787

[JustAFriend]

Yes, simpler times.

They didn't have to haul around the electronics, signals equipment, computer equipment, satellite radios and electronics for all the on-board newsmen back then.

(Been through the Eisenhower's Lockheed SuperConstellation AF1 at the Dayton Air Force Museum. Cramped and little room compared to a modern airliner...)

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Outpost4 said:
Besides, why should the president downsize?

To set an example, perhaps? I don't know about you, but I have always greatly admired frugality and (aside from unavoidable expenditures on certain non-negotiable lifestyle requirements) have always done my best to live according to its precepts.

TGT

 

[NCC1701]

Mallory said:

M´Sharak said:

voss749 said:
The 787 is too small to be air force 1.

Why?

The interior volume is simply insufficient. When you consider all the people that have to be carried plus all the electronics there's no way that a 787 is going to be able to handle the load.

Believe it or not, but a C-32 - military designation for a modified 757 - is sometimes used instead of the 'real' Air Force Ones, tho they're usually used by the Vice President of the US. Wikipedia Link

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

NCC1701 said:

Mallory said:

M´Sharak said:

voss749 said:
The 787 is too small to be air force 1.

Why?

The interior volume is simply insufficient. When you consider all the people that have to be carried plus all the electronics there's no way that a 787 is going to be able to handle the load.

Believe it or not, but a C-32 - military designation for a modified 757 - is sometimes used instead of the 'real' Air Force Ones, tho they're usually used by the Vice President of the US. Wikipedia Link

It doesn't matter if it's a C12 or a 747. What ever aircraft the President is on, is Air Force One.

 

[WalkinMan]

Outpost4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason a 787 couldn't be a presidential jet is a four engine requirement. Supposedly the Queen of England has one for travelling (maybe urban legend?). I've heard her jets have to have four engines for redundancy.

Actually none of those are accurate as well. The Queen regularly travels on a British Airways 777, she most recently used one for her visit to Virginia. The Prime Minister of England also often used a BA 777 (nicknamed "Blair Force One").

Twin engines, with 180 min. ETOPS safety, is considered as safe as any aircraft out there by most reputable sources, and certainly with cabinet members and Presidential travel there have been twinjet 757s used. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 787 join the Air Force One club one day.

 

[Marc]

WalkinMan said:

Outpost4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason a 787 couldn't be a presidential jet is a four engine requirement. Supposedly the Queen of England has one for travelling (maybe urban legend?). I've heard her jets have to have four engines for redundancy.

Actually none of those are accurate as well. The Queen regularly travels on a British Airways 777, she most recently used one for her visit to Virginia. The Prime Minister of England also often used a BA 777 (nicknamed "Blair Force One").

Twin engines, with 180 min. ETOPS safety, is considered as safe as any aircraft out there by most reputable sources, and certainly with cabinet members and Presidential travel there have been twinjet 757s used. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 787 join the Air Force One club one day.

In terms of thrust the two engines on a 777 are putting out more power (combined thrust 93,000lbs) than the 4 on a 747 (combined thrust 63,000lbs) and a full loaded weight 300,000lbs less while the failure on an engine on a 777 would be a serious issue there should be sufficient power to make a safe landing.

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

Here you go. All the info on Air Force One.

 

[WalkinMan]

Marc said:

WalkinMan said:

Outpost4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason a 787 couldn't be a presidential jet is a four engine requirement. Supposedly the Queen of England has one for travelling (maybe urban legend?). I've heard her jets have to have four engines for redundancy.

Actually none of those are accurate as well. The Queen regularly travels on a British Airways 777, she most recently used one for her visit to Virginia. The Prime Minister of England also often used a BA 777 (nicknamed "Blair Force One").

Twin engines, with 180 min. ETOPS safety, is considered as safe as any aircraft out there by most reputable sources, and certainly with cabinet members and Presidential travel there have been twinjet 757s used. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 787 join the Air Force One club one day.

In terms of thrust the two engines on a 777 are putting out more power (combined thrust 93,000lbs) than the 4 on a 747 (combined thrust 63,000lbs) and a full loaded weight 300,000lbs less while the failure on an engine on a 777 would be a serious issue there should be sufficient power to make a safe landing.

Exactly! :thumbsup:

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

WalkinMan said:

Marc said:

WalkinMan said:

Outpost4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason a 787 couldn't be a presidential jet is a four engine requirement. Supposedly the Queen of England has one for travelling (maybe urban legend?). I've heard her jets have to have four engines for redundancy.

Actually none of those are accurate as well. The Queen regularly travels on a British Airways 777, she most recently used one for her visit to Virginia. The Prime Minister of England also often used a BA 777 (nicknamed "Blair Force One").

Twin engines, with 180 min. ETOPS safety, is considered as safe as any aircraft out there by most reputable sources, and certainly with cabinet members and Presidential travel there have been twinjet 757s used. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 787 join the Air Force One club one day.

In terms of thrust the two engines on a 777 are putting out more power (combined thrust 93,000lbs) than the 4 on a 747 (combined thrust 63,000lbs) and a full loaded weight 300,000lbs less while the failure on an engine on a 777 would be a serious issue there should be sufficient power to make a safe landing.

Exactly! :thumbsup:

What Outpos4 is saying is two engines isn't sufficent to provide the electrical power that Air Force One requires for it's avionics. With four engines it has the power required for said avionics.

 

[WalkinMan]

I didn't read Outpost4 saying anything about electrical power and avionics, I only read about the "4 engines redundancy" statement, attributed to the Queen of England. AFAIK, there is no such requirement given that she has traveled on the 777.

As for electrical power, I doubt that the less powerful 747 engines produce more electrical power than the more powerful engines on the 777. Considering that VPs and Secretaries of State travel on 757s, and that prior to that the much less powerful 707 was used extensively as AF1, I think it's definitely possible to use a twinjet for a head of state aircraft.

 

[Outpost4]

WalkinMan said:
I didn't read Outpost4 saying anything about electrical power and avionics,

Outpost4 doesn't know shit about electrical power and avionics.

 

[Samurai8472]

Gaseous Anomaly said:
It doesn't matter if it's a C12 or a 747. What ever aircraft the President is on, is Air Force One.

and I have "Airforce One" the movie to thank for teaching me that