I'm supprised he hasn't painted the white house

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I recall what may be a rumor or tall tale that the current AF1 color scheme was to make it less visible in cruse to an attack ?

Sounds very much like rumor.

From what I understand is that the original livery was going to be very much standard military. And JFK was convinced something less aggressive would suit an aircraft that would represent the US around the world. You know, peace and all that. So Jackie Kennedy worked with another designer and came up with what would evolve over the years into the current livery. Something striking and non aggressive.

EDIT:

Raymond Loewy was the designer.

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/196025

Interesting that it looks like the original sketch included red and a darker blue. Before being tweaked to be the baby blue we're all familiar with.

Honestly, that probably would have looked pretty good I think

The old livery was designed by a world famous artist, the one shown here obviously from the other end of the ladder.

Not bad if you ask me. The current one is better, but I have my doubts about how it will look with the extended upper deck. This one addresses that point nicely.

Looks like the TWA 747 livery in the end

And that was one of the best around according to posters on a.net

I think a redesign is in order after 60 years, no?

I actually like the new scheme a bit better, but then again I dislike "Carolina Blue"

eal wrote:

I for one quite like the change, the current baby blue is hideous and fails conjure up any images of the United States, Baby Blue is not one of Americas national colors so I look forward to this more subdued scheme, let's try and not conflate this administration with aesthetics

It's actually Constitution Blue, though that itself was a retro-naming of the original 'luminous ultramarine blue'.

I wonder if anyone here can mock-up a better .jpeg of the proposed livery for better viewing. Something like what ocaviation did for the new United livery.

Sorry, but the new scheme is just not better than this:

.

It could be tweaked a bit in my opinion (not that anyone cares about or asked for my opinion) maybe thin down the amount of blue coverage on the nose and top. I but I like its utterly unique scheme and coloring. It doesn't have to be red-white-n-blue to represent the USA.



This one is still iconic:


But its earlier iteration did not have the blue on top:


So I think a bit less top blue would be nice. But that is about it.

Tugg

The current livery works and is very stylish. Who cares that it is from the 60s/70s. It's beautiful and no need to be changed or even refreshed.

Tugger wrote:

It doesn't have to be red-white-n-blue to represent the USA.

Tugg

Exactly...the U.S. flag is there to represent the USA.

smithbs wrote:

I agree with the "dated from 80s" comments - that was the first thing in my mind.

The current AF1 is beautiful. No need to change it.

Yeah dated from the ‘60s is much better...

Tugger wrote:

Sorry, but the new scheme is just not better than this:

.

It could be tweaked a bit in my opinion (not that anyone cares about or asked for my opinion) maybe thin down the amount of blue coverage on the nose and top. I but I like its utterly unique scheme and coloring. It doesn't have to be red-white-n-blue to represent the USA.



This one is still iconic:


But its earlier iteration did not have the blue on top:


So I think a bit less top blue would be nice. But that is about it.

Tugg

Sorry, but that teal is a crime.

For a clean look, another alternative:
https://loneskyimages.blogspot.com/2019/04/air-force-one-livery-design.html

From his various concepts on the bottom of his post, I find the third from the top to be my favorite.

The infantry/carolina blue does need to go. The military doesn't hold on to uniforms for 50 plus years out of tradition; they are usually changed every 5 or so years. There's no reason to keep this 60's paint scheme for a presidential plane/status symbol for VIP travelers.

I also love the current scheme and hope it doesn't change, but if it becomes any of the proposed schemes it's not the end of the world. When Pres. Trump is elected a second term he probably will get a chance to use it very briefly at the end, but if he becomes a war time president and gets a 3rd term then he'll definitely enjoy it.

DarkKnight5 wrote:

I’m not terribly impressed by that piece of paper but the current livery is so hopelessly dated that I would love to see it brought into this century. And have something a little more American than powder blue and teal. It looks like my Grandmother’s living room lamps.

Correct. The 'Jackie Kennedy livery' dates back to 1961 when the first VC-135C was ordered that summer (back then the FY began on 1 July and ended on 30 June) as a FY-62 USAF budget item. That makes the design 58 years old. We need an AF-1 of the 21st Century. I believe it will show up on the VC-25A first when they go in for repaint (USAF repaints their aircraft every 4-5 years). It will then show up on the VC-25B in 2024.

Democrats in the Congress is having a hissy-fit because Kennedy was a democrat and they don't want President Trump to change it. But the fact of the matter is, AF-1 is the President's Airplane and he should have something to say about the way it is painted.

I like the new livery, it is red whitwe and blue, the official colors of the United States. I like the two versions that has the nacelles painted blue.

[photoid] https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.5 ... /image.jpg [/photoid]

trauha wrote:

For a clean look, another alternative:
https://loneskyimages.blogspot.com/2019/04/air-force-one-livery-design.html

Those are all slick. Love the seal on the tail. I like seeing a little red on it. The blue is just boring.

A news story unrelated to aviation about the visit of Canada's favorite schoolgirl Justin Trudeau to the White House had this picture in it:



I have to say I thought the new livery looked awful based on the graphics, but on the model I actually think it looks pretty nice. Not mindblowing or anything but not half bad either.

aviationaware wrote:

A news story unrelated to aviation about the visit of Canada's favorite schoolgirl Justin Trudeau to the White House had this picture in it:

Can we leave politics out of it? E.g. you are insulting a leader of another country.

texl1649 wrote:

The infantry/carolina blue does need to go. The military doesn't hold on to uniforms for 50 plus years out of tradition; they are usually changed every 5 or so years. There's no reason to keep this 60's paint scheme for a presidential plane/status symbol for VIP travelers.

The US Navy has used the Dress Blues (Crackerjack) uniform more or less unchanged since 1817.

Boof02671 wrote:

Congress won’t let him change it. The plane won’t be ready til 2024 or 25

I personally think the currently AF1 livery is fine and doesn't need to be changed, but I also believe Congress doesn't have a say in this, unless they pass a law specifically putting them in charge of the livery.

Which he'll veto.

EA CO AS wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Congress won’t let him change it. The plane won’t be ready til 2024 or 25

I personally think the currently AF1 livery is fine and doesn't need to be changed, but I also believe Congress doesn't have a say in this, unless they pass a law specifically putting them in charge of the livery.

Which he'll veto.

Congress controls the money. All monies authorized comes out of the house.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4481 ... one-design

House panel votes to restrict possible changes to Air Force One design

aviationaware wrote:

I have to say I thought the new livery looked awful based on the graphics, but on the model I actually think it looks pretty nice. Not mindblowing or anything but not half bad either.

Yes, it looks much better on the model.

I'd still prefer the current scheme because it is iconic and world-recognized.

Boof02671 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Congress won’t let him change it. The plane won’t be ready til 2024 or 25

I personally think the currently AF1 livery is fine and doesn't need to be changed, but I also believe Congress doesn't have a say in this, unless they pass a law specifically putting them in charge of the livery.

Which he'll veto.

Congress controls the money. All monies authorized comes out of the house.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4481 ... one-design

House panel votes to restrict possible changes to Air Force One design

Congress controls the money but can’t stipulate money already allocated to painting the aircraft may only be for one particular livery.

Boof02671 wrote:

Congress controls the money. All monies authorized comes out of the house.

Initially, yes. The DoD and the White House have vast powers to re-allocate money however and certainly enough so to make this project happen as it does not cost much.

EA CO AS wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I personally think the currently AF1 livery is fine and doesn't need to be changed, but I also believe Congress doesn't have a say in this, unless they pass a law specifically putting them in charge of the livery.

Which he'll veto.

Congress controls the money. All monies authorized comes out of the house.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4481 ... one-design

House panel votes to restrict possible changes to Air Force One design

Congress controls the money but can’t stipulate money already allocated to painting the aircraft may only be for one particular livery.

Oh yes they can.

Boof02671 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Congress controls the money but can’t stipulate money already allocated to painting the aircraft may only be for one particular livery.

Oh yes they can.

Not if it’s already in the budget.

trauha wrote:

For a clean look, another alternative:
https://loneskyimages.blogspot.com/2019/04/air-force-one-livery-design.html

Some of those concepts are actually pretty nice.
The one at the bottom needs a cheat line though. The 2nd and 3rd from the bottom are probably my favourites.

EA CO AS wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Congress controls the money but can’t stipulate money already allocated to painting the aircraft may only be for one particular livery.

Oh yes they can.

Not if it’s already in the budget.

Congress ie the House controls the budget, I have provided the link to the bill, you have provided no facts to refute it, your opinion means nothing

Boof02671 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Oh yes they can.

Not if it’s already in the budget.

Congress ie the House controls the budget, I have provided the link to the bill, you have provided no facts to refute it, your opinion means nothing

President Trump managed to re-allocate billions of dollars around Congress. Do you honestly think he couldn't do a couple of millions with ease?

This plane won’t be delivered/painted until late 2024 at the earliest. It’s amazing the level of angst/concern about this. It’s like the meltdown over the UA/LH livery changes, I guess, but it just doesn’t seem like that big a deal, net.

aviationaware wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Not if it’s already in the budget.

Congress ie the House controls the budget, I have provided the link to the bill, you have provided no facts to refute it, your opinion means nothing

President Trump managed to re-allocate billions of dollars around Congress. Do you honestly think he couldn't do a couple of millions with ease?

By declaring a National Emergency, which is in the courts and not decided.

Don’t let the facts win your way.

Boof02671 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Congress ie the House controls the budget, I have provided the link to the bill, you have provided no facts to refute it, your opinion means nothing

President Trump managed to re-allocate billions of dollars around Congress. Do you honestly think he couldn't do a couple of millions with ease?

By declaring a National Emergency, which is in the courts and not decided.

Don’t let the facts win your way.

Well the good thing is, doing a couple of millions don't require a national emergency. There are many easier ways to do that. Now if that prompts the Democrats in congress to take more powers away from the President for the future, all power to them. The President is far too powerful as it is so anything they can take away is a good step in the right direction.

aviationaware wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

President Trump managed to re-allocate billions of dollars around Congress. Do you honestly think he couldn't do a couple of millions with ease?

By declaring a National Emergency, which is in the courts and not decided.

Don’t let the facts win your way.

Well the good thing is, doing a couple of millions don't require a national emergency. There are many easier ways to do that. Now if that prompts the Democrats in congress to take more powers away from the President for the future, all power to them. The President is far too powerful as it is so anything they can take away is a good step in the right direction.

No they can’t, they can’t take money which was specifically appropriated to pay for other things.

That’s what this whole fight is about now

INFINITI329 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I recall what may be a rumor or tall tale that the current AF1 color scheme was to make it less visible in cruse to an attack ?

Sounds very much like rumor.

From what I understand is that the original livery was going to be very much standard military. And JFK was convinced something less aggressive would suit an aircraft that would represent the US around the world. You know, peace and all that. So Jackie Kennedy worked with another designer and came up with what would evolve over the years into the current livery. Something striking and non aggressive.

EDIT:

Raymond Loewy was the designer.

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/196025

Interesting that it looks like the original sketch included red and a darker blue. Before being tweaked to be the baby blue we're all familiar with.

Honestly, that probably would have looked pretty good I think

I agree I think this would be a good compromise! I really like the current livery but this one does look good too.

aviationaware wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Not if it’s already in the budget.

Congress ie the House controls the budget, I have provided the link to the bill, you have provided no facts to refute it, your opinion means nothing

President Trump managed to re-allocate billions of dollars around Congress. Do you honestly think he couldn't do a couple of millions with ease?

Nonsense. The President does not have the authority to do so.

The President does not control budgets, nor does he make or change laws. He can only sign what what is given to him by CONGRESS. Despite what the fake media would like you to believe. Blows my mind that people still believe this garbage, and the media should know better. Any changes the President himself proposes, still has to go through Congress.

The budget already contains funds to repaint the VC-25As as part of their ongoing maintenance. Who says the President can’t tell them what color it has to be?

Slug71 wrote:

Nonsense. The President does not have the authority to do so.

The President does not control budgets, nor does he make or change laws. He can only sign what what is given to him by CONGRESS. Despite what the fake media would like you to believe. Blows my mind that people still believe this garbage, and the media should know better. Any changes the President himself proposes, still has to go through Congress.

The federal budget only has a certain level of granularity. Anything below that scope, the executive branch has quite some leeway over how to spend it. So of course the President can pay for the repaint an aircraft if he likes to. Absolutely ludicrous to assume he couldn't.

I'm against repainting the VC-25s. The Raymond Loewy design is a national icon and global symbol for the US. It used a lot of historic elements for the lettering "United States" and such. That is way more than some politician can design for short term PR-value. Keep the classics please and stop this nonsense. There is still enough room for contemporary ad fashion design for election campaigns events and such.

aviationaware wrote:

I have to say I thought the new livery looked awful based on the graphics, but on the model I actually think it looks pretty nice. Not mindblowing or anything but not half bad either.

Not only will this new Air Force One be one of the biggest corporate jets in the world, according to that model it will have the mostest windows!

The original 747-100 came with an executive playroom on the upper deck, and just 3 windows on each side.
A few early -200s featured the same three windows, but most included 10 windows together with additional first-class seating instead of the cocktail lounge.
Curiously, the current VC-25A (based on a 200 series) has only two of the three windows on the right, and none at all on the left.
I guess it was to avoid the awful scenario of the President de-planing from the lower deck whilst somebody peered out from an upper window above & behind him. Surely the ultimate photo-bomb.


Fast forward to the latest version, and whilst Transaero's 747-8s feature the original 10 windows, plus an additional 17 on the stretched upper deck (¹), Trump's model seems to feature an even larger total of 31 windows on each side(²). Maybe he has added an en-suite to the SUD? He truly is the President with the mostest!

(¹) There appears to be a total of 25 - 28 windows on the right-hand side of pax 747-8s. The LHS could be different.
(²) Of course there is no guarantee that all 31, or 27, or indeed any windows at all are retained on the final VC-25B conversion.

Upper deck windows on current VC-25 are plugged due to equipment installed on the upper deck. Couldn’t see out of them anyway, might as well plug them.

I like it.
It's the best livery you'll see on a passenger 748... and it is indeed very similar to TWA's.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Curiously, the current VC-25A (based on a 200 series) has only two of the three windows on the right, and none at all on the left.

The Communications Suite is located on the upper deck aft of the cockpit. As noted above, this area is full of (secure and hardened) communications equipment which covers both sides so there is nothing to see out of.

I would expect the VC-25B will also have the Suite located here so not sure there will be windows.

For the communication suite I recommend watching the 1997 documentary Air Force One narrated by Harrison Ford.

EA CO AS wrote:

The budget already contains funds to repaint the VC-25As as part of their ongoing maintenance. Who says the President can’t tell them what color it has to be?

aviationaware wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Nonsense. The President does not have the authority to do so.

The President does not control budgets, nor does he make or change laws. He can only sign what what is given to him by CONGRESS. Despite what the fake media would like you to believe. Blows my mind that people still believe this garbage, and the media should know better. Any changes the President himself proposes, still has to go through Congress.

The federal budget only has a certain level of granularity. Anything below that scope, the executive branch has quite some leeway over how to spend it. So of course the President can pay for the repaint an aircraft if he likes to. Absolutely ludicrous to assume he couldn't.

I'm sure the House Armed Services Committee and/or White House Military Office and/or USAF would still be part of any such decision.

hmmwv wrote:

For the communication suite I recommend watching the 1997 documentary Air Force One narrated by Harrison Ford.

There is no way I trust this documentary after seeing Air Force Major Caldwell, an officer with command pilot wings and 3000+ hrs flying, state he was unable to fly AF1. Any rated Air Force pilot would have had a better chance at flying AF1 over POTUS.

wexfordflyer wrote:

When I saw the headline I was afraid of what I would see. But I actually don't think it's too bad. Perhaps a little gaudy, but could be an awful lot worse.

However, the current AF1 is elegant, sleek and instantly recognisable. Absolutely no need to touch it!

I had the same reaction actually.

Think he was quoted saying “it needs to be updated because everyone’s gotten used to it”. And that’s exactly why it shouldn’t be changed.

Tugger wrote:

Sorry, but the new scheme is just not better than this:

.

It could be tweaked a bit in my opinion (not that anyone cares about or asked for my opinion) maybe thin down the amount of blue coverage on the nose and top. I but I like its utterly unique scheme and coloring. It doesn't have to be red-white-n-blue to represent the USA.



This one is still iconic:


But its earlier iteration did not have the blue on top:


So I think a bit less top blue would be nice. But that is about it.

Tugg

Tugg, the white top scheme was only for the VC-137Bs. The VC-137Cs had the blue tops.