Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Another AF1 Question  
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4787 posts, RR: 19
Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5496 times:

Noticed in the picture of the VC25 departing Boston that it lacks the more aerodynamic -400 wing to body fairing installed on some of the latest classics before they halted production.



Considering what 'top of the line' heavily modified Classics these were I am surprised these were not included.



Anyone know why ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5391 times:

The VC-25 aircraft are late series B747-200 aircraft with elements of the B747-300 updates included.

The airframes were completed before the -400 wing to body fairing was designed and tested.

Going back and revising the aircraft would have delayed their delivery, not the mention the hassle of dealing with the USAF and US Secret Service design and security reviews.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4787 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):


The VC-25 aircraft are late series B747-200 aircraft with elements of the B747-300 updates included.

The airframes were completed before the -400 wing to body fairing was designed and tested.

Going back and revising the aircraft would have delayed their delivery, not the mention the hassle of dealing with the USAF and US Secret Service design and security reviews.

Understand what you are saying but there were several late model Classic 200 and 300 series built with the -400 wing to body fairing.


And the VC25 was a very late model !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3877 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5006 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

where a commercial operator may have seen a benefit in doing the modification, there was no economic sense to waste the funds on the two VC-25's

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4787 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 3):
where a commercial operator may have seen a benefit in doing the modification, there was no economic sense to waste the funds on the two VC-25's

Wadrs these were probably the two most expensive 747 Classics ever made !



I doubt economics was a consideration.



Anyone know the real reason ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3877 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
Anyone know the real reason ?


Am not sure what you are seeking..
from personal experience within the company, the government never asked for pretty changes to the airframe, only those items related to security, communication and reliability. The fairing is a cosmetic issue.

Now structurally to make the change requires more than just marrying a new fairing to existing substructure... by why.. even though I stated above that a commercial operation might change, I have no knowledge of one actually doing it. I don't think there were any wheels up landings that required replacing all that with current production parts.


User currently online747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2234 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

Both VC-25's were delivered in 1990 (after major modifications) but are actually built and delivered "green" from the Final Assembly Line (FAL) to Boeing Military Airplanes in 1987, far before the introduction of the 747-400 series on the FAL.

Aircraft data :

MSN--------L/N----------F/F----------Test Reg------Reg.-----Operator----Del. date-----Type
23824------679------05.16.87-------N1788B-----82-8000-----USAF-----08.23.90----747-2G4B
23825------685------10.29.87-------N60659-----92-9000-----USAF-----12.20.90-----747-2G4B


The wing root was changed with the introduction of the -400 series (L/N 696).

The first 747 classic, with the new wing to body fairing, was L/N 704 , a 747-336 combi for Egypt Air.
Thereafter all 747-200 and -300 series were factory built with this re-contoured wing to body fairing, decreasing drag by 0,5%.


All 747 classics (including both VC25 aircraft) built before L/N 704 have the old type of wing to body fairing installed.


Remember that during 1989-1991 the -200,-300 and -400 series were assembled at random at the same final assembly line. In fact this factory modification was part of the 747 product improvement program (PIP) and not only for the 747-400 series.

No commercial operated 747-200/300 aircraft was ever retrofitted with this feature, because of the relative high modification costs versus the calculated fuel saving during the remaining economical life expectancy.
Boeing produced a master change proposal (5700MK4003) but nobody purchased it.
This masterchange not only contained the actual changing of the fairing but also two new escape slides for the No. 2 main entry doors (the new fairing extended further forward, underneath door 2) and some pneumatic duct changes inside the wingroot.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3877 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747classic (Reply 6):
Thereafter all 747-200 and -300 series were factory


Thanks for refreshing my memory... I'd forgotten about that multi derivative line.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9546 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4800 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 6):
a 747-336 combi for Egypt Air

[Adopting pedant stance...]

Going out on a limb here but that wouldn't have been a -366 by any chance?

[... and... rest]


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4787 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4759 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 6):


Both VC-25's were delivered in 1990 (after major modifications) but are actually built and delivered "green" from the Final Assembly Line (FAL) to Boeing Military Airplanes in 1987, far before the introduction of the 747-400 series on the FAL.

Aircraft data :

MSN--------L/N----------F/F----------Test Reg------Reg.-----Operator----Del. date-----Type
23824------679------05.16.87-------N1788B-----82-8000-----USAF-----08.23.90----747-2G4B
23825------685------10.29.87-------N60659-----92-9000-----USAF-----12.20.90-----747-2G4B


The wing root was changed with the introduction of the -400 series (L/N 696).

The first 747 classic, with the new wing to body fairing, was L/N 704 , a 747-336 combi for Egypt Air.
Thereafter all 747-200 and -300 series were factory built with this re-contoured wing to body fairing, decreasing drag by 0,5%.


All 747 classics (including both VC25 aircraft) built before L/N 704 have the old type of wing to body fairing installed.


Remember that during 1989-1991 the -200,-300 and -400 series were assembled at random at the same final assembly line. In fact this factory modification was part of the 747 product improvement program (PIP) and not only for the 747-400 series.

No commercial operated 747-200/300 aircraft was ever retrofitted with this feature, because of the relative high modification costs versus the calculated fuel saving during the remaining economical life expectancy.
Boeing produced a master change proposal (5700MK4003) but nobody purchased it.
This masterchange not only contained the actual changing of the fairing but also two new escape slides for the No. 2 main entry doors (the new fairing extended further forward, underneath door 2) and some pneumatic duct changes inside the wingroot.

Thanks for the great information 747Classic.



It all makes sense now. !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2475 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4630 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 3):

where a commercial operator may have seen a benefit in doing the modification, there was no economic sense to waste the funds on the two VC-25's

Yea, the government has plenty of other programs to blow that money on!   

True, it could have been done, but overall, it would have been a waste of resources. Us "1%" would have thought it would have been cool and a good upgrade. The other "99%" just see the pretty aircraft that just happens to carry the POTUS and wouldn't know a fairing from a nacelle if it hit them in the face.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Another AF1 Question
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...
Another Nicknaming Question posted Mon Dec 8 2003 09:36:52 by Garnetpalmetto
Question About AF1 Operations posted Tue Jun 20 2006 02:17:18 by RJpieces
Another Air Force One Question posted Fri Aug 6 2004 19:23:39 by T1210s
A Question About AF1 posted Fri May 7 2004 18:11:47 by Refueler1974
Another KC-767 Question posted Sat Nov 8 2003 04:13:55 by Spacepope
C-5 Rewing Question posted Fri Jun 8 2012 22:18:41 by boeing767mech
Another Birdstrike- Air Force Two posted Fri Apr 20 2012 16:22:17 by PSAJet17
Question About Orbiters At KSC posted Sat Apr 14 2012 12:53:31 by HaveBlue
Delta 737 Landing At Jnas Question posted Sat Apr 7 2012 22:29:49 by HaveBlue
Sea King Question posted Mon Apr 2 2012 16:40:18 by spudh

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format