And the next Air Force One will be..........

Here's my "show my ignorance" question of the day...

Boeing 747-200 is the current AF1. What are the differences between the current and future, so far as capabilities are concerned?

Please remember, strictly a layman where these things are concerned.

a reply to: seagull

The 747-8 will have a large increase in takeoff weight, and range, while burning less fuel over shorter distances.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Basically the economics improve. Less fuel used. Works for me.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

Weight, wingspan, and footprint. It requires a 60 foot wide taxiway without a waiver.

One last question Sir "Columbo" what the heck is a waiver.....I am almost right in thinking side to side sway?
Regards, Iwinder

it is a waiver to be allowed to use the aircraft on runways and taxiways that are not wide enough.

It is because the engines overhang the edges of the sealed section - this means they are prone to sucking up foreign objects from the grass verges and/or less strongly secured fixtures such as runway edge lights, sign boards, etc. They may also cause damage to those area with the suction they create that can affect other aircraft.

A380's with their very wide span between the 2 outboard engines are the big (sic) problem in this instance.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.....much appreciated

Regards, Iwinder

4 engine requirement doesn't leave much choice .. I'd like to of seen an a340 in Air Force One colours

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

They'd have the same problem the C-20 and C-40 have. Once you add all the Comms gear the weight increase cuts the useful range significantly.

a reply to: seagull

That's the big thing. There's also the fact that it'll have more electrical power for more advanced systems and other advantages.

Yeah make the commander in chief fly commercial and then when under attack America must request to divert a civilian flight to somewhere with a secure internet link and other stuff to do the job millions of Americans voted for him to do to uphold their liberty and freedoms.

It's not a toy, it's a very powerful tool both hardware and an American symbol.

UK can use the Queens flight (4 engine BAe 146).

I would love to know what AF1 Defence capabilities will be in the next iteration! Assume they contain massive redundancy and capacity to upgrade??

a reply to: Forensick

Similar to current, probably with the addition of a bolt on Guardian system being tested now.

a reply to: crazyewok

I think the main priority is safety and support staff that have to travel with him. Not to mention that he has to be able to conduct presidential business on the aircraft in case of an emergency. As much as we all would like to think it is unnecessary and a waste of money I highly doubt it is anything but absolutely necessary.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Zaphod58

You mean even MORE than the movie Air Force One w/Harrison Ford showed us?!

I bet you hated that movie...

Oh god dont get me started on that movie. Firs, air refueling is about the hardest thing a pilot can do in the air. So this guy who didnt even know at first that the plane was air refuelable is able to get a contact, not only that, but on his first try? lmao!!!

Not to mention that a fuel leak like that wouldn't ignite into a fire if you were to drop a fuzee on the fuel spray. Overall though it wasnt a bad movie...just a little bit far fetched. lol

a reply to: boomer135

As much as I couldn't stand the Iron Eagle series I still sit and watch them for fun. I can't even watch 10 minutes of this one. I end up climbing the walls.

a reply to: Forensick

I would love to know what AF1 Defence capabilities will be in the next iteration! Assume they contain massive redundancy and capacity to upgrade??

Good luck with that!!

Even I know that's about as hush-hush as it gets. I wonder if even the pilots know all the wiz-bang gadgetry that's built into AF1...

If you do find out, though, do let me know
.

a reply to: seagull

I know a lot of it.

Damn those airplanes are pretty inside.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Here I thought I was bein' all smart and everything...



Some day I'll learn to keep my "knowledge" to myself....

a reply to: seagull

No, you were right that it's not advertised. They keep the defensive suite pretty quiet. My father knew and worked with all the flight crews that flew it in the 80s and 90s, so I cheated.

a reply to: boomer135

Remember the Die Hard movie when Bruce Willis is fighting on the wing of a 747 above the number 2 engine and falls onto the strut, finds a magical panel never seen on any other 747 and then proceeds to find a non existent refueling valve inside? Didn't anyone making the movie ever consider how dumb and improbable it would be for that to be there above a running engine, and that fans and aerosexuals would pick that out for ridicule in millisecnds? Not to mention setting fire to JetA1 with a Zippo in temps (supposedly) well below freezing and proceeding to somehow blow up the plane?

Nahh,.. lets just watch the movie again!


LEE.

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: boomer135

Remember the Die Hard movie when Bruce Willis is fighting on the wing of a 747 above the number 2 engine and falls onto the strut, finds a magical panel never seen on any other 747 and then proceeds to find a non existent refueling valve inside? Didn't anyone making the movie ever consider how dumb and improbable it would be for that to be there above a running engine, and that fans and aerosexuals would pick that out for ridicule in millisecnds? Not to mention setting fire to JetA1 with a Zippo in temps (supposedly) well below freezing and proceeding to somehow blow up the plane?

Nahh,.. lets just watch the movie again!

LEE.

lmao i agree. lol. but i still love those movies

a reply to: SgtHamsandwich
Yeah but not great for visibility in poor conditions, logo and wing/engine scan lights would be near useless and black isn't a very friendly colour for a statesman abroad, kind of like having Darth Vader turn up in your country! Besides I thought most of the airborne fleet was olive green and white. There is another issue with black as a colour too, thermal loads. A 747-8 parked on a baking hot hardstand all day would not be nice for a plane crammed full of electronic gear, especially an AIrforce One dedicated airframe. Can you imagine it being parked at Edwards or Dubai in the heat of summer? Black as a colour soaks up heat like a sponge, that's why I would be interested to know if Air New Zealand is having a problem with their first delivered 787-9 which is painted mostly gloss black. Zaph will remember that back in the 80's the USAF decided to repaint its C-5 fleet from the old style white/grey MAC colour scheme to a tactical European 1 type. End result was thermal overload issues sometimes when they parked it in a hot climate for a while. I am aware that Emirate's airlines has a policy of shutting down some of its aircraft if they are on the ground for an extended time in Dubai or anywhere else really hot, particularly their A-380's which have a much greater level of computerization than earlier types and can go a little weird when run continuously in hot weather on the ground. Applications can hang, spurious messages can kick up and cabin lighting ballast units can decide to randomly not work in parts of the plane. Put them to bed for a few hours, park them in the shade in a hangar or carport and the problems go away.

A gloss black 747-8 would look pretty damn impressive though hypothetically.


LEE.

a reply to: thebozeian

The green KC-10s topped 180 degrees internal temps in Kuwait.