Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5287 times:
OK LY744, this is for you!!
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.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5056 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.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5032 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
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5027 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.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5027 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.
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4999 times:
"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...
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4976 times:
No apologies needed sir! 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.
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.
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4977 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.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4947 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.
Bjones From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 123 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4940 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
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4955 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...
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4924 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...
Southflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4935 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):