Notices
Military Military Aviation

new AF-1

Old 06-11-2014, 12:32 AM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,835
Thumbs up Old af-1

A different version to throw into the mix on this thread.
The clip came to me today via e-mail. Fate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwvZXVKmPU
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 06-11-2014, 01:37 AM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,719
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
A different version to throw into the mix on this thread.
The clip came to me today via e-mail. Fate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwvZXVKmPU
What a shame, that girl needs a fan club. I'd like to buy it just to hear the engines start'
badflaps is offline  
Old 06-11-2014, 05:35 AM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 834
Default

Not sure the fate of this particular ship; I believe I saw it at the Pima air museum in Tucson years ago, not far from DM. For those interested in Connies, check out what Lufthansa is doing in Auburn Maine; it's incredible and a high dollar restoration...
Yoda2 is offline  
Old 06-11-2014, 01:37 PM
  #24  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 27
Default

Any new ship is a least 8 more likely 10 years out from its first trip with POTUS.
AF1 is at its hart a 747-200.
What do you think parts will be like for the 200 in ten plus years. One of the problems in taking a late build 200 for AF 1 was always going to be parts problems long before the aircraft are out of life. 35 years after the last commercial build most aircraft are difficult to support.
boxmover is offline  
Old 06-11-2014, 03:14 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Beaver Hunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 294
Default

He can fly Y class. Jez, not sure I want the clowns who got us into a nuclear war to live anyway.
They can just rot like the rest of us.
Beaver Hunter is offline  
Old 06-11-2014, 03:39 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,375
Default

I hear you. Ironically, though, the impression that our government can survive a nuclear exchange is what has kept us out of one for six decades. We have invested a lot of money and continue to throw money at nuclear survivability long after the end of the Cold War. Anyone been to Offutt recently and seen the big new ditch they are digging?
Air Force one is what it is for many reasons. I think only the Saudis have a sweeter exec transport, and I am guessing it doesn't have many of the bells and whistles that make af1 what it is.
I would hate to see the final price tag on the new af1 after all the gold plating and requirements creep that are going to go into that thing. They couldn't even manufacture a new presidential helo without going grossly over budget and getting the program yanked.
e6bpilot is offline  
Old 06-12-2014, 06:01 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PRS Guitars's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 2,295
Default

Originally Posted by boxmover View Post
Any new ship is a least 8 more likely 10 years out from its first trip with POTUS.
AF1 is at its hart a 747-200.
What do you think parts will be like for the 200 in ten plus years. One of the problems in taking a late build 200 for AF 1 was always going to be parts problems long before the aircraft are out of life. 35 years after the last commercial build most aircraft are difficult to support.
This is exactly right. I suspect that they've stuck with the old one this long for the general public's perception that keeping them is cheaper than replacing them. Yet it would likely be cheaper to replace them with 800's.
PRS Guitars is offline  
Old 06-22-2014, 07:49 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
dtfl's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Work
Posts: 506
Default

Originally Posted by e6bpilot View Post
All the reasons listed above are reasons it is 4 engine. It is not just an exec transport, it is a mobile whitehouse, command and control bunker, and EMP hardened nuclear war survivable machine. The requirements for that thing are ridiculous.
Honestly, the 747 is best suited for that mission. When you have something that important, efficiency isn't even in the top 25 most important things.
EXACTLY. And we should not forget...the WH isn't only worried about "losing" an engine, but also having 1 or 2 SHOT out.
dtfl is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 06:35 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 249
Default I guess the FE is out of a job...

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/29...-picks-b747-8/
TrakTrak is offline  
Old 01-29-2015, 07:36 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 160
Default

With regard to the A380 being a nonstarter, setting aside the not insignificant political issue of the President's plane being American made, are clearance problems.

Every person that works on that production line has to be cleared to an insane level. The American companies that deal with the presidential helos/planes struggle with this. There's no conceivable way a foreign company, much less one that builds pieces of their plane in multiple different countries, could ever get through the hurdles to get all the required personnel cleared.
Brillo is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices