new AF-1
06-09-2014, 08:21 AM
#1
Working weekends
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
new AF-1
...to be replaced in 2023. Must be "four engines" but I am not sure why.
Boeing 747 Only Good for U.S. President as Jumbo Era Ends - Bloomberg
Boeing 747 Only Good for U.S. President as Jumbo Era Ends - Bloomberg
06-09-2014, 09:10 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by satpak77
...to be replaced in 2023. Must be "four engines" but I am not sure why.
Boeing 747 Only Good for U.S. President as Jumbo Era Ends - Bloomberg
Boeing 747 Only Good for U.S. President as Jumbo Era Ends - Bloomberg
For example, they could lose an engine and continue to destination in the 747 but not in a 777. And considering government gloat and all of the people and crap they take on AF1, the 777 is probably too small.
Could they use the 777? Absolutely.
06-09-2014, 09:22 AM
#3
Working weekends
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
Because when it comes to military applications or the POTUS, effectiveness trumps efficiency.
For example, they could lose an engine and continue to destination in the 747 but not in a 777. And considering government gloat and all of the people and crap they take on AF1, the 777 is probably too small.
Could they use the 777? Absolutely.
For example, they could lose an engine and continue to destination in the 747 but not in a 777. And considering government gloat and all of the people and crap they take on AF1, the 777 is probably too small.
Could they use the 777? Absolutely.
06-09-2014, 09:32 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
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.
06-09-2014, 11:33 AM
#7
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,822
Originally Posted by deadstick35
Didn't the Marine 1 contract goto Agusta...I mean Lockheeed? Why not a Northrop/Airbus 340?
FWIW, these "partnerships" are complete bs. The S92 was robbed in the original bid.
FWIW, these "partnerships" are complete bs. The S92 was robbed in the original bid.
06-09-2014, 12:44 PM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by deadstick35
Didn't the Marine 1 contract goto Agusta...I mean Lockheeed? Why not a Northrop/Airbus 340?
FWIW, these "partnerships" are complete bs. The S92 was robbed in the original bid.
FWIW, these "partnerships" are complete bs. The S92 was robbed in the original bid.
06-09-2014, 12:57 PM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,822
That VC-25 can't have near as many hours as older platforms such as the 135, 52, or KC-10 for that matter. IMHO it would be a waste of money for the AF to invest in another AF1 for now. It's a priority 1 airplane when it comes to ordering parts. The way MX babies that thing...keep it.
But just imagine...
But just imagine...
06-09-2014, 01:08 PM
#10
Working weekends
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by ERJF15
That VC-25 can't have near as many hours as older platforms such as the 135, 52, or KC-10 for that matter. IMHO it would be a waste of money for the AF to invest in another AF1 for now. It's a priority 1 airplane when it comes to ordering parts. The way MX babies that thing...keep it.
