Air Force One 747's

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:45 pm

Not really warbird although a war could be directed from the two 747's that serve as Air Force One, it was announced both of these 747's will be retired in the not to distant future. Will one of them end up at the NMUSAF?

JohnB · **Posted:** Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:59 pm

I'd think so, though the real AF1 prize, historically speaking, is 26000 because of the JFK/LBJ history.
I'm surprised that The NMUSAF got it and not the Smithsonian or some place better politically connected.
About the 747 AF one...will it fit in the new hangar at the NMUSAF?

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:25 pm

JohnB wrote:

I'd think so, though the real AF1 prize, historically speaking, is 26000 because of the JFK/LBJ history.
I'm surprised that The NMUSAF got it and not the Smithsonian or some place better politically connected.
About the 747 AF one...will it fit in the new hangar at the NMUSAF?

It will not fit into the building now being constructed.

Cubs2jets · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:12 am **Posts:** 312

So, even IF the new Air Force One's are included in the 2016 budget and everything moves forward on schedule, they're not expected to enter service before 2020. The current VC-25 may be kept active for several more years...so I wouldn't expect either to show up at a museum until at least 2025.

C2j

JohnB · **Posted:** Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:50 pm

I'm a bit disappointed they didn't switch to a 777. Still plenty of room and more fuel efficient than a 747-800, I'd guess.
Besides, it would send a good message of being environmentally astute and show everyone at home and abroad, that even the "big guys" have to compromise with fuel costs and budgets being what they are.

flightsimer · **Posted:** Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:47 am

JohnB wrote:

I'm a bit disappointed they didn't switch to a 777. Still plenty of room and more fuel efficient than a 747-800, I'd guess.
Besides, it would send a good message of being environmentally astute and show everyone at home and abroad, that even the "big guys" have to compromise with fuel costs and budgets being what they are.

They already have the 747-200 packed as much as physically is possible. There is no way they would fit the entire AF1 suite into a 777-300ER, nor does the 777 offer the capabilities of the current 747-200's.

B-29 Super Fort · **Joined:** Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:12 am **Posts:** 871

flightsimer wrote:

JohnB wrote:

I'm a bit disappointed they didn't switch to a 777. Still plenty of room and more fuel efficient than a 747-800, I'd guess.
Besides, it would send a good message of being environmentally astute and show everyone at home and abroad, that even the "big guys" have to compromise with fuel costs and budgets being what they are.

They already have the 747-200 packed as much as physically is possible. There is no way they would fit the entire AF1 suite into a 777-300ER, nor does the 777 offer the capabilities of the current 747-200's.

Only four engine aircraft would be the requirement:

Quote:

Analyses of the capability requirements conclude a four-engine, wide body aircraft is required to meet the needs of the Air Force One mission. Market research determined there are two four-engine platforms that could meet the requirements; the 747-8 manufactured by Boeing in the state of Washington, and the A380 manufactured by Airbus in Toulouse, France.

sandiego89 · **Joined:** Mon May 21, 2012 12:28 pm **Posts:** 1201

Pat Carry wrote:

JohnB wrote:

I'd think so, though the real AF1 prize, historically speaking, is 26000 because of the JFK/LBJ history.
I'm surprised that The NMUSAF got it and not the Smithsonian or some place better politically connected.
About the 747 AF one...will it fit in the new hangar at the NMUSAF?

It will not fit into the building now being constructed.

Perhaps a more precise answer might be, "Yes it would fit, but there are no current plans for the 747 "Air Force One" to be in the new 4th buliding".

Would it fit? I think so, remember the original plans called for A C-5 Galaxy to be in there when Global Reach was more of a theme. The C-5 got bumped with the re-shift to a mix of lift, the shuttle trainer, the presedential fleet and the X planes/R&D.

C-5 and 747 will have to wait.

Current exhibit plans for the new buliding

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared ... 30-003.jpg

JohnB · **Posted:** Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:04 am

flightsimer wrote:

They already have the 747-200 packed as much as physically is possible. There is no way they would fit the entire AF1 suite into a 777-300ER, nor does the 777 offer the capabilities of the current 747-200's.

Remember the old days when they fit everything into a 707?

And if two engines are good/safe enough for most airline passengers, I'd think it would be safe enough for any occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave.

If you give bureaucrats (either military or political) enough space they will fill it with stuff and people.

The escalation of "nice to haves" and "let's full the space" helped killed off the WH replacement helicopter. I knew the program was doomed when they selected the EH-101, simply because I saw the writing on the wall that with all that space (especially compared to the S-92), they'd turn the helicopter into a mini AF1 instead of something that is used for 10 minute flights from airports to city centers. One critic of the program said the helicopter became capable of "preparing a 8-course dinner in the middle of a nuclear attack" with all the EMP and who knows what other doomsday safeguards included..

All I'm suggesting dial it in a bit. After all with today's communications you don't need a CommSuite the size of a car...unlike the 707 days.

If tensions are that high, fly the prez in a E-4. But a nicely equipped 777 would do the trick 99% of the time.

Again, it would be a good PR move, after all, if the "little people" (who also foot the bill for WH travel) have to fly cattle class on Delta, their elected "servants" should try to "share the pain" by downsizing to a 777.

jwc50 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:24 pm

The VC-25A/747-200B aircraft will NOT be Warbirds by definition of this forum for several more years. I think what I have read says that the new modified 747-8 aircraft will be ready for service in about EIGHT years - 2023 or so.

It will be a BIG airplane to fit in the new R&D/Presidential aircraft building at the Air Force Museum someday. I wonder if they have done pre-planning on where it would fit several years from now?

AND - I think that the FOUR engine 747-8 makes sense. I see no reason to go to a twin engine aircraft for this mission.

flightsimer · **Posted:** Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:32 pm

JohnB wrote:

flightsimer wrote:

They already have the 747-200 packed as much as physically is possible. There is no way they would fit the entire AF1 suite into a 777-300ER, nor does the 777 offer the capabilities of the current 747-200's.

Remember the old days when they fit everything into a 707?

And if two engines are good/safe enough for most airline passengers, I'd think it would be safe enough for any occupant of 1600 Penn. Ave.

If you give bureaucrats (either military or political) enough space they will fill it with stuff and people.

The escalation of "nice to haves" and "let's full the space" helped killed off the WH replacement helicopter. I knew the program was doomed when they selected the EH-101, simply because I saw the writing on the wall that with all that space (especially compared to the S-92), they'd turn the helicopter into a mini AF1 instead of something that is used for 10 minute flights from airports to city centers. One critic of the program said the helicopter became capable of "preparing a 8-course dinner in the middle of a nuclear attack" with all the EMP and who knows what other doomsday safeguards included..

All I'm suggesting dial it in a bit. After all with today's communications you don't need a CommSuite the size of a car...unlike the 707 days.

If tensions are that high, fly the prez in a E-4. But a nicely equipped 777 would do the trick 99% of the time.

But it is not the old days nor would the political landscape this world has slipped into allow for us to ever get back to them. I would rather have the president in a capable aircraft that he can 100% do his job from than it just be a form of transportation. If it was just to be a mean of getting from point A-B, then a Gulfstream or Falcon would be more than capable.

The 777 can not handle the electrical load required to power AF1 with just two engines, which is the reason why it has to be a four engined aircraft. The current VC-25's I believe already has dual generators on each engine. Also, in the grand scheme of things, the 747-8 is not much bigger than the current VC-25. The area it will grow the most is the upper deck as it's going from the pre-SUD to the -8's lengthened deck.

JohnB · **Posted:** Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:57 pm

flightsimer wrote:

The 777 can not handle the electrical load required to power AF1 with just two engines, which is the reason why it has to be a four engined aircraft.

Well, that makes sense, good to know it's not just a case of the nation needing to keep up with the Jones or a bit of one upmanship during global summits.

Although most other western nations seem to get along without such a grand transport.

The 747 is also cleared for AAR, so that makes sense as well.

But the twin vs 4 engine safety issue alluded to earlier is a non-starter since the President does fly in twins all the time, the VH-3D, VH-60s and Gulfstreams.
I can imagine what the Secret Service would say today if the President wanted to fly in a single piston engine helicopter the way Ike did (H-13J) and JFK (VH-34 ) did.

Warbird Information Exchange

Air Force One 747's

Who is online