Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No BBJ's In The 89th Airlift Wing?  
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

OK LY744, this is for you!!  Big thumbs up
Let's see if I can get this verbatum.

I've often wondered about this. Why did the 89th chose the GV instead of the BBJ? I am NOT taking anything away from the GV, it's an awesome airplane. However, it seems to me that the BBJ would be more suited for government VIP missions. In most cases, there are talks, planning, meetings, etc., going on during flight. It seems to me, that with the BBJ's capability to be equiped with large conference tables, private offices, etc., that it would be a better choice for these missions. The acquisition costs are very close and even operational costs are comparible. Performance numbers are not that much different either.




21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5782 times:

I don't believe the Air Force wanted the G-V either. But some congressman wanted jobs for his district and ordered the Gulfstreams for the Air Force.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5767 times:

It's all about the coin.

The Crusader(artillery system). The B-1 bomber. And of course, my 'beloved' Osprey.....combat effectiveness is irrelevant. As long as politicos can literally buy votes in their districts by getting these things approved, you get 'em. Or you don't, depending on what kind of clout the politician has.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5748 times:

I should have known. No decision in or around an airport is made without politicians having thier hands in the pie.

Guess this revives memories of a bumper sticker I once saw; "I love my country, but I hate my government".  Smile

Well, I guess I can just fantasize about the BBJ in the fleet!  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5743 times:

The C-32 is somewhat close to the BBJ (well not really) but they would only have one or the other, not both, as their performance in VIP situations is fairly similar I am guessing in terms of range and things like that

If this sounds completely retarded I apologize  Smile

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5738 times:

Not similar. There is no comparison in capability, b/c they are different a/c.

A 737-900 MGTOW is about 175,000lbs (although the -700 and -800 have greater range, less payload). The MGTOW of a 757 is about 255,000. The 80,000 lb difference costs more, and does more. A 757 has European range from DC or even DEN in all wx conditions, with a MUCH higher payload than a BBJ. For the BBJ to have that range capability, it carries maybe 6000 lbs of payload.

Remember, MGTOW increases exponentially as a function of range with a given payload, as it takes fuel to haul fuel.

The avionics and communications pkg ALONE on the C32A weighs 2200 lbs...(guess)...so the BBJ won't haul 30+ reporters and do the same mission.


Cheers-

cheers-


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5738 times:

True. However keep in mind that IF the BBJ were acquired, it would most likely have greater performance than say a BBJ owned by Executive jet. The BBJ has a interior completion allowance wieght of 12,000lbs to achieve the performance numbers advertised by Boeing. (6200nm w/ 8 pax, 5900nm(?) w/ 25 pax, etc) The interior completion for the 89th would most have airline grade interior components -> lighter interior weight->greater range. So the BBJ would have better performance than the C32's. But you are right, the C32's can carry a hell of a lot more. I was merely comparing the BBJ vs the GV from an interior standpoint since they also have similar performance numbers.

Regards


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5732 times:

You think secure fax/communciation equip weigh anything?

Gov't travel specs increase w/ seniority...An O6 can fly around in an OH58/SH60, a 2 star requires some more capability, and members of the Senate and the 1st Lady require even more gear.

The BBJ is not enough airplane to equal the C32, and is more a/c than required by the GV mission.

Cheers-



User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

BTW-

"So the BBJ would have better performance than the C32's" Please define what better performance is...shorter field? Better climb rate? NO...

There isn't an empty 737 (short of JATO equipped) built that can climb with, or match the speed at altitude, of the 757.

Don't believe me? Go to an airport an watch the rotation point of 10 737s, and subsq climb angle, and compare that to 10 757 departures. Visually average what you see. OR, as I say in all of my posts, do the math.

Calc a thrust/weight ratio of MGTOW 737 to the 757...


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

If the above response was harsh is was not intended to be so.

My apologies.

Cheers-


User currently offlineSouthflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5813 times:

The USAF already has the BBJ serial 00-0015 on strength from about October last year.

USAF designator is C-40B, and the Boeing customer designation is 737-7DM BBJ. It is CN 32916, and was previously registered as N378BJ.

Other than that, I know nothing about it.

Andrew (Southflite)
Corrections Editor


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5687 times:

EssentialPowr,

No apologies needed sir!  Big thumbs up What I meant by better performance was range capability with a "heavy" executive load. However, on reviewing my own input, I was referring to the BBJ's and 757's maximum range with a full payload. The C32's max range will be greater than a standard 757 because of the lighter payload. So, in the end range will be similar, but, as you said, payload is way in the C32's favor. I still think the weight issue of the communications equipment would be offset by using the airline grade interior. This stuff is much lighter than components that are custom made.

At any rate, you have answered my questions of why the BBJ's probably would not fit into the fleet. Thanks! One final question.. Do you think a BBJ would be considered as a replacement for the C-9 that transports the President to/from Camp David? Probably more airplane than they need, but it would be cool to see a BBJ in 89th colors.

Southflite,

I beleive the C-40 is a different bird than the BBJ. The Boeing official designation is the 737-700QC. It's an increased weight version of the 737-700 with a cargo door already built in.

Kind Regards


User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5688 times:

From Boeing's page, it describes the C40A as a -700C, not a BBJ. I have not heard about the Air Force funding or aquiring the C40...

It's simply a C9 replacement; I wasn't aware that C9s ever hauled the Pres, so I don't think the C40 was spec'd to do that mission. I don't know how far down the Pres can be bumped, equipment wise, and am pretty sure that MArine 1 frequently shuttles him to Camp David. Other than that, the Pres may use a GV or C32 for short hops. I think a helo, GIV/GV, 757 and 747 probably provide sufficient transport capability, but who knows? The AF also has LEars and Citations, and of course King Airs, but I don't know if those a/c are routinely certified for Presidential use.

The C9/C40 mission is hauling pax and cargo. The C40s as spec'd by the Nav are probably very similar to regular airliners. This mission typically doesn't require the "good stuff"/comms and support gear that a VIP a/c requires.

Cheers-


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5658 times:

I was asking about the C9 "Air Force One" because I remember President Clinton getting off a C9 on a trip, and it was in "89th" colors. Don't remember exactly where it was, I assumed it was Camp David.

Regards!


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29792 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5654 times:

Thinking about it a little deeper......

Aren't Gulfstreams built in Newt Gringiches old district?

Like I said, my understanding was the Air Force actually didn't want the aircraft but jobs=votes



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAviationLaw From United States of America, joined May 2002, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5657 times:

President Clinton flew the C-9 (the civilian DC-9?) to Block Island in the state of Rhode Island for a vacation. He may have also flown this aircraft to Nantucket.

User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

A C9 in colors of the 89th? A Nav a/c in an AF unit?
R U shure bout dat? Pics would be nice...

Cheers-


User currently offlineBjones From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

From the Boeing Website
---------
U.S. Air Force to Award C-40B Contract
Boeing is being awarded a contract worth up to $800 million from the U.S. Air Force to supply as many as seven C-40B and C-40C aircraft and 10 years of logistics support. The aircraft are based on the Boeing Business Jet and will be used to support the needs of Air Force commanders-in-chief and the Air National Guard. The firm order for one C-40B makes it the second such aircraft procured by the Air Force.
----------

I have heard that the first one is going to Hawaii to support the PACAF CINC. Apparently the Gulfstream doesn't have the room that he wanted for him and his staff to travel. I also saw mention of the addition of C-40's on the 1st airlift squadrons website as a replacement for C-9's and the C-137's that are already gone. The C-40A is the one that has the cargo configuration. I think only the Navy has ordered that so far and the AF has ordered the B and C




User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5666 times:

Thanks for the info...

A CINC can gripe all he wants; Congress funds the a/c. Maybe they'll want a BBJ; I really doubt they'll convert those orders. My guess is that they'll have to fund the F22, F35 and KC-135 replacement first...

Who knows? The NAvy will fly the C9 until NorthWest retires them, and then they'll probably decide to do a $1B wing refurb, and fly them 20 more yrs w/ jt8ds and 60s avionics, so they can fund a P3 life extension...which funds the H3/SH60 extension, blah blah...


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5654 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Konstantin von Wedelstaedt



LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5635 times:

I clearly stand corrected.

I never knew the AF had the "VC-9C" as they refer to it. Are all AF C-9s the "VC" config? I think all NAV C9s are config'd as combi trash haulers. I don't think the Nav has VIP anything, come to think of it...

Nice topic!
Cheers-


User currently offlineSouthflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5646 times:

The aircraft in that photo linked to earlier was misidentified by the photographer as a VC-9C. There are currently no VC-9Cs in the USAF fleet (or on Airliners.net), and haven't been since the three examples were redesignated C-9C as one of the Carter Administration's austerity measures. Unfortunately I haven't seen a "as delivered" photo of a VC-9C, so I cannot say whether the re-designation resulted in a change to the colour scheme, as what happened to the VC-137s when they became C-137s (as illustrated here by a VC-137C and its post-1990 redesignation as a C-137C):

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Hildreth


The USAF's C-9A is named 'Nightingale', the USN/USMC's C-9B is the 'Skytrain II', but the VC/C-9C does not have a name. Fact Sheets:
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/C_9A_C_Nightingale.html
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-c9.html
The USN acquired several ex-airline DC9s as well. These are listed under their airline designations in the Airliners.net database, as not all of them were in Convertible Freighter (CF) configuration like the newbuilt aircraft. I suppose these could have been used to transport the navy brass long distance, in lieu of the Greyhounds.

Also: Fact Sheet for the C-40A Clipper (737-700C):
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-c40a.html
According to this sheet, the first four of the six ordered so far go to Ft Worth, the other two to Jacksonville (just to add to the other thread on the C-40 on this forum).


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No BBJ's In The 89th Airlift Wing?
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...
Was 767 Ever Considered For The 89th Airlift Wing? posted Wed Feb 18 2004 07:27:01 by Boeing nut
Why No Winglets On The Air Force One? posted Mon Aug 16 2004 09:03:19 by Squirrel83
89th Airlift Wing Fleet Question posted Thu Jul 8 2004 17:54:59 by FlagshipAZ
Why No B-29s In Europe? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 22:47:48 by Flyf15
Why No Military Name For The JT8-D? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 01:37:35 by 747400sp
Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5? posted Sun May 7 2006 00:31:24 by 747400sp
Fixed Wing Aircraft In The US Army? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 04:10:40 by Lastordu
Why No US Planes For The IAF posted Tue Feb 10 2004 09:57:01 by HAWK21M
US Carriers Due In The UK? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 14:05:13 by GBOAG
Airbus Is In The Tanker Game posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:25:04 by Justloveplanes

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format