Replacement for Air Force One.

Airbus A380 so

Confab wrote: »

Yup, Airbus is the only way to go.

Not according to this:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=ivl&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e35e259abc36437e8e7665d42bdac9b2

The USAF will never chose airbus to replace AF1, it will be a 747-8 or 787.

weisses wrote: »

Would it be stupid to assume that they will not go for a twin engine plane?

Why not? Cheaper to run, less maintenance.. Overall cheaper to buy too

The 787-9 (When it comes available) will be the perfect choice in my opinion, if they were to go for the twin instead of the 747 again.

I know not as much room as the 747-8 but it could do the job. 787 has more range and could fit into even smaller airports than what the 747 can fit into now.

b757 wrote: »

Why not? Cheaper to run, less maintenance.. Overall cheaper to buy too

The 787-9 (When it comes available) will be the perfect choice in my opinion, if they were to go for the twin instead of the 747 again.

I know not as much room as the 747-8 but it could do the job. 787 has more range and could fit into even smaller airports than what the 747 can fit into now.

Fair enough ... was only worried that 2 engines are easier to take out then 4 (in the case of an attack)

LeftBase wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic but "Air Force 1" is the callsign of the presidential party when airborne. If he was in a C172 or a commercial flight it would be air force 1. So there is no real specific air force 1....however one 747 regularly fulfills the role, but that aircraft is not named air force 1.

Any civilian flight carrying the US President would be Executive 1; its only Air Force 1 when its an Air Force plane. Hence there's Marine 1, Navy 1, etc.

There are two identical aircraft, the one carrying the President is given the callsign AirForce one, if the Vice-president flies it is called Airforce two, the two men are forbidden to travel on the same plane and either aircraft can be designated AF1 or AF2, it depends on who steps aboard

MYOB wrote: »

Didn't Obama hire a Gulfstream into Teterboro to bring Michelle for a date in NYC after he got elected? Why I remember that (if its even true!) I dunno.

He would have only been President Elect at that stage, not the President though. They take their time about the swearing in ceremony over there (think a month or 2 later)

I was joking about the A380 - too big and too European .

My money is on a 748 really.

So it will be a 747-8 for the next Air Force One and it will bit be delivered before 2024 at the earliest. It was the Obama administration that got the ball rolling but the Trump one looked for cost cutting so the new Air Force One will not have in air refueling which us just crazy and very short sighted I think and they will be based on two 747-8s that Boeing were going to sell to Transaro a Russian airline ironically that decided to pull out of buying them. Don't forget these planes AircForce One and Two I think will have to serve for at least 30 years so not having iarf is crazy if you ask me. You know the way it's always when you don't have something with you that you need it and when you have it you do not. That could happen here. Who knows what will happen in the next 35 to 40 years.


https://youtu.be/nfO3Agp59qI

Sexual Chocolate wrote: »

Crazy money involved. While I love the 747s I do think that the 787 or even the 777-8 would of being ample enough.

It does seem like crazy money alright and that's why I think it's crazy they are not having refueling capability on it. Who knows what else the buffoon currently in the White House has asked to be left out. In the long run do when you think this plane will be used for at least 30 years it's not really that bad of value maybe.
I wonder what will happen the current one. Will it be like the Beast and all broke down and stripped so no one can find out about its secrets? A pity really.

AMKC wrote: »

I wonder what will happen the current one. Will it be like the Beast and all broke down and stripped so no one can find out about its secrets? A pity really.

There's two, not one, airframes currently in use.

The previous set ended up in museums, and indeed both of them continued to be used occasionally even after the 747s were delivered. There's an even earlier model in the Museum of Flight in Seattle.

Wait till you see if Biden wins he will change the colour back to blue.

Tenger wrote: »

(Excellent museum BTW)

The quality of the exhibits is only beaten by the quality of the staff & volunteers. There's a culture in the US of museum volunteers even in commercial museums, even an odd German term sort of misappropriated for it - docent - that's used in some places.

The day I was there, one of the volunteers working at the Concorde steps was a very, very old Boeing engineer who'd worked on the 747 project with Sutter and was one of the earlier senior black engineers in Boeing - they'd been segregated til nearly the end of WWII and hired very few black staff for a fair while after.

He'd done some form of testing on something - I honestly can't remember what now - at Shannon in the 70s and 80s, I'd guess possibly early 767 stuff.


Entire thing is a little Boeing Boeing Boeing Rah Rah Rah as you'd expect with it being in Seattle but its well worth a visit. Just make sure the restoration division in Everett/PAE is open before you drive up there - I ended up doing the Boeing factory tour to save a wasted journey!

Interesting alright , the current ones are getting pretty long in the tooth.

I remember 26000 and 27000 ( the VC137 ( B707 )) visiting LHR back in the day.

Was also at Pima where the VC118 is which is really worth a visit if you are down that neck of the woods.

Another issue is what do they replace the E-4s with? They’re designed to remain airborne for a week or more. An engine failure on a 747 isn’t even often an emergency (I’ve had 3 747s in my sector with an engine failure over the years that continued to destination). With no more 4 holers in production, they’ll either have to go for a new build twin or buy up a few used B744 / B748, the latter of which is only operated by Lufthansa, KAL and Air China IIRC.

Although I’ve often read there’s an undelivered 747-8 in a desert somewhere in the states, Lufthansa refused to take delivery of it due some weight and balance issues? Obviously no use as an E4 replacement on its own.

HTCOne wrote: »

Although I’ve often read there’s an undelivered 747-8 in a desert somewhere in the states, Lufthansa refused to take delivery of it due some weight and balance issues? Obviously no use as an E4 replacement on its own.

It was the first built 8i and was used extensively for tests etc. It was supposed to go to Lufty when Boeing were done with it but they rejected it like you said and it's just been in the desert for years now.

HTCOne wrote: »

Another issue is what do they replace the E-4s with? They’re designed to remain airborne for a week or more. An engine failure on a 747 isn’t even often an emergency (I’ve had 3 747s in my sector with an engine failure over the years that continued to destination). With no more 4 holers in production, they’ll either have to go for a new build twin or buy up a few used B744 / B748, the latter of which is only operated by Lufthansa, KAL and Air China IIRC.

Although I’ve often read there’s an undelivered 747-8 in a desert somewhere in the states, Lufthansa refused to take delivery of it due some weight and balance issues? Obviously no use as an E4 replacement on its own.

What are E4s?

Unknownability wrote: »

The Doomsday plane, they were in the media recently when Trump was diagnosed with Covid as they tried to make out they were scrambled as a display of force.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4

Wow! I am genuinely surprised. I honestly never knew or heard of these before. That's mad.