Originally posted by Evan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Air Force One -800
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostWhat do we think about the 737 and its 60's era components?
And I'm talking about main wing leading edge devices, not the small inboard ones. Slats have been where it's at since the late sixties.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post... why ETOPS is good for the public but not for the President?...
Maybe we want AF-1 to fly ANYWHERE where a lost engine could 'easily' be ignored if needed?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostAnd I'm talking about main wing leading edge devices, not the small inboard ones. Slats have been where it's at since the late sixties.
The 727 and its mixed leading edge is still somewhat unmatched in having a wing that transforms from Mach number speeds to landing at Meigs field...
Yeah, slats are sexy new and have slots, but until Gabe or ATL the aero engineers tell me how they reduce speeds by 10 knots vs Kruger flaps, I'm still not convinced that they are essential to the POTUS.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostLast I knew ETOPS was a ROUTING (as well as ceftification) where you can make an "emergency" landing "somewhat promptly".
Maybe we want AF-1 to fly ANYWHERE where a lost engine could easily be ignored if needed?
...as an example, an aircraft with an ETOPS 330 rating can be expected to reliably fly for over five hours after a single engine failure. Is that "somewhat promptly"? This allows it to fly well over four hours from the nearest serviceable diversionary airstrip. What routes did you have in mind where an aircraft with a 9,500nm unrefueled range cannot fly within a four hour diversion endurance?
Other ETOPS issues, like fire-suppression, are irrelevant to the number of engines although more engines mean a greater potential for uncontained engine fires.
Perhaps more important is the number of destinations it can safely land and take-off from. The 777-8x will require less runway length than the 747-800. That could mean more diversionary airstrips that are considered serviceable. That could mean the 777x might be able to fly even more routes than the 747-800.
Originally posted by 3WEYeah, slats are sexy new and have slots, but until Gabe or ATL the aero engineers tell me how they reduce speeds by 10 knots vs Kruger flaps, I'm still not convinced that they are essential to the POTUS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI'm only using that as an indication of the obsolescence of the 747 design.
Emphasis here on "limitations".Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Post
There's so many insanely rich industrialists and pampered heads-of-state these days, I'm surprised Boeing hasn't built an airframe just for this purpose (think: the next -SP).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostKrueger flaps work fine and they are still used inboard of the engines or over the pylons on modern aircraft. But they have been long-since replaced by slats on the main leading edge. I'm only using that as an indication of the obsolescence of the 747 design. Most pax operators will phase out the 747's by 2020-25. Why do we want to invest $3B taxpayer dollars on an already obsolete airframe that we will have to use until 2040 or beyond? What does that do for the country's image in the world? The 777X or the 787-900 on the other hand should remain state-of-the-art for decades to come, have greater range, lower operational costs, lower maintenance costs and pleeeenty of room.
A huge airplane like the -8i especially in that color scheme will suit the country's image just fine.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostThat's what I'm assuming as well. It does raise the question about why ETOPS is good for the public but not for the President. I suppose one factor is the need for sustained flight in the event of the unthinkable. There is no ETOPS 6000.
But the 74-8 is a lot of airplane with an obsolete (though still famously reliable) flight control system. It doesn't represent the state-of-the-art today. The next VC-25's will probably be in service until 2040. How is it going to look when the US President is flying around in a plane that, like all quads aside from the A380, was mostly retired from passenger service by 2020?
Cant we just paste a couple extra mills on the 787? We have $3B to play with...
There's so many insanely rich industrialists and pampered heads-of-state these days, I'm surprised Boeing hasn't built an airframe just for this purpose (think: the next -SP).
Comment
-
Screw the 748 and 787.
Bring back Kennedy's 707.
But I never even thought the next AF1 would be anything other than the new 747.
Doesn't matter if it saves a bit more fuel, the 787. Everyone's points make the 747-8 the obvious choice.
If Evan were in the Congress of Jet Photos he would be the 1 vote that voted against out of 11 for.
Even if I don't like the next pres, or the one after (2023 will be maybe even be someone else that is virtually unheard of now if the next one isn't re elected) I'd want the 747-8 for them.
BUT. I think the current should be phased out sooner actually than 2023. I think its about time for a new one. At least the ball is rolling.
Still, even if its not the 747 any Boeing is still fine in my book. (I am biased not only as an American, but as a Washingtonian)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostThe 777 is already up to ETOPS 330. Certainly it would be that in the VC-25 role. Factor in mid-air refueling capability, so range is not the issue. What routes could it not fly?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostThe 777 is already up to ETOPS 330. Certainly it would be that in the VC-25 role. Factor in mid-air refueling capability, so range is not the issue. What routes could it not fly?
Originally posted by Evan View PostGive me two 777X airframes. Add all the existing, sophisticated, cutting-edge coms, the EMP hardening, some existing countermeasures, a nice bit of furnishing (no gold-plated faucets), a media room using existing technology... what more do I need to fly the President around? Do I need $900M to do that to two aircraft? Please.
If that figure includes operational support, that's a different story. But I think this is just development and procurement. And I smell bacon...
Interestingly enough - I assumed that the choice to go after a 747-200 platform originally was economical in that, in the event that they saw need for further aircraft they could adapt to easily used, or new order 747-200s, or move up the line to the successful 747-300, or the even better 747-400. At this time, most of us confidently bet that this will likely be the last iteration of the 747 family out there, thus making finding other 747-8s out there difficult to do. Why kick that change, an the bucket, down the road - when it will inevitable have to happen? Washington after all is making this decision, but moreso - this is in the name of justifiable safety - and as rare as losing an engine may be - in the event that it happens, with such precious cargo - every little bit helps.
Well, the choice has been made, and I am not too upset that it turns out to be this one. Safety first - and the 747 wins for longevity, and looks, and capability even if it is not the most cost-effective choice.Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KyleG View PostAerial refuelling has never been used with the POTUS on board as far as is publicly acknowledged, and as the secret service have to have personnel on board the tanker to inspect the fuel and the procedure etc it's only practical to be used in exceptional circumstances. The AF1 crew train AAR procedures on the E-4B fleet.Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostI think by 2040, the 748 will be the DC-3 of that age.
Imagine though, just as a side though - by 2040;
-"...the B-52 is slated to stay in service until 2040."
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers.../i_history.pdf"...requirement for its replacement had already been stated in early 1946, calling for an un-refueled range of 8000 miles with a 10,000 lb bomb load and a top speed of 450 mph."
http://www.stratofortress.org/history.htm
-"Boeing was finally able to refine the B-52 in 1955 to the plane we see today, an angled-winged, eight turbojet engine powered bomber with the ability to carry 60,000 pounds of various payloads." http://www.motoart.com/studio/airpla...stratofortress
-"Between 1952 and 1962 there were 744 B-52’s built at the cost of $14.43 million per plane. This would be around $53.4 million per plane in today’s market."
http://www.motoart.com/studio/airpla...stratofortressWhatever is necessary, is never unwise.
Comment
Comment