Known as "Merkel One", the German Air Force's new A350 flew non-stop from Cologne to Canberra. Flight time, 19 hours 13 minutes in the air. Here's the Simple Flying link:
https://simpleflying.com/merkel-one-a350-australia/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=daily&utm_campaign=24112020

My question is can the new Air Force 1 747-800's match this?

SRQfoxtrot wrote:

My question is can the new Air Force 1 747-800's match this?

No.

Per USAF reports to Congress, the design range of the VC-25B is 5,900 nautical miles / 11.000 kilometers. The original spec was for 7100nm/13100km, but using converted passenger frames instead of new-builds possibly accounts for some of the reduction along with perhaps heavier shielding or equipment than originally planned.

The German Air Force operate the ACJ350 (Airbus Corporate Jet) and this has a maximum fuel capacity similar to the A350-900ULR.

Stitch wrote:

SRQfoxtrot wrote:

My question is can the new Air Force 1 747-800's match this?

No.

Per USAF reports to Congress, the design range of the VC-25B is 5,900 nautical miles / 11.000 kilometers. The original spec was for 7100nm/13100km, but using converted passenger frames instead of new-builds possibly accounts for some of the reduction along with perhaps heavier shielding or equipment than originally planned.

The German Air Force operate the ACJ350 (Airbus Corporate Jet) and this has a maximum fuel capacity similar to the A350-900ULR.

The German Air Force A350 is a software modification of fuel capacity exactly like the ULR = 165000 litres and a range of 18000 km

This aircraft (10+03) has an interim passenger cabin for a quick EIS. The final cabin will be installed later once the two other A350s are delivered. Some other "goodies" might be missing as well for now, so with the final config the aircraft might be a little bit heavier. And there were no passengers on bord.

Speaking of Air Force One, is it likely that the new aircraft will revert to the original livery? Trump unveiled a new livery last year which many identified as being very close to the livery of Trump's private jet. Now he is leaving the building, I wonder if this decision will be overturned.

I would say the new 747-8 could fly non-stop, should it be retrofitted with an in-flight refueling system such as the current Boeing VC-25As. At that rate, it could fly infinitely, obviously to an extent.

FlyThiz wrote:

I would say the new 747-8 could fly non-stop, should it be retrofitted with an in-flight refueling system such as the current Boeing VC-25As. At that rate, it could fly infinitely, obviously to an extent.

Well there are mechanical consumables limits (engine oil, etc.). The E-4B NEACP can operate for up to 72 hours continuously, per reports, when configured for such a mission.

There is no chance the VC-25B will have in-air refueling added.

FlyThiz wrote:

I would say the new 747-8 could fly non-stop, should it be retrofitted with an in-flight refueling system such as the current Boeing VC-25As. At that rate, it could fly infinitely, obviously to an extent.

I mean, that's true for pretty much any airplane. Not really a testament to the aircraft's range.

FlyThiz wrote:

I would say the new 747-8 could fly non-stop, should it be retrofitted with an in-flight refueling system such as the current Boeing VC-25As. At that rate, it could fly infinitely, obviously to an extent.

to wich extent , 18000 km ???

Stitch wrote:

SRQfoxtrot wrote:

My question is can the new Air Force 1 747-800's match this?

No.

Per USAF reports to Congress, the design range of the VC-25B is 5,900 nautical miles / 11.000 kilometers. The original spec was for 7100nm/13100km, but using converted passenger frames instead of new-builds possibly accounts for some of the reduction along with perhaps heavier shielding or equipment than originally planned.

The German Air Force operate the ACJ350 (Airbus Corporate Jet) and this has a maximum fuel capacity similar to the A350-900ULR.

Well, it could, if it flew mostly empty, without the press etc, probably using the current aircraft (especially not an issue with refueling if used). Pretty pointless theoretical though. More importantly, POTUS hasn’t ever been stranded and forced to fly commercial, LOL. A logistical plan (including contingencies) and proper maintenance probably mean the 89th wouldn’t ever execute such a mission.

Not sure what the longest distance mission POTUS has ever flown on a twin jet AF1, certainly much less than this...and not a record likely to be broken in the next 30 years.

Nixon flew commercial air, once.

oldJoe wrote:

FlyThiz wrote:

I would say the new 747-8 could fly non-stop, should it be retrofitted with an in-flight refueling system such as the current Boeing VC-25As. At that rate, it could fly infinitely, obviously to an extent.

to wich extent , 18000 km ???

More like circumventing the planet non-stop and then some. But at some point other things then fuel run out. Like engine oil, or even food.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

FlyThiz wrote:

I would say the new 747-8 could fly non-stop, should it be retrofitted with an in-flight refueling system such as the current Boeing VC-25As. At that rate, it could fly infinitely, obviously to an extent.

to wich extent , 18000 km ???

More like circumventing the planet non-stop and then some. But at some point other things then fuel run out. Like engine oil, or even food.

Anyway, more range than halfway around the globe is pointless, isn't it?

WIederling wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

oldJoe wrote:

to wich extent , 18000 km ???

More like circumventing the planet non-stop and then some. But at some point other things then fuel run out. Like engine oil, or even food.

Anyway, more range than halfway around the globe is pointless, isn't it?

as long as you are free to take whatever route you like, yes. Unless staying up is the point of the exercise.

best regards
Thomas

oldJoe wrote:

Stitch wrote:

SRQfoxtrot wrote:

My question is can the new Air Force 1 747-800's match this?

No.

Per USAF reports to Congress, the design range of the VC-25B is 5,900 nautical miles / 11.000 kilometers. The original spec was for 7100nm/13100km, but using converted passenger frames instead of new-builds possibly accounts for some of the reduction along with perhaps heavier shielding or equipment than originally planned.

The German Air Force operate the ACJ350 (Airbus Corporate Jet) and this has a maximum fuel capacity similar to the A350-900ULR.

The German Air Force A350 is a software modification of fuel capacity exactly like the ULR = 165000 litres and a range of 18000 km

Huh? Can you explain more please? Surely the software allows for full tanks, and extra software does not increase tank capacity???

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Nixon flew commercial air, once.

Yes he did but it wasn't because he was forced to he did it as a PR stunt. The aircraft that would have flown him to CA as AF1 still flew to CA at the time that Nixon was on board Executive 1 and flew him back to DC as AF1 when his vacation was over.

kitplane01 wrote:

Huh? Can you explain more please? Surely the software allows for full tanks, and extra software does not increase tank capacity???

I assume it is similar for other airframe models, but on the A350 family not all of the available volume in the fuel tanks is allowed to be used. The fuel management software controls how much of that volume can be used and there is additional available volume for fuel beyond that, but it is not allowed to be used for whatever reason(s).

With the A350-900ULR, Airbus allowed more of that volume to be used than on the A350-900 and A350-1000. This allows the plane to tank more fuel to fly farther, but the tradeoff is that it cannot carry as many passengers and cargo which is why only one airline - Singapore - has purchased it and they use it only on two routes in their system where they need that extreme range and are willing to trade the payload to allow it.

Stitch wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Huh? Can you explain more please? Surely the software allows for full tanks, and extra software does not increase tank capacity???

I assume it is similar for other airframe models, but on the A350 family not all of the available volume in the fuel tanks is allowed to be used. The fuel management software controls how much of that volume can be used and there is additional available volume for fuel beyond that, but it is not allowed to be used for whatever reason(s).

With the A350-900ULR, Airbus allowed more of that volume to be used than on the A350-900 and A350-1000. This allows the plane to tank more fuel to fly farther,

Center wingbox tank can be filled up further loading the plane moving the CoG forward. ( and probably aggravated further by heavy first class monuments in the front.. ) So much that the forward hold is unavailable for use.

I still do wonder if 165k is the absolute last word in that respect.

WIederling wrote:

Stitch wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Huh? Can you explain more please? Surely the software allows for full tanks, and extra software does not increase tank capacity???

I assume it is similar for other airframe models, but on the A350 family not all of the available volume in the fuel tanks is allowed to be used. The fuel management software controls how much of that volume can be used and there is additional available volume for fuel beyond that, but it is not allowed to be used for whatever reason(s).

With the A350-900ULR, Airbus allowed more of that volume to be used than on the A350-900 and A350-1000. This allows the plane to tank more fuel to fly farther,

Center wingbox tank can be filled up further loading the plane moving the CoG forward. ( and probably aggravated further by heavy first class monuments in the front.. ) So much that the forward hold is unavailable for use.

I still do wonder if 165k is the absolute last word in that respect.

Probably not, but would be dependent on any future stretch having gear that can handle an MTOW increase, not to mention engines used. Certainly, there's no real demand for range beyond what Qantas/SQ got from Airbus today. The other issue moving forward from a "PR" perspective problem is the emissions if they did it for a relatively tiny quantity of travelers. If the MTOW goes much over 320K, on a stretch, and RR has the 'ultrafan' available for that, I could see utility for more fuel (functionally to compete effectively with the 779 stretch without any loss of either types of cargo).

If POTUS needs only 2 x 748s why does Germany need 3 of these?

I doubt they need all 3 in a thin ACJ configuration, unless they are going to lend them out amongst the EU countries, so I expect they will not all be configured identically.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If POTUS needs only 2 x 748s why does Germany need 3 of these?

I imagine because all three are not dedicated to the exclusive use of the Chancellor, but will be used by senior members of the Government, as well.

The US Secretary of Defense, for example, usually flies on an E-4B NEACP (a 747-200). And other Cabinet members, as well as the Vice President, fly on the C-32A/B (757-200) as well as the C-40A/B/C (737-700).

The German A350s can even be used for troop transport. There are 76 premium economy seats in the back and 30 business class seats available in addition to the VIP seats. It's also planned to utilize them in the MedEvac role. https://www.bundeswehr.de/bw-de/organis ... ft-3344756

Noray wrote:

The German A350s can even be used for troop transport. There are 76 premium economy seats in the back and 30 business class seats available in addition to the VIP seats. It's also planned to utilize them in the MedEvac role. https://www.bundeswehr.de/bw-de/organis ... ft-3344756

Bit like the initial A310 MRT version? VIP transport, troop transport but also rather sophisticated MEDEVAC modules
installable.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If POTUS needs only 2 x 748s why does Germany need 3 of these?

I doubt they need all 3 in a thin ACJ configuration, unless they are going to lend them out amongst the EU countries, so I expect they will not all be configured identically.

What Stitch says. And really because not everything that happens in the world is measured on what the US needs.

tullamarine wrote:

Speaking of Air Force One, is it likely that the new aircraft will revert to the original livery? Trump unveiled a new livery last year which many identified as being very close to the livery of Trump's private jet. Now he is leaving the building, I wonder if this decision will be overturned.

That livery was never finalized, nor would it be just President Trump's decision. It was just a proposal.
While it's still up in the air whether he will leave, I'm sure the the Harris and AOC will find or steal some clown livery with rainbows and unicorns to propose.

Stitch wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Huh? Can you explain more please? Surely the software allows for full tanks, and extra software does not increase tank capacity???

I assume it is similar for other airframe models, but on the A350 family not all of the available volume in the fuel tanks is allowed to be used. The fuel management software controls how much of that volume can be used and there is additional available volume for fuel beyond that, but it is not allowed to be used for whatever reason(s).

With the A350-900ULR, Airbus allowed more of that volume to be used than on the A350-900 and A350-1000. This allows the plane to tank more fuel to fly farther, but the tradeoff is that it cannot carry as many passengers and cargo which is why only one airline - Singapore - has purchased it and they use it only on two routes in their system where they need that extreme range and are willing to trade the payload to allow it.

That makes no sense to me.

Why would you have tankage that you could not use? Of course I understand that fuel weight reduces payload and affects center-of-gravity, but why put an artificial limit on total fuel capacity? Is this just a way for Airbus to charge extra? I think the "whatever reason" is totally interesting.

Also, does any other plane maker do this?

Bombardier did it to make the Global 5000/5500, purely software as the CWT wasn’t changed although the fuselage was shortened by 32”. The initial buyers wanted more fuel, so they changed the software thru a SB, then charged a bunch before becoming standard. The G350 was artificially fuel limited. Most builders make various weights and fuel loading for a design.

kitplane01 wrote:

That makes no sense to me. Why would you have tankage that you could not use?

Most commercial aircraft incorporate what is called a "wet wing" where the aircraft's wing structure is sealed and used as a fuel tank. So there are not separate fuel tanks / bladders like on a car. Because the internal volume of the wing is able to be used to store fuel. there might be structural loading or wing-bending issues if they are filled too much so there would be a maximum allowable load that can be put inside.

Noray wrote:

The German A350s can even be used for troop transport. There are 76 premium economy seats in the back and 30 business class seats available in addition to the VIP seats. It's also planned to utilize them in the MedEvac role. https://www.bundeswehr.de/bw-de/organis ... ft-3344756

The GAF SAM is more like a plane pool than having dedicated aircraft for a special person like e.a. the chancellor. It is used for troops, goods and medevac also. Mainly it is used for official business for sure. Aircraft will be choosen by range or size of the delegation. The SAM is highly utilized, more than any other transport wing in the GAF. So you will not see the aircraft sitting on the tarmac for a long time.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If POTUS needs only 2 x 748s why does Germany need 3 of these?

POTUS's AF1 is more like the carrier in a carrier group, isn't it?

POTUS travels and a bunch of C17, Galaxies or what not come along, maybe land on the next airport
bringing security details, the Beast, bespoke fuel store to not be dependent on local supply ( and
not fill up with the wrong stuff because of language issues )...

Stitch wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

That makes no sense to me. Why would you have tankage that you could not use?

Most commercial aircraft incorporate what is called a "wet wing" where the aircraft's wing structure is sealed and used as a fuel tank. So there are not separate fuel tanks / bladders like on a car. Because the internal volume of the wing is able to be used to store fuel. there might be structural loading or wing-bending issues if they are filled too much so there would be a maximum allowable load that can be put inside.

And those issued could not be solved by a software update. That cannot be the reason why.

kitplane01 wrote:

And those issued could not be solved by a software update. That cannot be the reason why.

I guess maybe you could fill up the wings of other commercial airliners more, but since the purpose of the plane is to carry paying payload (passengers and cargo) and not fuel, they don't do it. But planes like the 747-400ER, 777-200LR and A320-200LR/XLR use ACTs instead of filling the wing tanks more, so there either isn't the volume available or the A350-900's wings are special in some way.