkantner
Air Force One In BSB posted Sat Nov 5 2005 21:36:43 by Hardiwv
Air Force One In CPH posted Tue Jul 5 2005 20:39:07 by Copenhagenboy