ArchGuy1
Topic Author
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:35 pm

New Air Force One

Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:18 am

Will it be safe to convert two existing 747-8 passenger planes into Air Force One aircraft considering all the top secret equipment and other features specialized for the planes that has to go in.
 
Legs
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:53 am

What's unsafe about it?

Given that the current VC-25 fleet was completed as a bare passenger airframe then moved off the line to get its special modifications, it's really little different to gut and then modify an already used airframe.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3351
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:37 am

They’re just removing all the seating and interior panels, which is done during most heavy inspections. Make no mistake, this program will go over budget and create a gold-plated monster.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5613
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:49 am

How much easier it would be if the Peep would transfer his powers to the Veep when he travels abroad...........
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
queb
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

Re: New Air Force One

Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:22 pm

The art of the deal :lol: What a joke...

The cost of Trump's new Air Force One has skyrocketed nearly $2 billion from the original estimate
https://www.businessinsider.com/air-for ... ion-2019-8
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: New Air Force One

Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:52 am

Actually the AF buying two whitetails meant that during the commercial assembly no one knew it would become VC-25. All of the fun stuff is added later.
 
texl1649
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: New Air Force One

Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:40 am

They’re including hangars and other items now. Also, it’s unlikely Trump ever flies on the new ones, they might get delivered just prior to the end of his second term though.
 
Noshow
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:28 pm

Do they still not have air to air refueling? This will be hard or impossible to add afterwards. So include it please.
 
mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:35 pm

No A/R installed on the 747-8I, and there will not be any installed. Have to costs at all costs and that was one "supposed" way to do it. Time will tell.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New Air Force One

Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:05 pm

Noshow wrote:
Do they still not have air to air refueling? This will be hard or impossible to add afterwards. So include it please.

It's an essentially useless option. It was only included on the last one to limit/exclude competition.

The range on this aircraft is such that it will have the ability to land where it needs to refuel, and if there is no safe harbor for landing then the situation is beyond the USA existing as an entity.

In-flight refueling is for short range aircraft, to allow them to be ferried or get to and back from their intended assignments. AF1 has no actual need for it.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: New Air Force One

Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:18 pm

Tugger wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Do they still not have air to air refueling? This will be hard or impossible to add afterwards. So include it please.

It's an essentially useless option. It was only included on the last one to limit/exclude competition.

The range on this aircraft is such that it will have the ability to land where it needs to refuel, and if there is no safe harbor for landing then the situation is beyond the USA existing as an entity.

In-flight refueling is for short range aircraft, to allow them to be ferried or get to and back from their intended assignments. AF1 has no actual need for it.

Tugg


Makes sense, if there is no available base for the tanker to come from, AF1 has no place to ever land.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:08 am

My understanding is that it was only ever a requirement so that the B747 was not the only competitor. The B747 could meet the range requirement without aerial refueling while the DC-10 would need it.

Now with no other commercial competitors in the US there's no point in pretending. So it got ditched.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3708
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:24 am

Tugger wrote:

In-flight refueling is for short range aircraft, to allow them to be ferried or get to and back from their intended assignments. AF1 has no actual need for it.

Tugg


I know plenty of C-5, KC-10, and B-52 crew that would disagree.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2607
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:45 pm

zanl188 wrote:
Tugger wrote:

In-flight refueling is for short range aircraft, to allow them to be ferried or get to and back from their intended assignments. AF1 has no actual need for it.

Tugg


I know plenty of C-5, KC-10, and B-52 crew that would disagree.


That has more to do with MTOW and useful payload.

What's interesting about not having the ability to aerial refuel on the VC-25B is that they won't be able to loiter for extended periods.
 
texl1649
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:39 pm

What's interesting is that it has never even been used, but cost over a billion dollars to add/certify last time, and if it were ever used, then POTUS wouldn't be onboard.

Several posts up there is a snide remark about "the art of the deal" but I would note adding this, a la US-101 specs, to the 748 conversions would be rock stupid. It was stupid the first time, but there's no sense in continuing the tradition. Most of this recent cost adjustment seems to actually be related to facilities/equipment like hangars.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9262
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:36 pm

Sorry, yes it is for adding range, I should not have made a definitive statement. I also made another error, the refueling was not to limit but to increase competition! I went back and found the old thread on this, post 37 has the best info.
viewtopic.php?t=1374815
citationjet wrote:
Most people don't realize it, but the inflight refueling requirement was ADDED during the bidding process to the current 747-200 AF1 project.
During the original AF1 bidding proposal process, the 747-200 was competing with the DC-10 for AF-1. The DC-10 didn't meet the range requirement and the 747 did. In order to keep the DC-10 in the competition, the Air Force added inflight refueling (IFR) to the request for proposal (RFP) requirements, to keep McD in the competition, even though the 747 could meet the range requirement without IFR. After the 747 won the contract award, Boeing offered to eliminate the IFR capability from their aircraft and refund the cost of the system (tens of millions). The Air Force refused, and that is why IFR exists today on VC-25 (747-200).

I worked at Boeing Military Airplane Co in Wichita KS at the time, and worked on AF-1 in engineering. This inflight refueling story is documented in a book written by Chuck Fisher, the Boeing pilot who flew the B-52 that lost its tail over Colorado and landed in Arkansas. The book is titled "High, Low, Joker and the Game" by Charles Fisher and Steve Conway. In Chapter 24, the book states that the contract stipulated that the aircraft must have a 10,000 mile range. The 747's range exceeded the requirement substantially. The Douglas DC-10 was the only competition, didn't have that range. In a moment typical of government bureaucracy, the Air Force elected to require $40 million worth of refueling equipment so the DC-10 could meet the range requirement.

Boeing won the contract. Since the 747, with fuel capacity of 312,000 lb, can easily fly 12,000 miles without refueling, the requirement for the IFR system should have been removed from the contract. In one of those bureaucratic snafus that everyone tries to ignore, the specification remained. Once committed to contract language, the IFR system became a bureaucratic priority of the worst kind. It said in paragraph 2028 of the spec sheet that the aircraft will be equipped with IFR systems. Fisher said that reasonable and practical men should have been able to resolve this problem in some mutually acceptable manner. However neither Boeing or the AF were reasonable or practical.

This was in 1987 and his title was Chief of Safety. Later in the chapter Chuck goes on to say that he retired over disagreements with the design of the IFR system being designed for AF1. They wanted to use a single walled fueling line, similar to KC-135s. Chuck was concerned that these planes had explosion proof avionics and electrical items which were military certified. AF1's avionics were not. Chuck wanted a triple walled fuel line with a nitrogen detection system. He retired in 1988 after disagreeing with Boeing over the IFR design. I remember going to his retirement reception.


Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: New Air Force One

Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:55 pm

Tugger wrote:
Sorry, yes it is for adding range, I should not have made a definitive statement. I also made another error, the refueling was not to limit but to increase competition! I went back and found the old thread on this, post 37 has the best info.
viewtopic.php?t=1374815
citationjet wrote:
Most people don't realize it, but the inflight refueling requirement was ADDED during the bidding process to the current 747-200 AF1 project.
During the original AF1 bidding proposal process, the 747-200 was competing with the DC-10 for AF-1. The DC-10 didn't meet the range requirement and the 747 did. In order to keep the DC-10 in the competition, the Air Force added inflight refueling (IFR) to the request for proposal (RFP) requirements, to keep McD in the competition, even though the 747 could meet the range requirement without IFR. After the 747 won the contract award, Boeing offered to eliminate the IFR capability from their aircraft and refund the cost of the system (tens of millions). The Air Force refused, and that is why IFR exists today on VC-25 (747-200).

I worked at Boeing Military Airplane Co in Wichita KS at the time, and worked on AF-1 in engineering. This inflight refueling story is documented in a book written by Chuck Fisher, the Boeing pilot who flew the B-52 that lost its tail over Colorado and landed in Arkansas. The book is titled "High, Low, Joker and the Game" by Charles Fisher and Steve Conway. In Chapter 24, the book states that the contract stipulated that the aircraft must have a 10,000 mile range. The 747's range exceeded the requirement substantially. The Douglas DC-10 was the only competition, didn't have that range. In a moment typical of government bureaucracy, the Air Force elected to require $40 million worth of refueling equipment so the DC-10 could meet the range requirement.

Boeing won the contract. Since the 747, with fuel capacity of 312,000 lb, can easily fly 12,000 miles without refueling, the requirement for the IFR system should have been removed from the contract. In one of those bureaucratic snafus that everyone tries to ignore, the specification remained. Once committed to contract language, the IFR system became a bureaucratic priority of the worst kind. It said in paragraph 2028 of the spec sheet that the aircraft will be equipped with IFR systems. Fisher said that reasonable and practical men should have been able to resolve this problem in some mutually acceptable manner. However neither Boeing or the AF were reasonable or practical.

This was in 1987 and his title was Chief of Safety. Later in the chapter Chuck goes on to say that he retired over disagreements with the design of the IFR system being designed for AF1. They wanted to use a single walled fueling line, similar to KC-135s. Chuck was concerned that these planes had explosion proof avionics and electrical items which were military certified. AF1's avionics were not. Chuck wanted a triple walled fuel line with a nitrogen detection system. He retired in 1988 after disagreeing with Boeing over the IFR design. I remember going to his retirement reception.


Tugg


That's the post I remember. Well done for finding it.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5613
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:34 am

Tugger wrote:
Tugg


That's very interesting!

But given that several other governments use 747s too (Bahrain, China, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey, Dubai, Yemen), the US should step up the game and buy a used 380. If buying a foreign-built aircraft is not compatible with chauvinist doctrine, the U.S. Navy should take over presidential flights with a newly built USS Akron. :yes:
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3351
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: New Air Force One

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:13 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
zanl188 wrote:
Tugger wrote:

In-flight refueling is for short range aircraft, to allow them to be ferried or get to and back from their intended assignments. AF1 has no actual need for it.

Tugg


I know plenty of C-5, KC-10, and B-52 crew that would disagree.


That has more to do with MTOW and useful payload.

What's interesting about not having the ability to aerial refuel on the VC-25B is that they won't be able to loiter for extended periods.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I’ve flown or planned legs where AR was used for those reasons and sometimes for range.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2607
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:31 pm

Do we know if the E4-B has ever been refueled? I believe it has the same system that was put on the VC-25.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3066
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:28 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Do we know if the E4-B has ever been refueled? I believe it has the same system that was put on the VC-25.

I'm sure it has, if for no other reason than for the crews to retain currency/qualifications on receiver refueling operations. In fact, I think I've heard that the guys who fly the VC-25 practice refueling in the E-4B so they don't ding up the paint on the fancy jet.

ETA:
https://www.livescience.com/65603-dooms ... ttack.html

Image
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2607
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:08 pm

Moose135 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Do we know if the E4-B has ever been refueled? I believe it has the same system that was put on the VC-25.

I'm sure it has, if for no other reason than for the crews to retain currency/qualifications on receiver refueling operations. In fact, I think I've heard that the guys who fly the VC-25 practice refueling in the E-4B so they don't ding up the paint on the fancy jet.

ETA:
https://www.livescience.com/65603-dooms ... ttack.html

Image


That's what I thought.

Thanks for the link!
 
texl1649
Posts: 994
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: New Air Force One

Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:53 pm

Of course, the equipment did have to be certified.

https://airwaysmag.com/wp-content/uploa ... x365_c.jpg
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 5613
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: New Air Force One

Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:32 pm

Moose135 wrote:

Image


A tanker refuelling an 747? this is a great picture. I wondered if there was a 747 refuelling a 747...

Here's a shot of a proposed USAF KC-25 refuelling an Iranian Air Force KC-25: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-w ... 1581314071
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4229
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: New Air Force One

Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:10 am

flyingturtle wrote:
Moose135 wrote:

Image


A tanker refuelling an 747? this is a great picture. I wondered if there was a 747 refuelling a 747...

Here's a shot of a proposed USAF KC-25 refuelling an Iranian Air Force KC-25: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-w ... 1581314071

Supposedly Jimmy Carter is the only sitting president to be on board during AAR, while riding in one of the E-4s.
The last of the famous international playboys

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos