new AF-1

Reply Subscribe

Page 2 of 4

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-09-2014 | 01:37 PM

#11

ERJF15

Banned

Joined: Mar 2009

Posts: 1,822

Likes: 0

In the future, the folks who decide what the POTUS is gonna fly will have to change their logic in why they prefer a four engine airplane as opposed to two.

06-09-2014 | 01:57 PM

#12

FlyBoyd

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 818

Likes: 0

From: FDX 767 FO

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Four engines absolutely makes sense for reliability and damage tolerance. Especially since commercial models are available...would be a tough sell if they had to clean slate it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERJF15

In the future, the folks who decide what the POTUS is gonna fly will have to change their logic in why they prefer a four engine airplane as opposed to two.

I'm sure having the ability to takeoff with one engine out (from a normal length runway) is a requirement as well as the subsequent range/endurance required. Are there any two engine platforms that can match those four engine specs with an engine out?

06-09-2014 | 02:53 PM

#13

ERJF15

Banned

Joined: Mar 2009

Posts: 1,822

Likes: 0

new AF-1

T7 maybe? I doubt the 25 leaves ADW at max gross. So a T7 could probably do it easy.

06-09-2014 | 03:57 PM

#14

hvydvr

Line Holder

Joined: Jan 2011

Posts: 814

Likes: 27

From: Wind checker

Quote:

Originally Posted by satpak77

747-8 would be cool

Hardening a 747-8 against EMP would be a mess.

06-09-2014 | 04:06 PM

#15

MongoC5

Line Holder

Joined: Aug 2010

Posts: 355

Likes: 14

From: 75/76, C-5

This isn't about AF-1 being an outdated aircraft, we all know the current models have more technology on them to last another decade (if not longer) never mind just a few more years, this is about politics and giving the Boeing company an indirect loan to avoid shutting down the 747....

06-09-2014 | 04:14 PM

#16

e6bpilot

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Apr 2013

Posts: 4,558

Likes: 399

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.

06-09-2014 | 04:16 PM

#17

Yoda2

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jan 2013

Posts: 834

Likes: 0

Years ago the government preferred 4 engines for much VIP transport. That is how the Jetstar and McDonnel Douglas 220 ended up with 4 engines.

06-09-2014 | 06:14 PM

#18

JamesNoBrakes

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Nov 2011

Posts: 4,149

Likes: 46

From: Volleyball Player

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERJF15

In the future, the folks who decide what the POTUS is gonna fly will have to change their logic in why they prefer a four engine airplane as opposed to two.

In the future when no 4 engine platforms are available, then yes, but for now and the foreseeable future, not a chance in hell.

06-09-2014 | 06:16 PM

#19

ERJF15

Banned

Joined: Mar 2009

Posts: 1,822

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

In the future when no 4 engine platforms are available, then yes, but for now and the foreseeable future, not a chance in hell.

That's what I said...speaking of AF-1 SAM 26000. My old man was an FE in the 1st MAS.

National Museum of the U.S. Air Force - Virtual Tour

06-10-2014 | 03:42 PM

#20

MikeF16

Otto

Joined: Jul 2013

Posts: 1,806

Likes: 0

From: Turkish Pile Driver

I'd imagine a 4 engine aircraft would do a lot better vs. a heat seeking missile than it's 2 engined brethren. VS a RADAR shooter it probably doesn't matter. I would imagine they could just engage death blossom and make every male with 250 nm sterile if they encountered a RADAR threat anyway.