Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Force One -800

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    .......the 748 will be the DC-3 of that age.
    One of these, I guess you mean....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      What do we think about the 737 and its 60's era components?
      We think it's a dinosaur. We're profoundly disappointed that Boeing choose to re-engine it instead of creating a new airframe. Like the 747, it's a legendary airplane, but it's a mantlepiece now. In my opinion. It's heavy. It's high maintenance. It drags. It corrodes.

      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        ... why ETOPS is good for the public but not for the President?...

        Last 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?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          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.
          Tell me what slats do PERFORMANCE WISE versus Krueger flaps.

          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            Last 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?
            ETOPS is about not having to land "somewhat promptly" and is based on a number of things, including things unrelated to the engines or even the aircraft itself. However, we are specificially talking about the number of engines here so...

            ...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 3WE
            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.
            Krueger 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.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              I'm only using that as an indication of the obsolescence of the 747 design.
              Not a very good example...and 5 hours and the ability to maintain altitude and way out war-time scenarios derails ETOPS limitations pretry easily...

              Emphasis here on "limitations".
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                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).
                Actually, there really aren't all that many VIPs using widebodies. Certainly not enough to develop a new model just for that market, especially when you consider that many of the "pampered" purchased their aircraft second-hand (even third- or fourth-hand in some cases).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Krueger 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.
                  You're barking up the wrong tree a little here, first and foremost in that you're looking at the future VC-25B as an airliner which it's not. It's essentially a very large business jet. Whether or not the design is "obsolescent" is not the issue, neither are operating costs for an airplane that flies a few times a month.

                  A huge airplane like the -8i especially in that color scheme will suit the country's image just fine.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    That'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).
                    I have no idea why you hate the 748 as much as you do, but to call it obsolete is ridiculous. It's a brand new airplane, the 748i first flew in March 2011. Air Force 1 by design is going to be flying a lot longer than its civilian counterparts, why else do you think they are still flying two souped 747-200s that were completed in 1986? The design wasn't new then. Per the Air Force requirements only the A380 and the 748i meet the criteria, and only the 748i is made in the USA, so the decision was very simple as far as I can tell, and this whole debate is moot.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        The 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?
                        Aerial 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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          The 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?
                          Despite being anachronistic, "4 engines 4 Long Haul" applies here. Imagine never having to limit your route, save for naturally occurring phenomena. In flight, suffer one engine loss due to any extreme conditions on a 777 (or any bi-engined aircraft) and you do have to come down sooner or later. Suffer the same one engine loss on a 4 holer, and it is a slighter inconvenience. Not as life threatening, though not as comfortable as if operating on 4. This is not an airliner - this is not being operated by a cost conscious airline. It's Air Force One. It has one job, and it does it above all other considerations - cost being one of them if necessary. From a security perspective - that level of risk gained by having 4 versus 2 engines is almost sacred. To them, the cost is inconsequential compared to the perceived, and marketable benefits. It's not UA making a move here, it's the POTUS.

                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Give 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...
                          Oh, it likely reeks of it, barrel et al.

                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by KyleG View Post
                            Aerial 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.
                            Now that is truly interesting! Not doubting you - but do you have a source. LOL, can someone even acknowledge the lack of a fact? Anyway, that is very interesting none the less.
                            Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              I think by 2040, the 748 will be the DC-3 of that age.
                              Haha, the DC-3 might indeed still be the DC-3 of her age in 2040 if enough support groups and Canadian Airlines have their say.

                              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
                              i.e. 95 years from time of conception to the time of proposed retirement.

                              -
                              "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
                              i.e. 85 years in service - which is monumental!

                              -
                              "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...stratofortress
                              Which is impressive in a cost-conscious sense. I mean, where else can you arrive at a Bomber for that price?
                              Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by KGEG View Post
                                Bring back Kennedy's 707.
                                +1UP this!
                                Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X