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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20167 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20172 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, 8542 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20158 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 20055 times:

The render is fun to look at at least.

User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3105 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 19745 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, 4836 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 19677 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 onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 19667 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 offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19624 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19604 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: 7
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18985 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18955 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, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 18943 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 onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18781 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18654 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 18533 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, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 18494 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, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 18479 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 18477 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18412 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 18307 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 onlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18267 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18241 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18173 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, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 18066 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 (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 18022 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.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 25, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 18203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
The current VC-25's began as green 743's with -400 upper decks, the last two off the line.

They were unique even before final assembly, doors, floor beams, retracting stairs, internal stairs to the lower lobe, provisions for refueling, relocated equipmemt. Yes, we screwed up on the wiring.. don't remember who took the fall, but it wasn't manufacturing. When you live on the manufacturing floor during these two birds assembly, you know when a airplane's structure is different.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
I'm not sure where you get the impression that I am anti-Boeing?

Some now deleted comments on an earlier tanker thread.

Now when this replacement RFP comes up, it will go to only one company.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 26, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 18151 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 25):
They were unique even before final assembly, doors, floor beams, retracting stairs, internal stairs to the lower lobe, provisions for refueling, relocated equipmemt. Yes, we screwed up on the wiring.. don't remember who took the fall, but it wasn't manufacturing. When you live on the manufacturing floor during these two birds assembly, you know when a airplane's structure is different.

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.

Quoting kanban (Reply 25):
Now when this replacement RFP comes up, it will go to only one company.

That may very well end up the case, but Boeing will not be the USAF's only option.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 18200 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
That was nearly 3 years ago. Things may change.

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 winning the KC-Y) there is no way the USAF will purchase an A380 for Presidential transport. So Airbus fans should put petitions together to get the KC-Y win.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 14):
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...

I think the reason is that
1. A321NEO would NEVER be bought. "Plane" and simple. USG would not even consider the purchase of Airbus especially for all the fits that the USG and Boeing have made to the WTO over subsidies and so on. For the USAF, it is a different matter....to fly politicians....ain't gonna happen. A Boeing product would be bought to replace what they have.

2. The 788 would be about perfect. I even think AF-1 will be replaced with a 777 variant. 747-8 seems to be the shoe-in, but the 777 would be a great Presidential aircraft.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 18112 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
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.

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 process with pay for play "donations" to a US senator. Also hiring the head of the selection right after he retires... Which was forced due to multiple serious problems with the selection award... upto and including awarding the contract to a bidder inelegable to win said selection. Made inelegible by thier own intentional failure to meet a manditory requirement of the RFP.

More over, I somewhat doubt EADS could aquire the clearences and access to technologies that will be required for the next "AF1" bid. They had to scramble to meet these requirements for the tanker bid. Its clear that program will have a FRACTION of the requirements that AF1 will have. So much so I wouldn't be suprised if Boeing receives a commercial bid for 2-3 748, then the real bidding will be between the major miltiary aircraft providers for the modification and integration of the non-commercial equipment. So your second bidder is far more likely to be LM than Airbus.


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 29, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 18009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 27):
YOu are hoping against reality.

I'm not hoping for anything.   

Just saying that things change - what was then might be different to next time.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17942 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
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.

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 respect to the original frame. The OEM are very reluctant to release that data without significant compensation or a good piece of the pie.

Try to mod the frame without that data and your cost has just increased. For minor mod, this may not be an issue. But for an airplane where you will be touching from nose to tail, it is just better to have the complete digital data when you start the mod. This is specially true if you have tons of wiring you have to run for all the special communication equipment you have on the airplane.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17817 times:

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, the office and its current holder represent the USA. The US Airforce a/c that the president flies in gets the name Air Force One and is to a large degree a status symbol of the country, not the individual who inhabits the office at that time. I do not think the USA started the practise but they have been the most visible, most know about Air Force One the world over. I still don't get how they allowed the Marine One a/c to be a European product, but I digress.

If the USA has an aviation industry and the government decides to purchase an Airbus a/c to fly the president around, what exactly does that say about the nation, if the head cannot ride in a product produced by the workers of his nation how exactly is purchasing a foreign product going to improve the quality of the nations production?
The a/c is a status symbol, and if the best that the US can do is to have its leader fly around in a non-US product it says something.

Another point, why the US Airforce or any other government body would want to put the a/c out to bid and allow non-US bids is the real question, they afraid that the WTO is going to say that the presidentiala ride must be open to all nations?


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17686 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 31):
The US Airforce a/c that the president flies in gets the name Air Force One and is to a large degree a status symbol of the country, not the individual who inhabits the office at that time. I do not think the USA started the practise but they have been the most visible, most know about Air Force One the world over

  

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 I do like Airbus, I like just about anything that flies, but your sentiments on this subject are spot on imo.

Quoting par13del (Reply 31):
I still don't get how they allowed the Marine One a/c to be a European product, but I digress.

  

Ditto!



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 17642 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 21):
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..  

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 suggestions of moderators being partial because they do not suppress topics not like by some to be rather disturbing. Big thanks to the moderators for making the right decision.

As to the next AF1's model. I'm hoping they set good example by switching to something significantly smaller and reduce the amount of people included on each trip to show efficiency is valued at all levels. It probably is too much to hope for the UK version of using commercial flights and delegation to avoid billion dollar capital investments.

As to the possibilities of using something other than a domestic product. They did approve EADS helicopters, asked Airbus for information about using A380 and considering Boeing has no problems with flying managers on non Boeing business jets I find it unlikely but not impossible for a non US produced AF1.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17554 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
Boeing has no problems with flying managers on non Boeing business jets I find it unlikely but not impossible for a non US produced AF1.

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 Boeing to run after the money, indeed the population did not kick them out when they decided to outsource jobs to other nations, the government however would have to sell out its citizens to run after the money, big difference. Imagine the USA government outsourcing it decisions to foreign countries, some citizens are upset because they believe it is done to private USA companies.

The a/c for Air Force One is not a straight up commercial product, comparing it to any airline doing due diligence and selecting the best products that fits its route structure makes no sense, what are the routes that the a/c will fly, how many hours per day, week, month, what is the RASM, CASM, XXSM to be considered, what about yields, fares etc. etc. etc.
Also remember that the a/c is supposed to be the place where POTUS rides out a nuclear exchange, that alone makes the a/c so heaviliy modified that it only bears an external resembalance to the commercial frame it is built on, it probably would be no cheaper it the Secret Service designed it themselves and asked Boeing and a few select suppliers to build it. A strecth I admit.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7608 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17526 times:

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 replaced by B747-8's. IMO, the B777 and B787 will not provide enough room. Besides, there will be VVIP A380's, and are already VVIP B747-400's. There is no way that the POTUS will have something smaller.

IMO, the replacement for the B757 will probably be the B787. It is Boeing's new wonderplane, (tongue in check). There is no way that the US Govt is going to reject it.

The only real issue is the price tag.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 36, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17534 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 30):
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 respect to the original frame. The OEM are very reluctant to release that data without significant compensation or a good piece of the pie.

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 until the date they actually issue an RFP and EADS formally declines because it offers them more space than anything Boeing has to offer (sounds like a good case for sole-sourcing.) Of course it would go through another US defense contractor most likely not named Boeing, but that is not a problem. Boeing may like everybody in Congress to believe the contrary, but the USAF knows.

Boeing may very well still end up with supplying the airframe, but that does not mean they will be any more than that; their hardly the only contractor on the VC-25 at that. As for the jingoism, if the USAF went with a 787 with RR engines, less than 50% of that aircraft would be made in the USA anyways. The USAF had to put out an RFP when they wanted to buy new tankers just because of the sheer size and number of aircraft being purchased, but that is not the same for a project that is only going to buy two or maybe three airframes at the most.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17513 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 35):
However, the replacement of all of the types, (VVIP and E4) will be boeing.

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, the mandate that the a/c have been in commercial service for a set number of years is "changeable" to say the least, certainely no one is the US wants a repeat of the tanker fiasco where the US contractor was simply a middle man looking to profit and contribute essentially zilch to the process. Indeed EADS did get themselves in a position to bid on the next contract as an independent entity, that in an of itself may offer some proof on the "folly" of the initial joint venture.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17493 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
and considering Boeing has no problems with flying managers on non Boeing business jets I find it unlikely but not impossible for a non US produced AF1.

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 understand Boeing personnel travel via commercial carriers to "support their customer". Don't know about the Executives though.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
But it's still done all the time, by plenty of different folks all around the world, not named Boeing.

Don't disagree. The Dream Lifter was mod by someone other than "Boeing". NG also does a lot of Mod. But believe me when I say, with the support of the OEM, modifying the airplane will be much easier.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 36):
As for the jingoism, if the USAF went with a 787 with RR engines, less than 50% of that aircraft would be made in the USA anyways.

You can make more headway if you assemble the airplane in the US (that how Marine One and the KC-45 was sold). You will not be assembling an A380 in the US. So there you go.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7608 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17480 times:

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 company "made in America" is Boeing.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17490 times:

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. Something that was a factor in why the 747-400 was not chossen as it was "too new".

I also believe that the "attic space" will be utilized on the 748i for some top secret goodies. At least that's what I'd do.  
Quoting par13del (Reply 31):
I still don't get how they allowed the Marine One a/c to be a European product, but I digress.

Guess I missed something - wasn't the program cancelled outright?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17470 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 34):
Comparing a private company - Boeing - to the government of the USA is a bit of a stretch

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 their product is right when they don't use it themselves.

Government, as business, should be about being smart. Smart is using the best tool. You're absolutely correct in that a purchase like this can't be compared to an airline and the criteria you listed. But the selection process is (should) be very similar. Make your list of requirements. Define which are absolutes and which are good to have. Get quotations and then select the one that has the best mix.

The savings from using the right tool will have much higher effect when used smartly instead of satisfying artificially made up goal to satisfy pride.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 42, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17482 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
and considering Boeing has no problems with flying managers on non Boeing business jets I find it unlikely but not impossible for a non US produced AF1.

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 understand Boeing personnel travel via commercial carriers to "support their customer". Don't know about the Executives though.

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 for interpretation.. Managers going anywhere on commercial flights take what ever plane gets them there. Engineers try to take the competition to see what they are up to.

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
I'm happy to see the moderators allowing the discussion to take place. Ignorance is best handled by education.

As I noted a thread on this subject comes up every three months or so... and the only thing new this time around is someone believing it makes economic sense to build a green a/p/, fly it to another site and totally gut it down to the skin and stringers, and install structure that could have been easily installed in the original production process.. This is known as rework and if done, the finished a/p with all the change documentation could easily cost twice that one modified during basic production by the OEM..

I disagree that every thread proposed needs life especially if we have others on the same subject on the books and nothing has changed.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17475 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
Please provide source. I didn't know that Boeing own any private business jet.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=3365362

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...tives-airports-boeing-business-jet

http://www.garychicagoairport.com/PressRelease_detail.asp?ID=8


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17470 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
I disagree that every thread proposed needs life especially if we have others on the same subject on the books and nothing has changed.

If some people have an interest in discussing something why shouldn't they be allowed to? They don't force you to partake.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17406 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 39):
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.

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 computers and wind tunnel or the latest technologies to ensure that all involved PROFIT first and foremost.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 40):
Guess I missed something - wasn't the program cancelled outright?

Does not change the fact that a foreign product was selected to serve as the helicopter office for POTUS, my comment was that it was actually bid externally and selected.

Quoting cmf (Reply 41):
Government, as business, should be about being smart. Smart is using the best tool. You're absolutely correct in that a purchase like this can't be compared to an airline and the criteria you listed. But the selection process is (should) be very similar. Make your list of requirements. Define which are absolutes and which are good to have. Get quotations and then select the one that has the best mix.

I gues we differ on the requirements, if the product is for the leader of the country, is used to project the strength and power of the nation, and an industry exist in country, my first requirement would be that the product be local, all else is secondary. Hence the reason why political products are so vastly different to commercial.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17392 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 45):
my first requirement would be that the product be local, all else is secondary

I'll always put functionality first.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17353 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
Please provide source. I didn't know that Boeing own any private business jet.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=3365362

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...tives-airports-boeing-business-jet

http://www.garychicagoairport.com/PressRelease_detail.asp?ID=8

Good references. I am enlightened.

A more recent reference:

"Those aircraft include a Boeing 737 airliner outfitted as a flying office suite and a number of Bombardier jets."

Read more: http://www.nwitimes.com/business/tra...86-d30aec11a62e.html#ixzz1Zq5z7q1V

So Bombardier would be the "foreign" jet (may be they should have bought Leer). Although, didn't Boeing had a stake in Bombardier once-upon-a-time?

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17348 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 45):
Guess I missed something - wasn't the program cancelled outright?

Does not change the fact that a foreign product was selected to serve as the helicopter office for POTUS, my comment was that it was actually bid externally and selected.

That still doesn't answer my question.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17338 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):
I'll always put functionality first.

Like I said, we differ, no problem with that.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 48):
That still doesn't answer my question.

Program was cancelled for cost, at least that is what President Obama stated publicy.

My thought process was on the fact that the RFP did allow a foreign bid which actually won. Now are you saying that the billions spent procuring a few frames was just a sham and they actually had no intention of putting the a/c into service? If that is the case you may actually have a point, after all, the entire project was to purchase a/c for the Marines search and rescue and outfit several frames for the POTUS, when the presidentail frames were cancelled due to cost the entire project was as well, so its possible.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17336 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 49):
Like I said, we differ, no problem with that.

Just never complain about inefficient government with that position  


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17267 times:

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.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17259 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 38):
You can make more headway if you assemble the airplane in the US (that how Marine One and the KC-45 was sold). You will not be assembling an A380 in the US. So there you go.

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 on the planet at this point in time.

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
and the only thing new this time around is someone believing it makes economic sense to build a green a/p/, fly it to another site and totally gut it down to the skin and stringers, and install structure that could have been easily installed in the original production process.. This is known as rework and if done, the finished a/p with all the change documentation could easily cost twice that one modified during basic production by the OEM..

A green aircraft delivered for "mod" is done all the time, custom elevators for VIP A380's, to numerous special mission mods.

Quoting par13del (Reply 49):
My thought process was on the fact that the RFP did allow a foreign bid which actually won. Now are you saying that the billions spent procuring a few frames was just a sham and they actually had no intention of putting the a/c into service? If that is the case you may actually have a point, after all, the entire project was to purchase a/c for the Marines search and rescue and outfit several frames for the POTUS, when the presidentail frames were cancelled due to cost the entire project was as well, so its possible.

The LM VH-71 was cancelled purely and solely because Obama needed a bone to show he could be frugal and make cuts. Make no mistake, the program will be re-bid and the end result will be the same platform albeit this time under a more competent prime, a.k.a. Boeing.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 51):

I think US will try to be more fuel efficient and go with a 77W as a VC-25 replacement.

I'd like to see the fuel consumption comparison of a 777 and a 748, I'm sure Boeing can make a case for when to go with what. I think if they were going to go for a twin however, they would select a 787-9, or maybe a -10 if they decide to offer it.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 17220 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 52):
I think if they were going to go for a twin however, they would select a 787-9, or maybe a -10 if they decide to offer it.

It'll be interesting to see how the 787 airframe can handle and EMP jolt.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3659 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 17237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 24):
The current VC-25's began as green 743's with -400 upper decks, the last two off the line.

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 last -200s delivered. They also never had the the longer upper deck of the -300 and -400 since they are -200s. What they do have are the wing-body fairings and CF-6 engines from the -400, which were also put on some late production -300s.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17159 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 52):
the program will be re-bid and the end result will be the same platform albeit this time under a more competent prime, a.k.a. Boeing.

Or a.k.a. Sikorski.   



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 17073 times:

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 reliable, but the Secret Service etc., will not allow the President to fly on an aircraft with only two engines. Remember, even though the 787 can fly on only one engine (as can every other twin) its engine-out performance would be limited. It would be expected to land as soon as possible. And that forces the President into an unplanned (and hence possibly un-secured) stop. An engine failure on a 742 (or 748) is not such a big issue. Just ask the BA crew who flew from LA to Manchester on 3 engines a few years back.

So for the same reason that the BAe 146 was chsoen to fly HM Queen, the 748i (or maybe even the 748F) is a shoe-in here...


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17023 times:

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 an "undesirable" location there will be no civil authority mandating that they land as soon as possible and no pilot or military official waving ETOPS rules and regulations or FAA fines to be paid.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 58, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16998 times:

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 56):
but the Secret Service etc., will not allow the President to fly on an aircraft with only two engines.


He frequently does. Don't think it has happened on international flights though.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 59, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 17022 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
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 an "undesirable" location there will be no civil authority mandating that they land as soon as possible and no pilot or military official waving ETOPS rules and regulations or FAA fines to be paid.



There will be however Secret Service wanting the plane down ASAP and in a controllable environment.. that combination hould have them pulling their hair out (Oh wait.. they all have buzz cuts). I think they already plan those scenarios for the current plane anyway.


User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16877 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
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 an "undesirable" location there will be no civil authority mandating that they land as soon as possible and no pilot or military official waving ETOPS rules and regulations or FAA fines to be paid.

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, and also the political geography of the region he was overflying. When George W flew into Iraq (or was it Afghanistan) unannounced, he was in one VC-25, with the other on hot standby in a nearby 'friendly' country. So he had eight engines at his disposal! I know modern engines are incredibly reliable, but I think the Secret Service might feel that that's not enough!


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 16586 times:

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 60):
When George W flew into Iraq (or was it Afghanistan) unannounced, he was in one VC-25, with the other on hot standby in a nearby 'friendly' country. So he had eight engines at his disposal!

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 is taking a page of the Marines and are using 3 a/c to play a shell game?

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 60):
I know modern engines are incredibly reliable, but I think the Secret Service might feel that that's not enough!

The Secret Service great as they are, are not the end all to everything when it comes to the protection of the President it is their mandated responsibility but congress foots the bill, they may even be the most enthusiatic supporters of a twin, especially if it means that POTUS will have his wings clipped and will be unable to travel to certains parts of the world due to flying too close to unfriendly nations due to the 2 versus 4 engine debate. Actually, they would like it if POTUS spends all his time in the White House and if air travel is required that it be within the continental US only.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 16294 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 55):
Or a.k.a. Sikorski.

Boeing and AW have already teamed up to bid the H-101 for the upcoming VXX RFP.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 63, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 16272 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 62):
Boeing and AW have already teamed up to bid the H-101 for the upcoming VXX RFP.

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 the replacement. Now what are the odds that this single purchase for a specific contract will come in under budget?
Is there a plan to use that a/c for another CSAR bid, or a Special Forces bird?


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 64, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16250 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 63):
Now what are the odds that this single purchase for a specific contract will come in under budget?

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??

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 62):
Boeing and AW have already teamed up to bid the H-101 for the upcoming VXX RFP.

Thanks, wasn't aware of that. Although I have to admit, I wouldn't mind seeing an S-92 in a Marine One suit.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10735 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 16011 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 51):
I think US will try to be more fuel efficient and go with a 77W as a VC-25 replacement.

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 the current AF1, only two engines, and replaced by 2019 by its successor.
And lets not forget the 748I is more fuel efficient according to Boeing anyway.

It´ll be the 748I as next AF1 Im sure. No other decent, patriotic choice left.


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 15900 times:

Quoting na (Reply 65):
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 the current AF1, only two engines, and replaced by 2019 by its successor.
And lets not forget the 748I is more fuel efficient according to Boeing anyway.

It´ll be the 748I as next AF1 Im sure. No other decent, patriotic choice left.

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 save on fuel over the 4 engine birds. AF 1 was at MCO today, it was the older 747-200 built in 1982 also.


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15852 times:

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 Patterson Air Force Museum.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 68, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15845 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 66):
AF 1 was at MCO today, it was the older 747-200 built in 1982 also.

Incorrect. The proposal was announced in 1985 by Reagan, and delivered in 1990.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 66):
if they used a 77W for AF1 replacement and a 788 for AF2 replacement, they could save on fuel over the 4 engine birds

Don't think that would fly, if you'll excuse the pun. When the bid went out for the VC-25's, one of the requirements was for an aircraft with a minimum of three engines. True, the C-32's and C-40's are twins, but I believe this is a requirement for "international" missions.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 69, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 68):
When the bid went out for the VC-25's, one of the requirements was for an aircraft with a minimum of three engines.


Maybe they could upgrade the 777 APU to qualify...   


User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 70, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 15791 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 68):
Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 66):
AF 1 was at MCO today, it was the older 747-200 built in 1982 also.

Incorrect. The proposal was announced in 1985 by Reagan, and delivered in 1990.

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 maintain the sequence for Presidential aircraft with the old VC-137Cs, 62-6000 and 72-7000. It was originally 86-8800. In the same manner, 92-9000 was changed from 86-8900 to maintain the series.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15741 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 51):
I think it looks cool as an A380 Air Force One

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/315400_259760277395512_131974483507426_745053_1554414231_n.jpg


It seems the bird isn't too thrilled about the idea.....   



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 72, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 15570 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 68):
When the bid went out for the VC-25's, one of the requirements was for an aircraft with a minimum of three engines.

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 requirement called "4 Engines 4 Long Haul" and look they are flying A330s and have 787s on order.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 71):
seems the bird isn't too thrilled about the idea.....

I didn't say Angry Bird One, I said Air Force One"

Quoting moose135 (Reply 70):
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 maintain the sequence for Presidential aircraft with the old VC-137Cs, 62-6000 and 72-7000. It was originally 86-8800. In the same manner, 92-9000 was changed from 86-8900 to maintain the series.

Yeah I noticed that 92-9000 was actually built in 1985. It seems kind of odd, but then again the B-2 serials all start with 82 also I believe and they weren't flying that early.

Weren't there more than 2 VC-137s?


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15555 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 72):
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 requirement called "4 Engines 4 Long Haul" and look they are flying A330s and have 787s on order.

True, but I doubt that has any affect on the Secret Services philosophy.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 74, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 15546 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 72):
It seems kind of odd, but then again the B-2 serials all start with 82 also I believe and they weren't flying that early.

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 B-2 was publicly displayed for the first time in 1988, and had its first public flight the following year. The first 6 are FY 1982, then they ordered a few a year between FY 1988 and FY 1993.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4327 posts, RR: 28
Reply 75, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 15165 times:

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 56):
but the Secret Service etc., will not allow the President to fly on an aircraft with only two engines.

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 that landed on a moving runway that was no more than three hundred feet long, and the President was given a thorough pre-flight briefing on how to pull the ejector handle on his seat and survive a water landing sans airplane.  
Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 56):
Remember, even though the 787 can fly on only one engine (as can every other twin) its engine-out performance would be limited. It would be expected to land as soon as possible. And that forces the President into an unplanned (and hence possibly un-secured) stop. An engine failure on a 742 (or 748) is not such a big issue.

Whether the President flies on a 2-holer or 4-holer, diversion airports are selected en route and support resources are pre-positioned at them in the event of a contingency situation. Only in an emergency would he/she land at a field not previously selected or provisioned for a diversion. If the primary AF1 aircraft were to be a 2-holer then I'm sure mission profiles will be planned accordingly by the Secret Service, and obviously they will be different than those for a 4-holer.

All things being equal, one consideration that may be given that may allow a 2-holer to be selected in lieu of a 4-holer is time spent aloft in the event of a national emergency. I would suspect a 2-holer might be more preferable since a 2-holer has a 50% less chance of having an engine shut-down than a 4-holer does. Which means it could, with aerial refueling, have a statistically better chance of staying airborne longer without having to go technical.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15098 times:

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 facilities at the current 747, I say that it is the clear choice strictly on merit, no politics involved.

The A380 is very limited on which airports it can operate when compared to the 747. Take TTPP (Trinidad), AF1 landed there, but it would be impossible for the A380.



[Edited 2011-10-18 20:48:18]

User currently onlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15133 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 18):
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.

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 military C17 cargo plane equipped with defenses against surface-to-air missiles. Clinton's contingent switched to the military aircraft on the island nation of Malta after an overnight flight from Washington, D.C."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 78, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 77):
Clinton arrived in Tripoli on a military C17 cargo plane equipped with defenses against surface-to-air missiles. Clinton's contingent switched to the military aircraft on the island nation of Malta

So how'd she get to Malta?... C-32?


User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15065 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 76):
The A380 is very limited on which airports it can operate when compared to the 747. Take TTPP (Trinidad), AF1 landed there, but it would be impossible for the A380.

Extra large VIP airplanes doesn't need typical airport infrastructure for pax (gate space, bridges, boarding or custom processing facilities...).
The A380 needs less runway lengh (take off and landing) than both B744 and B748.
Thus, an A380 VIP can be used everywhere a 748 VIP or the current AF1 can go. (taxiway widths needs to be verified however)


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 15036 times:

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 79):
(taxiway widths needs to be verified however

Exactly my point... I was talking about clearances.


User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14919 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 75):
I would suspect a 2-holer might be more preferable since a 2-holer has a 50% less chance of having an engine shut-down than a 4-holer does.

Interesting statistical analysis...so a twin is safer, because it has fewer engines that are likely to fail? Hmmm...


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 82, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 80):
Exactly my point... I was talking about clearances.

Yes, the bigbus has those small plane and building attraction devices on the wingtips...      


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 83, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14854 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 78):
So how'd she get to Malta?... C-32?

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 etc use. They try to keep the C-32 for the president and VP.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 76):
The A380 is very limited on which airports it can operate when compared to the 747. Take TTPP (Trinidad), AF1 landed there, but it would be impossible for the A380.

There are a lot of US Airports that the VC-25 can land at that the A380 couldn't - such as Daytona Beach, Willow Run (YIP) as well as some other major airports that aren't A380 ready.

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 79):
Extra large VIP airplanes doesn't need typical airport infrastructure for pax (gate space, bridges, boarding or custom processing facilities...).
The A380 needs less runway lengh (take off and landing) than both B744 and B748.
Thus, an A380 VIP can be used everywhere a 748 VIP or the current AF1 can go. (taxiway widths needs to be verified however)

A380 needs more runway width however - needs 200 ft wide runway vs 150 for 747. Taxiway width is not the only issue, it also depends on the turn offs - a 747 has a tighter turning radius than an A380. At MCO (as well as LHR and others) there are certain taxiways that the A380 can operate on only, while a 747-400 and older is pretty much unlimited at a lot of these airports. The 747-8 actually is closer to the A380 with taxiway issues. At MCO - if an A380 or a 747-8 comes in, Airfield ops has to do a check along the taxiways and runways afterwards to make sure no signs were blown over etc.



On a side note - anyone know which museums would get the VC-25s once retired? I am sure Wright Pat would be one.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 84, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 14834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 83):
Quoting kanban (Reply 78):
So how'd she get to Malta?... C-32?

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 etc use. They try to keep the C-32 for the president and VP.

Seems you don't know the answer .. anyway Rice traveled all over in a C-32 and there are eight of them


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 85, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 83):
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 etc use. They try to keep the C-32 for the president and VP.

Seems to be a C-32(or 2) around SYD or CBR whenever Sec Rice or Clinton have been in town!!

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 73):
Secret Services philosophy

That is likely the thing most in need of change... This whole overkill on security around the POTUS is quite bizarre, he is an elected official and there is a succession plan.

Don't get me wrong, there is a need for security but I do think the Secret Service and related agencies have gone over the top, most likely in a vain attempt at compensating for their failures of the past.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 86, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14744 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 83):
Quoting kanban (Reply 78):
So how'd she get to Malta?... C-32?

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 etc use. They try to keep the C-32 for the president and VP.

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 uses these aircraft as they don't stand out as military marked aircraft at airports. But since the distance between ADW and MLA is only 4175 nm, both the C-32A/B can fly it non-stop and without air refueling. It is just over a 9 hour flight at 450 KTAS (east bound).

ADW-MLA%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=nm&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=450&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=" target="_blank">http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=A...E=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 83):
On a side note - anyone know which museums would get the VC-25s once retired? I am sure Wright Pat would be one.

I don't know if the USAFM will get one or not. I don't think the VC-25As would retire with the arrival of 3 new AF-1 aircraft. They may get downgraded to just C-25As, but would stay in the fleet as back-up aircraft, much like the VC-135Cs did well into the Clinton Administration.

If I were to guess which Presidential museums would get them (should they go to a Presidential Libary like VC-135C 72-7000 did going to President Regan's Museum did), right now my guess would be President Clinton's and President Bush's (43). Both served for 8 years. Of course that can easily change. I am sure one of the C-32As would go to the Michell Obamam Museum as she seems to have put the most milage on them.         


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14724 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 75):
I would suspect a 2-holer might be more preferable since a 2-holer has a 50% less chance of having an engine shut-down than a 4-holer does. Which means it could, with aerial refueling, have a statistically better chance of staying airborne longer without having to go technical.

Agree with the rest of your post but here you're making a couple of statistical mistakes.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 76):
Take TTPP (Trinidad), AF1 landed there, but it would be impossible for the A380.

What are the limiting factors there? They have done one off flights to several "impossible" airports before.

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 83):
needs 200 ft wide runway vs 150

A380 is approved for 150 ft wide runways.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4327 posts, RR: 28
Reply 88, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 14716 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
Quoting redflyer (Reply 75):
I would suspect a 2-holer might be more preferable since a 2-holer has a 50% less chance of having an engine shut-down than a 4-holer does. Which means it could, with aerial refueling, have a statistically better chance of staying airborne longer without having to go technical.

Agree with the rest of your post but here you're making a couple of statistical mistakes.

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 has over a tri or quad. But I would be curious to learn what the statistical mistake is in that assumption.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 89, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 14697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting redflyer (Reply 88):
But I would be curious to learn what the statistical mistake is in that assumption.

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. I don't believe that is true of engines manufactured in the last decade..


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4327 posts, RR: 28
Reply 90, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14681 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 89):
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.

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 doubled (roughly speaking)?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 91, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Dispatch reliability is statistically lower for a plane with four engines as opposed to two, but with the maintenance levels on the Presidential Airlift Group, I dispatch reliability will be excellent.  

User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4327 posts, RR: 28
Reply 92, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14664 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 91):
Dispatch reliability is statistically lower for a plane with four engines as opposed to two, but with the maintenance levels on the Presidential Airlift Group, I dispatch reliability will be excellent.

If dispatch reliability would be lower, by extension wouldn't in-flight engine shutdowns also be more prevalent, however minuscule that might be?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14653 times:

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. With the VC-25A, an IFSD wouldn't cause much alarm...she can pretty much carry on until she gets to an airfield to the satisfaction of the Secret Service. But in a twin, those same people may have to make a difficult decision...get the airplane on the deck quickly, or fly on with only one engine operating until you get to a suitable field. So the 748 is the only game in town.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days ago) and read 14519 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 88):
But I would be curious to learn what the statistical mistake is in that assumption.


You ignore the consequence of the shutdown. A plane with 4 engines can take more shutdowns and remain airborne than a 2 engine can.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7206 posts, RR: 8
Reply 95, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14476 times:

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 engines as we are fine because for the quantity, the rule have now changed to include quality, so 4 holers should soon have the same statistical numbers as twins, unless OEM manufacture them to lower standards.

As for the land at suitable airports within a specified time, if the twin involved is able to maintain altitude it should be able to travel as far as its fuel will allow. The rules are there for commercial traffic, would be interesting to see a record of military a/c ETOPS records, they have enough twins with long ranges that I would assume that they have had a few, inspite of less flying time and more maintenance inspections.


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