Why isn't the new Air Force 1 a 777?

A300Capt said:
The reason the president flies on a jet with 4 engines is because they don't make one with 5! :p
Click to expand...

"You did what Mr President?!?!"


"I told the pilot, turn on the APU for takeoff.

Look it's simple,
-APU is an engine
-APU creates exhaust
-APU exhaust is hot
-Jet engine exhaust is hot
-APU equals 5th jet engine!

Anything else is fake news. If it please the media you can refer to our technical drawings for clarification."
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1487891881.665733.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalkHD1487891881.665733.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 139
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
They got rid of all the 707's I thought? When my dad moved from Andrews AFB they had replaced them with 757's. And the 707's had the old engines. Talk about guzzling. And making smoke trails. Good grief. I thought the C-130 E model was bad.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right about the VC-137s, the 707s used at ADW for VIP airlift in the 89th. All those are sitting in various museums now. Lawman was referring to the 707-based airframes we have in many other roles still, namely the KC/RC/WC-135 series that are still chugging along.
 
SFLAX said:
Can a 747 fly with 2 engines?
Click to expand...
Well, currently with four engines, she can fly on two engines just fine (one on each side- two on one side can be problematic and no engines if you're a BA pilot lol), but take-off would be an interesting proposition. The wings are designed for two engines each side, so where to mount one engine is an issue and probably a lot of re-engineering/re-design of the wings and perhaps the tail as well, would have to take place and I am not sure you could even have an upper deck. Two new engines with double the output of the current ones??? I dunno. How much weight after all of that could she then be able to carry/would lose would be another consideration. There would have to be changes to the four hydraulic systems, four electrical systems and the four pneumatic systems to redesign them to operate with two engines. And then ETOPS compliancy to deal with. I'm not seeing it.
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
Yes, you're right about the VC-137s, the 707s used at ADW for VIP airlift in the 89th. All those are sitting in various museums now. Lawman was referring to the 707-based airframes we have in many other roles still, namely the KC/RC/WC-135 series that are still chugging along.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I did not even take those airframe into consideration. Did the AF not have a bid out to get new airframes for air refueling?
 
Lawman said:
Your kidding right?

Most of the support AC fleet (AWACS, JSTAR, Rivet Joint, etc) are all still 707 platforms.

Not only that but some of them like JSTARS were used 707s the AF bought and rebuilt. One of them smells like goats so god only knows what that airplane did before it was modified.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Easy chief. I simply forgot about those. But thanks for pointing it out.
 
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
My mistake. I did not even take those airframe into consideration. Did the AF not have a bid out to get new airframes for air refueling?
Click to expand...

Well your reference to the VC-137 707s at Andrews was very correct, as those have indeed been retired and replaced with the C-32 757s. So your comments werent a mistake.

They have the KC-46s finally, originally A330s, but after a contract fiasco and re-bid, now they are 767s. However those are intended to replace mostly the KC-10 fleet, as well as some KC-135s. I dont know if we are buying enough KC-46s to replace the KC-135 fleet one-for-one.
 
MikeD said:
Well your reference to the VC-137 707s at Andrews was very correct, as those have indeed been retired and replaced with the C-32 757s. So your comments werent a mistake.

They have the KC-46s finally, originally A330s, but after a contract fiasco and re-bid, now they are 767s. However those are intended to replace mostly the KC-10 fleet, as well as some KC-135s. I dont know if we are buying enough KC-46s to replace the KC-135 fleet one-for-one.
Click to expand...

We aren't.... way to go acquisitions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DeltaAlphaNovember said:
Easy chief. I simply forgot about those. But thanks for pointing it out.
Click to expand...

No worries, so did all of acquisitions apparently.

Flying a fleet of aircraft older than almost any of the active pilots in the AF.... what could go wrong right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MikeD said:
I dont know if we are buying enough KC-46s to replace the KC-135 fleet one-for-one.
Click to expand...
From what I remember it was mostly replacement of the KC-10 and a couple for Fairchild so the state that built them could see some.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
From what I remember it was mostly replacement of the KC-10 and a couple for Fairchild so the state that built them could see some.
Click to expand...

That and a few ANG units in a few states to get them. I think the tanker Wing at McConnell, Kansas is slated for them too.
 
MikeD said:
That and a few ANG units in a few states to get them. I think the tanker Wing at McConnell, Kansas is slated for them too.
Click to expand...

Rickenbacker is advertising they are on the list.

Going to a bigger airframe though there simply will not be enough purchases to go boom for boom.

That being said, it should have more give than the 135 so there is potential it would need less lines on the ATO. It just takes away a lot more flexibility from the CAOC. Especially when we have stupid games like RC/theatre commanders not releasing use of their toys when they don't have a real job for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top