Air Force 1 and the 747

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 20 Apr 2006, 03:23

Which version of the 747 will become the next Air Force 1? Saw a report a little while ago that said the president was interested in a newer replacement for the current Air Force 1. I wonder if the 747-8 will be the target aircraft or something different........

.....

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 20 Apr 2006, 12:36

They should get an A380! ;-P

burner737 · Post by **burner737** » 20 Apr 2006, 16:37

to earthman ...

I Think they'll never buy an A380!

1. It ain't American
2. They have Boeing

So I think it will be the nice looking 747-800 !!!

Regards Tim

Zorba · Post by **Zorba** » 20 Apr 2006, 16:41

burner737 wrote:to earthman ...

I Think they'll never buy an A380!

1. It ain't American
2. They have Boeing

So I think it will be the nice looking 747-800 !!!

Don't take all people say so serious

burner737 · Post by **burner737** » 20 Apr 2006, 16:47

LOL

Ha well that's just my opinion ...

Regards Tim

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 20 Apr 2006, 17:20

The current Air Force 1 is a version of the 747-200. It took approximately 2 years for all the modifications to be completed. After Boeing finished with the airframe construction, the plane was flown to E-systems in Greenville, TX for extensive modification. Electronic shielding, advanced communication and navigation systems, many security features, etc. were added - it took a long time.

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 20 Apr 2006, 17:49

What about a 772LR???

I mean it's a beautiful bird, has pretty much all the range the future president might want, it is pretty economical and seats many people...

Stij · Post by **Stij** » 20 Apr 2006, 18:13

Last week in the White House:

Boeing sales person: Mr. President, we advice you to buy the 772, it's economical, beautiful, has a good range, not to big, not to small and at the right price. In fact it's the best plane we've ever built!

Mr. President: The president of the biggest country in the world, who comes from the biggest state of that country, HAS to fly the biggest plane of the world. Sell me the biggest plane of the world!

Boeing sales person: But Mr. President, that's an Airbus A380!

Mr. President: Damn Frogs!

Cheers,

Stij

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 20 Apr 2006, 18:35

Vinnie-Winnie wrote:What about a 772LR???

I mean it's a beautiful bird, has pretty much all the range the future president might want, it is pretty economical and seats many people...

Not so sure about that one, but it is possible......the Air Force has a preference for 4 engine jets..........

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 20 Apr 2006, 18:37

smokejumper wrote:The current Air Force 1 is a version of the 747-200. It took approximately 2 years for all the modifications to be completed. After Boeing finished with the airframe construction, the plane was flown to E-systems in Greenville, TX for extensive modification. Electronic shielding, advanced communication and navigation systems, many security features, etc. were added - it took a long time.

It takes a very long time. Unlike the jets of other world leaders, Air Force 1 is not built as a pure pleasure plane, its built to survive a nuclear war.

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 20 Apr 2006, 20:05

Every inch of the 747 is used... It seems most people here don't know AirForce 1 747's are also airborne command centers (behind the cockpit on the upper deck). The 772LR would not have place for this, and would thus be out of the question. They would also go for a 4 engine airplane IMHO.

That said, I don't think they'll replace those 747's any time soon.
They were the last 742's build, don't fly that many days a year and are maintained in excellent condition.
They're certainly good for another 15-20 years...

Dutchyboi · Post by **Dutchyboi** » 21 Apr 2006, 05:14

and don't forget that range isn't an issue......it can be topped up in the air.

CX · Post by CX » 21 Apr 2006, 08:46

Can a comercial aircraft be topped up in the air? I mean it is actually quite convenient if a plane can fly direcly to anywhere in the world non stop, not even air refuel..
But of course the 747 is an iconic thing...

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 21 Apr 2006, 09:21

TexasGuy wrote:
smokejumper wrote:The current Air Force 1 is a version of the 747-200. It took approximately 2 years for all the modifications to be completed. After Boeing finished with the airframe construction, the plane was flown to E-systems in Greenville, TX for extensive modification. Electronic shielding, advanced communication and navigation systems, many security features, etc. were added - it took a long time.

It takes a very long time. Unlike the jets of other world leaders, Air Force 1 is not built as a pure pleasure plane, its built to survive a nuclear war.

Which ones - the two VC-25 frames or the four E-4B frames?

Also, I wonder if Il-96 also is an airborne commando post.

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:27

CX wrote:Can a comercial aircraft be topped up in the air? I mean it is actually quite convenient if a plane can fly direcly to anywhere in the world non stop, not even air refuel.

Normally not, they civil variants lack the equipment, although it would be no problem to integrate the equipment, at least no technical problem.
The problem would be certification, training and reliability.

The idea to use this pops up regularly, but under the bottom line it always turned out to be very expensive...

Regards, Bernhard

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:32

chornedsnorkack wrote: It takes a very long time. Unlike the jets of other world leaders, Air Force 1 is not built as a pure pleasure plane, its built to survive a nuclear war.
Which ones - the two VC-25 frames or the four E-4B frames?

Both I guess... There is no official info on those planes though, as you'll understand.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 21 Apr 2006, 14:13

Both the VC-25 and the E-4B airframes are hardened for Electromagnetic Radiation (nuclear hardened); both have been modified for aerial refueling.

The level of EMR shielding in both planes is classified.

Aerial refueling presents the risk of a mid-air collision since two planes (in this case large planes) need to fly in close formation. Consequently, the VC-25 does not aerial refuel while the President is on board although the pilots regularly train for aerial refueling. This capability is reserved for an emergency in which the President must remain in the air during an emergency.

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 21 Apr 2006, 15:52

The original tanker craft is the KC-135, which is a B707 version, though with differences like narrower fuselage. There were over 700 of them.

And there are others. KC-10 is basically a version of DC-10. There are other civilian planes having tanker versions. Like B747 or Tristars.

I think that the UK Tristars are not built as tankers but commercial planes converted secondhand - correct?

There are talks of B767 and A330 tankers. Probably others, too.

So, it sounds that converting a plane to give fuel as a tanker is not awfully hard. What about converting a plane to receive fuel from a tanker? E-4B and VC-25 can... what about other civilian airliners?

As for safety... with over 700 frames of KC-135 in service for near 50 years, there should be some safety statistics. How many KC-135 are airworthy, how many have crashed for reasons other than tanking (takeoff, landing, cruise) and how many have been lost in tanking collisions or downed the plane they tanked? And how complicated is the training of the KC-135 crews and the crews served by them?

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 21 Apr 2006, 18:28

There have been several significant refueling mid-airs, most notably the KC-135 and B-52 mid- air over Palomares Spain on January 16, 1966. Four hydrogen bombs fell from the B-52 (all recovered). Other mid-airs have occurred with non-nuclear armed flights.

While mid-air refueling is routine for military operations, the risk is not acceptable for civil air transport operations.

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 21 Apr 2006, 21:58

smokejumper wrote:There have been several significant refueling mid-airs, most notably the KC-135 and B-52 mid- air over Palomares Spain on January 16, 1966. Four hydrogen bombs fell from the B-52 (all recovered). Other mid-airs have occurred with non-nuclear armed flights.

While mid-air refueling is routine for military operations, the risk is not acceptable for civil air transport operations.

The risk and the cost will keep that from happening.

The Russian presidential jet is not an airbourne command post, atleast it wasnt in past years. They didnt have confidence in them enough to risk the life of the supreme leader of the USSR and now Russia. They rely instead on extensive underground bunkers for command post.........

...

Aviation24.be

Air Force 1 and the 747

Air Force 1 and the 747

Refueling