new AF-1
06-11-2014 | 12:32 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
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
The clip came to me today via e-mail. Fate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwvZXVKmPU
06-11-2014 | 01:37 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
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
The clip came to me today via e-mail. Fate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwvZXVKmPU
06-11-2014 | 05:35 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
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...
06-11-2014 | 01:37 PM
#24
Line Holder
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
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.
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.
06-11-2014 | 03:39 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,558
Likes: 398
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.
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.
06-12-2014 | 06:01 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 4
From: A320 CA
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.
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.
06-22-2014 | 07:49 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
From: Work
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.
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.
01-29-2015 | 06:35 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
01-29-2015 | 07:36 AM
#30
On Reserve
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 193
Likes: 15
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.
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.
