Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Replacing Air Force One-748?  
User currently offlinehannahpa From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 128 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

After looking at pics of the current Air Force One, a heavily modified 747-200B, it is starting to look quite old. I am aware that the government, according to Wikipedia, is planning on replacing AF1 in 2017. I am pretty sure that it will be a new 748.

Does any one have any new information when the US government will replace AF1??? I know that the govn't is trying to cut back spending, but I think it is time to replace the bird. After all, AF1 is circa 1990.......

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14346 times:

Ugh.... How about a much less expensive (and more fuel efficient) 787 instead?

User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14324 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hannahpa (Thread starter):

Those airplanes are most likely the cleanest and best maintained aircraft in the world. While they have been in service for awhile, they have extremely low cycles and hours on the airframe. They have a lot of life left in them.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Palau, joined Apr 2004, 3586 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14249 times:

Quoting hannahpa (Thread starter):
Does any one have any new information when the US government will replace AF1??? I know that the govn't is trying to cut back spending, but I think it is time to replace the bird. After all, AF1 is circa 1990.......

You're right. At some point they have to be replaced, but with all the talk as you mention of fiscal responsibility yada yada from the POTUS and presidential candidates, don't expect it until the scheduled 2017 date you mention

It would cause quite the uproar I suspect.

Quoting airtran737 (Reply 2):
Those airplanes are most likely the cleanest and best maintained aircraft in the world. While they have been in service for awhile, they have extremely low cycles and hours on the airframe. They have a lot of life left in them.

Agreed. Those aircraft are maintained immaculately; old in age doesn't equate to useless, so to speak.



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlinehannahpa From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N62NA (Reply 1):

Maybe the 787-9. I think the -8 is too small. You do raise a good point, though, about fuel efficiency and pollution. I wonder, does the government NEED such a big plane such as the 747? Other than the complex security systems in the upper deck of the 742 AF1, do they need all that room(s)

Maybe even the 787-10????


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1359 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14183 times:

4 engines have a lot of advantages - but the fact there are 2 AF1s negate many of them.

I think the next AF1 will be a 747-8i, but the one after that will be a twin engine plane in 2047.

The prez shouldn't get a new AF1 until all the KC135s and B-52s from the 60s are replaced.


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14131 times:

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 4):
Other than the complex security systems in the upper deck of the 742 AF1, do they need all that room(s)

Maybe even the 787-10????



Doesn't AF 1 have special fortification to act as the airborne White House? In the event of a nuclear attack or other catastrophe isn't this aircraft equipped to remain airborne for up to four days?



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 14112 times:

I would hope it's a 748i, The safety advantage of 4 engines alone make my point, but also AF1 is a heavy plane with tons of extras, missile avoidance systems etc... I am not sure how old, how many cycles, miles the 707's had when they were retired. I'm sure the 742's now used are pristine, but there are some definite differences between the two planes used. The leader of the free world should be flying in a 4 holer with Boeing on the name tag.


AA-AC-AQ-AS-BN-BD-CO-CS-DL-EA-EZ-HA-HP-KL-KN-MP-MW-NK-NW-OO-OZ-PA-PS-QX-RC-RH-RW-SA-TG-TW-UA-US-VS-WA-WC-WN
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9508 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13890 times:

I hope it is nothing in the next decade. Any president that approves replacing AF1 is going to get skewered. After all the bad press about corporate jets, I can't imagine spending almost $1 Billion on a pair of new 747s (A380s or anything else) is a good idea. There's no reason why the current planes can't continue flying as the maintenance program is top notch.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13592 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8):
Any president that approves replacing AF1 is going to get skewered.

Reagan did it in his second term, right? No biggie if you're not up for re-election. However, I do agree there's no rush.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13550 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 5):
4 engines have a lot of advantages - but the fact there are 2 AF1s negate many of them.

A second AF1 will not help you if you are falling out of the sky.

It will be a 747-8. There are no other options that would be accepted.

NS


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19414 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 13416 times:

EADS-USA will win the order with an A380. Then Boeing will blow a fit and buy call girls for half of Congress and all of the Air Force and there will be a "re-evaluation" and the 748i will win.

 
Quoting airtran737 (Reply 2):

Those airplanes are most likely the cleanest and best maintained aircraft in the world.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Piotr Zdunek


Indeed they are.

I will point out that there is generally no advantage to 4 engines over 2 (4 engines = 2x risk of uncontained failure). However, if you lose one engine in a twin, you have to land. When you are flying the President in the middle of a national disaster, this is not the sort of problem you want to have. Four is better for this specific application.


User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13293 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
EADS-USA will win the order with an A380. Then Boeing will blow a fit and buy call girls for half of Congress and all of the Air Force and there will be a "re-evaluation" and the 748i will win.

Given the relationship that the current Administration has with the dysfunctional U.S. Congress, I foresee a used (Cubana?) IL-96 being requistioned as the new Air Force One. Score one more for the "Marxists"   



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13225 times:

What would a 747-8i be able to do that the current aircraft cannot? As long as there's enough room for the big red nuke button we should be cool, right? (sarcasm post)

User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13093 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):
It will be a 747-8. There are no other options that would be accepted.

I think that statement's correct. I'm proudly and passionately on the "four" side of the four vs two engine argument, but even putting that aside, the military loves redundancies, and I'm pretty sure the call's going to end up being theirs. Besides, DocLightning's comments make good sense. In addition, they have to consider if Air Force One actually gets attacked...very slim chance, but having four engines helps in terms of having more redundancies in case an engine gets damaged in that unlikely situation.

I've actually had the sneaking suspicion for quite a while that the 747-8i program was started in large part with the next Air Force One in mind. With that said, especially when you look at how long the 707/VC-137 Air Force One's were used, I don't think replacing the current VC-25's high on the list of priorities...

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 12):
Given the relationship that the current Administration has with the dysfunctional U.S. Congress, I foresee a used (Cubana?) IL-96 being requistioned as the new Air Force One. Score one more for the "Marxists"

I would say that that was hilarious, except that with how poisonous partisan politics are in the U.S. right now, I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually tried that. I could go on, but don't want to go off-topic...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineZKOJH From China, joined Sep 2004, 1661 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13009 times:

I can see something like 2 x 748i's to replace the current 747 and backup plane , and when the time comes 787-9's to replace the 757's - the new fleet will look fantastic with such modern aircraft. Would interior work be down at Boeing or Andrews AFB?


NZ 787-9 flying between PVG - AKL ! CAN'T WAIT!!
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2086 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12858 times:

During the recent visit of POTUS at the Everett 787 line, air-force one was already looking for here grandchild and possible successor.

KPAE, February 17, VC25 (28000) and 747-830 (D-ABYA), the first 747-8I, scheduled to become active end March.

Original uploaded by moonm, for other sizes see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/6897387271/in/photostream/



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12831 times:

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 15):
I can see something like 2 x 748i's to replace the current 747 and backup plane , and when the time comes 787-9's to replace the 757's - the new fleet will look fantastic with such modern aircraft. Would interior work be down at Boeing or Andrews AFB?

I'm pretty uncertain that they would want to replace a 70ish seat 757 with a 200ish seat 787. They could replace those with a few options - BBJs based on the 737MAX being the most obvious.

NS


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4378 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12728 times:

The current B747 that serves as AF1 is such a unique Aircraft it will be hard to replace.


It is a highly customised Military Aircraft differing greatly from the standard civil version, to name just one it is completely hardened against EMP.


In this respect, older technology is much better, the more electronic / and / or software driven systems are installed in an Aircraft the more vulnerable it is to any kind of electronic interference, let alone EMP. The older systems are relatively immune to this problem, because of their mechanical simplicity.


In terms of redundancy, Four engines and four of everything else is priceless, staying on redundancy, having a Flight Engineer is also extremely valuable, allowing a professional to take care of technical issues downloading the Pilots to take care of flying the jet as their only priority.


With the benefit of the enormous extra power of the -400 engines married to the Classic -200 Airframe it is a very high performing machine.



These are just a few advantages of this 'old' Aircraft. It will be a tough act to follow, even with the 748.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12641 times:

The VC-25 is in perfect shape, the best maintained 747 flying. Low cycles, good maintenance... the only reason to replace it would be fuel costs and image.

Yes, technically it is a 742, but that is the airframe, the rest of it is 744 and better. Replacing the VC-25 would be sending a perfectly good jet to the boneyard. Replacing it would be fiscally irresponsible, there is no need to tack on another half billion to the national debt for image.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12519 times:

I don´t know what engines the USAF jumbos have (CF-6-50 or CF-6-80), but if you use an older CF-6-50 without FADEC, it is intrinsically EMP proof. Since all engine controls are mechanic, there are no computer circuits which can be damaged by an electromagnetic pulse.

Jan


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2070 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12504 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 1):
Ugh.... How about a much less expensive (and more fuel efficient) 787 instead?

The base price of the airplane would not be as significant after considering all the modification that will be invoked to add all the bells and whistle. And unlike the tanker, these mod will not be incorporated in line to reduce cost.

It is much easier to modify a metal airplane than a composite airplane. There is little experience in cutting holes in a perfectly good composite airplane (other than what is done in a production environment) and add the extra stuff that an AF1 would require. Once the 787 flies around for a while and lessons are learned on how best to do it, then you can take this concern of the list.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):

In this respect, older technology is much better, the more electronic / and / or software driven systems are installed in an Aircraft the more vulnerable it is to any kind of electronic interference, let alone EMP. The older systems are relatively immune to this problem, because of their mechanical simplicity.

EMP and military EMI protection require additional (complicated) design details which are well understood on a metal airplane and is much more difficult on a composite airplane, (B-2 F-22 notwithstanding).

If a smaller airplane is warranted (for what ever reason), then a better plane would be the 777, which is all metal and would be a good candidate for the KC-10 replacement. Commonality of platform and design will go a long way to reduce costs.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12482 times:

Its a 742 with a -300 wing, it would not suprise me that they keep the airframes and install either raked or winglets on the wing tips or reengine it to the -800 standard. Since Boeing Witchita is closing I wonder who will do the heavy D check, I wonder if will go back to Raytheon E systems like it was before in the old 707 days. I remember when I got my hands on 26000 after it was released from presidential service, it was 1990 and the 1962 model jet had alot of life in her and got flown hard doing alot of pilot profiency sorties.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2070 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12464 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 22):
Since Boeing Witchita is closing I wonder who will do the heavy D check, I wonder if will go back to Raytheon E systems like it was before in the old 707 days.

Mods and upgrades are profitable business. If Boeing is chosen for the work, they would probably do it in Oklahoma. That is where they shifted the Wichita mod operations to.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12334 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 5):
The prez shouldn't get a new AF1 until all the KC135s and B-52s from the 60s are replaced.

What's wrong with the 1950s and 1960s KC-135s or 1960s B-52s and C-130s?

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 6):
Doesn't AF 1 have special fortification to act as the airborne White House? In the event of a nuclear attack or other catastrophe isn't this aircraft equipped to remain airborne for up to four days?

Correct, the VC-25As, C-32A/Bs, C-37As, and C-40Bs are all EMP hardened.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 7):
I am not sure how old, how many cycles, miles the 707's had when they were retired.

VC-137C # 62-6000 began service in October 1962 and retired in March 1998, almost 36 years of service. When she went to the USAF Museum, she had less than 15,000 hours on her.

VC-137C # 72-7000 began service in July 1972 and retired in August 2002, over 30 years of service. When she went to the President Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, she had just over 10,000 hours on her.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
EADS-USA will win the order with an A380.

Actually EADS/Airbus was asked to participate in a VC-X program, but they declined. BTW, the currrent two VC-25As are planned to be replaced by three VC-Xs.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
The VC-25 is in perfect shape, the best maintained 747 flying. Low cycles, good maintenance... the only reason to replace it would be fuel costs and image.

Actually they burn no more fuel than the B-747-400. The VC-25As have the B-747-300 wing profile, and the B-747-400 landing gear and engines on a B-747-200 airframe. They do differ from just about every other B-747 in the world as they have a Navigator crew position, air refueling receiver capable, and duel APUs, along with 'other stuff'. The E-4Bs have some of these things, too. The VC-25As are unique in one respect, both # 92-8000 and # 92-9000 are as identical as two airplanes can be.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 20):
I don´t know what engines the USAF jumbos have (CF-6-50 or CF-6-80), but if you use an older CF-6-50 without FADEC, it is intrinsically EMP proof. Since all engine controls are mechanic, there are no computer circuits which can be damaged by an electromagnetic pulse.

They have both. The KC-10A have CF-6-50C2/F-103-GE-200, E-4B are equipped with CF-6-50E2/F-103-GE-100, the VC-25A has CF-6-80C2B1/F-138-GE-200, and C-5M have the CF-6-80C2/F-138-GE-100 engines. The engine FADEC on the VC-25s is EMP hardened.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 22):
Since Boeing Witchita is closing I wonder who will do the heavy D check,

The current "D" checks (called Phase-4 inspection in the USAF) on the VC-25s is, and has always been performed at Boeing Everett.

When (If?) the new AF-1s enter service later this decade, the VC-25As will not be retired. They will be downgraded in their mission to C-25s, probibly with a different series letter (B?). They will have some equipment removed, but will continue on as trainers and VIP aircraft for lower ranking government and military officials (below the rank of POTUS and VPOTUS).


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12811 times:

Strictly, we are talking about the VC25, (AF1 simply means the President is aboard).

When it does come to be replaced, it will not, IMO be a twin.

For one thing, if the Arabs and Japanese have VVIP B747, then the US will not have a "mere" twin, PERIOD.

There are only 2 options, (the B747-8, and the A380).

After the KC46 episode, it is safe to say that the A380 is a non starter.

The only real issue, is will it be based on the B747-8i or B747-8F.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12864 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 25):
The only real issue, is will it be based on the B747-8i or B747-8F.

It will be based on the B-747-8I because of its extended upper deck. The current VC-25As have the communications suite in the upper deck, but there is a need for additional equipment room and possibly a crew rest area.

There would be no need for the nose and aft cargo doors of the B-747-8F.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2070 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13144 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 26):
The current VC-25As have the communications suite in the upper deck,

Wonder with the extended upper deck if it would be possible to move the Presidential Suite up there? Or is the area too narrow?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13156 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 27):
Or is the area too narrow?

I believe it is considered to small/narrow. The President's private suit is on the main deck forward of the L1/R1 doors.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13130 times:

Besides, if you were the President would you want the pilots coming through your bedroom on the way to the toilet?.  

User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4378 posts, RR: 19
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13024 times:

So the VC25 has the -400 landing gear ?


What is the reason for this, a higher landing and / or maximum take off weight than the standard 833,000 pounds of the latest Classics ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2086 posts, RR: 14
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12905 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
In this respect, older technology is much better, the more electronic / and / or software driven systems are installed in an Aircraft the more vulnerable it is to any kind of electronic interference, let alone EMP. The older systems are relatively immune to this problem, because of their mechanical simplicity.

In terms of redundancy, Four engines and four of everything else is priceless, staying on redundancy, having a Flight Engineer is also extremely valuable, allowing a professional to take care of technical issues downloading the Pilots to take care of flying the jet as their only priority.

With the benefit of the enormous extra power of the -400 engines married to the Classic -200 Airframe it is a very high performing machine

   These 2 unique aircraft are optimal suited for the job. To replace them with two or even more heavily modified 747-8I aircraft only satisfies the "mine is bigger than yours" attitude and will be the next unnecessary drain of the USAF budget, especially seen the huge remaining flight hour/ cycle count of these aircraft. IMO, a constant upgrade of the mission equipment will save a lot of money and will do the job perfectly.
The only issue will be the future spare part position of unique 747-200 parts. However, this issue can be solved easy at the moment by obtaining one of the not already scrapped 743/80C2B1 aircraft (scrap value extremely low). Most important is the availability of sufficient unique spare parts for the CF6-80C2B1 engine (fuel control and PMC spare parts will become rare in the near future). Most other -80C2 engine spare parts will be available for a long time and are still produced for the new built 767 aircraft and C-5M re-engine program.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 20):
I don´t know what engines the USAF jumbos have (CF-6-50 or CF-6-80), but if you use an older CF-6-50 without FADEC, it is intrinsically EMP proof. Since all engine controls are mechanic, there are no computer circuits which can be damaged by an electromagnetic pulse

Both VC25A's are powered with CF6-80C2B1 engines. This is one of the first certified (non FADEC) variants of the -80C2 engine family.
The engine is controlled by a Woodward mechanical fuel control, with a supervisory digital control, called Power Management Control (PMC).
Engine control is still possible with PMC deactivated, but less accurate.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Actually they burn no more fuel than the B-747-400. The VC-25As have the B-747-300 wing profile, and the B-747-400 landing gear and engines on a B-747-200 airframe.

- The VC-25A burns approx. 3-4% more fuel than the 744. (2-3% increased wingspan plus winglet and 1% because of non FADEC engine), but 9% less than the older E4B (CF6-50E2 powered).
- A 747-300 wing profile ? All 742 and 743 aircraft have the same wing profile. All 742 and 743 are capable of a MTOW of 833.000 lbs, if a wing 6 (increased strength) or higher is installed (most aircraft produced after L/N 271)
- AFAIK no 744 landing gear is installed, the stronger wheel assy and carbon brakes are only certified on the 744 and not available at the 742 (no STC available).

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):
So the VC25 has the -400 landing gear ?
What is the reason for this, a higher landing and / or maximum take off weight than the standard 833,000 pounds of the latest Classics ?

No. The classic wing platform/fuselage combination is only certified up to a MTOW of 833.000 lbs. This maximum is also valid for the 744, if operated in the Domestic mode (-D) with the wingtip modified to "classic standard, despite the fact that the wing and landing gear is structural capable of higher weights.

[Edited 2012-02-23 01:32:05]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4378 posts, RR: 19
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 12824 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 31):

No. The classic wing platform/fuselage combination is only certified up to a MTOW of 833.000 lbs. This maximum is also valid for the 744, if operated in the Domestic mode (-D) with the wingtip modified to "classic standard, despite the fact that the wing and landing gear is structural capable of higher weights.

Thanks 747Classic


Are you sure the VC25 has the -400 landing gear TBoom ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12595 times:

Would it need to be a B747-300 or would a B747-200 or B747-200SUD suffice.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classic_back.html

Given that Boeing only built 81, and many of those are no longer flyable, or even in decent condition.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...104%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1

Aviation Safety records 4 crashed, and at least 1 was broken up at Kemble. If I had access to all my records, then I am sure I would find many more scrapped or have sat in the desert for years.

If the USAF are looking for useable B747-300, then they had best get a move on.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2086 posts, RR: 14
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12579 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 33):
Would it need to be a B747-300 or would a B747-200 or B747-200SUD suffice.

Preferably one of the remaining 743 aircraft with GE CF6-80C2B1 engines (only 7 built and some scrapped already), to obtain as much as possible engine related spare parts.

AFAIK Serial Numbers 24106, 24107 and 24108 are stored and are still available. I am not sure about the status of 24159, the rest (23721, 23722 and 24160) seems to be scrapped already.

[Edited 2012-02-23 13:25:15]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12513 times:

http://airlinersindia.s4.bizhat.com/airlinersindia-post-107240.html

24159 VT-EPW, was scrapped at Bombay in 2011.

So that is out.

I had not realised that the 2 TG aircraft 23721/23722 had been scrapped.

The other 3, 24106/24107/24108 look more promising, although Cactuswings suggests that 24106, (which Airfleets shows at Roswll from 2008) had gone by 23/03/2010.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 12521 times:

I can't believe it's a 742! It doesn't have the right General Electric engines. I always thought it was a 744 freighter converted to passenger use.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3392 posts, RR: 26
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 12412 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When the time comes, it will be a 747-8I... but as discussed in so many threads (one every 6 months or so in one form or another) it will not be a used commercial airliner, a A380, or anything else. When? With economics the way they are and the robustness of the current planes, there is no hurry so look out in the 2018 - 2024 time frame.

It will be unique.. aerial refueling, missile and radar deterrents, self contained air stairs, special EMP wiring.. much of this is easier if done in the build stage.. yes we had to rewire the current birds after factory completion (but before outfitting) because someone didn't think EMP was important.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2424 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12198 times:

I can't see an AF1 replacement being a refurbed aircraft. I honestly don't see how it could be anything but a 747-8i.

The extended upper deck is intriguing to me though. Seems to me the comm center on the VC-25 could easily fit on the 748i forward the door. I visualize aft of the door could / would contain technology you'd find on the E4-B. War room, situation room, etc. Then there is the potential use of the "attic space" along with the extra floor space on the main deck.   

Regardless, I think the timing of this works in the 748i's advantage as well. It'll be in service for a few years for any teething problems to be addressed. The 747-400 didn't have that opportunity or we could have very well seen an AF! on the 747-400 platform.   



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2086 posts, RR: 14
Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11993 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 38):
I can't see an AF1 replacement being a refurbed aircraft

The secondhand 743/-80C2B1 aircraft, mentioned in replies 31 and on, is only to be used as a spare part provider to keep the two VC25 aircraft serviceable the next 10-20 years with minimal costs.
When purchased at short notice, it provides the opportunity to create a large pool of spare parts at a fraction of the costs to obtain the same , but then very rare and expensive, spare parts in a few years time.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2424 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11888 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 39):

Ah, gatcha. Thanks for that explanation.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11776 times:

They should order 6 delivered for next year, with the size of the contingent that needs to fly to Hawaii, one can carry the family and reporters on the first plane, then Air Force 1 and the Decoy that carries the 4 limo's. Then a backup trio is needed.

After all, we almost ordered nearly 30 Marine 1 helo's as they often fly in packs of 6.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 42, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11580 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):
So the VC25 has the -400 landing gear ?


What is the reason for this, a higher landing and / or maximum take off weight than the standard 833,000 pounds of the latest Classics ?
Quoting Max Q (Reply 32):
Are you sure the VC25 has the -400 landing gear TBoom ?

Yes, and the VC-25s were upgraded during the late '90s to a MTOW of 875,000 lbs


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4378 posts, RR: 19
Reply 43, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11526 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):

Yes, and the VC-25s were upgraded during the late '90s to a MTOW of 875,000 lbs

Very interesting, that is a very heavy Classic, with the benefit of the stronger gear they must be able to land at the -400's
higher landing weight as well which must be useful as, according to the documentary I saw they always land with lots of fuel.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2086 posts, RR: 14
Reply 44, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11369 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
Yes, and the VC-25s were upgraded during the late '90s to a MTOW of 875,000 lbs

Can you prove this ?

IMO, It is very unlikely that the "classic wing platform (with no wingtip extension and winglets) is certified from 833.000 lbs to 875.000 lbs MTOW for only 2 aircraft.

Important to know is that both aircraft are officially civil certified by the FAA (747-2G4B) , incl. all STC's (not specified in detail for safety reasons).

The wing has to be strengthened heavily to increase the MTOW, no Boeing master-change for this modification is available AFAIK. The classic wing structure was already stretched to the limit at 833.000 lbs . Between 820.000 and 833.000 lbs the wing could even be limited by the specific gravity of the fuel in the wing tanks.

Even a real 744 converted to " domestic " configuration, with the outer part of the wing plus winglet removed (classic wing configuration) is limited to 833.000 lbs MTOW by the wing platform.

The landing weight can be increased, but this is also possible on most later built 747-200/300 aircraft. (mostly accomplished on freighters).

[Edited 2012-02-27 11:28:10]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 11227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
4 engines = 2x risk of uncontained failure

Sorry to nitpick but chance of uncontained failure is 1-((1-"Chance of failure in twin")^2) (very nearly twice though    )

Fred


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 540 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10531 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 39):


I'm trying to remember back to the special made two or three years ago on the VC-25's/AF1 by either History or Discovery Channel. But in short, i remember them saying that if anything was thought to not be in a condition like it was brand new, they replaced it. So i don't see these 743's even being able to support the VC-25's.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8621 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bobby Allison



It looks as if TF-ATJ is too far gone to be a useful source of spares for AF1.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2086 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8016 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 47):
It looks as if TF-ATJ is too far gone to be a useful source of spares for AF1.

AFAIK, the high value parts (engines, engine nose cowls, landing gears, some actuators, APU, etc) and unique GE CF6-80C2B1 related parts (MEC, PMC, engine dials, FFRATS etc ) are removed to serve as general spare parts, also the 744 style pylons are still visible at the picture.
The hull, incl. the complete cabin furnishing has only scrap (metal) value.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7472 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7588 times:

Not sure I follow you.

User currently offlineEagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1795 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 7):
The leader of the free world should be flying in a 4 holer with Boeing on the name tag.

Well that makes so much sense, Boeing of course being a leader in charity work and developing products to promote Peace and Harmony thoughout the World........................its been a while since the US can claim to be leading the 'Free World',
this title harks back to the Cold War era.

Surely Airbus as a multi national corporation makes more sense as the preferred ride of 'the leader of the free world'?   

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 15):
I can see something like 2 x 748i's to replace the current 747 and backup plane

I thought the most recent USAF long term stated 3 aircraft to replace the current 2. Heavy MX on the 2 VC-25's can impact on the operational readiness of the aircraft.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 38):
I honestly don't see how it could be anything but a 747-8i.
Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 38):
I think the timing of this works in the 748i's advantage as well. It'll be in service for a few years for any teething problems to be addressed. The 747-400 didn't have that opportunity or we could have very well seen an AF! on the 747-400 platform.  

I too am of the opinion that the B747-8i appears to be the only obvious choice for the AF1 replacement at the end of the decade. By then it will be a modern proven airliner with good PR connotations for the then head of state.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2070 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7082 times:

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 50):

Well that makes so much sense, Boeing of course being a leader in charity work and developing products to promote Peace and Harmony thoughout the World

Boeing do have a Ying and Yang side . . . on the commercial side, they often coordinate with the airlines to deliver humanitarian cargo on delivering flights.

On the Military side, the CH-47 and C-17 are ubiquitous at major disaster sites . . . to give a little more balance to the dark side of the company. Just remember . . . all those drones strikes are not made from Boeing aircrafts . . .:D

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 50):
its been a while since the US can claim to be leading the 'Free World',

It is easier to claim when there is no obvious contender to the position . . .  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Replacing Air Force One-748?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force One And Orlando 1/19/12 posted Wed Jan 18 2012 05:16:38 by Plainplane
Air Force ONE To Hawaii posted Fri Dec 23 2011 12:15:19 by audidudi
Inside Air Force One - The Independence (Video) posted Tue Nov 8 2011 14:21:55 by rohanghosh
Air Force One And President Obama At NCE For G-20 posted Tue Nov 1 2011 05:50:21 by MadameConcorde
Air Force One Incident @ LAS This Week posted Wed Oct 26 2011 07:48:38 by mattya9
Air Force One At LAX Today, 10/24 posted Mon Oct 24 2011 14:03:14 by bonusonus
Air Force One And Orlando 10/11/11? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 20:59:24 by Plainplane
A380 To Replace Air Force One In 2017? posted Wed Sep 28 2011 14:38:58 by simplikate
Air Force One At EWR On Sunday 9/04 posted Sat Sep 3 2011 04:59:05 by Alibo5NGN
C-32 As Air Force ONE To KSC posted Fri Apr 29 2011 12:18:23 by WF2BNN
Air Force ONE To Hawaii posted Fri Dec 23 2011 12:15:19 by audidudi
Inside Air Force One - The Independence (Video) posted Tue Nov 8 2011 14:21:55 by rohanghosh
Air Force One And President Obama At NCE For G-20 posted Tue Nov 1 2011 05:50:21 by MadameConcorde
Air Force One Incident @ LAS This Week posted Wed Oct 26 2011 07:48:38 by mattya9
Air Force One At LAX Today, 10/24 posted Mon Oct 24 2011 14:03:14 by bonusonus
Air Force One And Orlando 10/11/11? posted Sun Oct 9 2011 20:59:24 by Plainplane

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format