The problem with the A380, is there are limited airports it could land, which come to think of it, may also be an issue for a 747-8i, so maybe it will be a 747-400. That could land anywhere the current AF1 would be able.

 

Hi Tom,

 

I am not aware of specific limitations of the 747-8i vs 747-400. And anyway, VIP flights are not concerned with petty matters such as terminal access and jetways.

 

Regarding the other points mentioned by various posters:

 

1- The A340 is out of production but anyway, who really believes the US would select an Airbus to fly the POTUS?

 

2- As mentioned above, official travel is not cheap, but taking all the other issues in perspective (security, prestige, need for safe and permanent communications, need to take along press and businessmen on foreign trips etc.) complaining about the cost is missing the larger issues. (edited)

 

Bruno

And anyway, VIP flights are not concerned with petty matters such as terminal access and jetways.

 

 

VIP or not, there are runway and taxiway limitations that will affect the ability of a plane to use an airport. And the bigger it is, the less access you have. As prestigious as a 747 is, it is probably not enough to overcome the embarrassment of not making it to the welcoming party because the plane's mains got stuck in the grass while rounding that last turn into the ramp or stuck on the taxiway after breaking through the asphalt.

VIP or not, there are runway and taxiway limitations that will affect the ability of a plane to use an airport. And the bigger it is, the less access you have. As prestigious as a 747 is, it is probably not enough to overcome the embarrassment of not making it to the welcoming party because the plane's mains got stuck in the grass while rounding that last turn into the ramp or stuck on the taxiway after breaking through the asphalt.

 

You're right of course but you can rest assured that Boeing has been working steadily on the topic : they claim that the 747-8 is already approved at 200 airports worldwide.

 

See the following articles on Boeing's site:

 

http://boeing.mediar...?s=43&item=2200

 

http://www.boeing.co...cles/2010_q3/3/

 

(don't know if showing these links is OK with Avsim. If not, I can edit them out as the articles are easily found on the Boeing site anyway.

 

BTW, the article seems to imply that the A380 is approved at less than 60 airports in the world and, regarding the 747-8, it claims that "performance of an aeronautical study and, in some cases, application of operational procedures will allow the airplane to operate at existing 747-400 airports".

 

I guess that, in 2020, this won't be a big problem anyway.

 

Bruno

AF1 isn't for transporting one of the most powerful men in the world from A to B. It's about being able to launch a nuclear attack from the air, it's a mobile white house etc. Which isn't something you could do with a Learjet.

AF1 isn't for transporting one of the most powerful men in the world from A to B. It's about being able to launch a nuclear attack from the air, it's a mobile white house etc. Which isn't something you could do with a Learjet.

 

But they were able to do all of that in a 707 before they had the current VC-25. If anything the risk of a nuclear war was highest in the 1960's when they were using the 707.

 

Today all those electronics are much more compact then they used to be, so you could easily use a 787 or 777 if they wanted to.

See? That is why they went for Skynet. It is way cheaper. Wait. :o

I'm quite surprised that people are overlooking the 777 as a possible airframe for AF1. What's wrong with it? Sure, it's got 2 engines, and yet it actually outperforms a fully loaded 747-400 both on takeoff and landing. The beauty of the 777-200ER is that with in-flight refueling, it would TRULY be a trans-global aircraft. Another thing that people may find fault with using the 777 for AF1 is that it's simply too big. Well, the 787 is just about the same size as the 767-300, and yet, the added benefit of the 777 is that it can carry MORE. Using the GE90s on the 777 airframe not only maximizes its economy, it also takes advantage of the ONE big thing that people often overlook: noise. That's just my two pennies.

A380, just to throw an almight spanner in the works... :P

 

Ró.

A380, just to throw an almight spanner in the works... :P

 

Ró.

 

Whenever I hear "spanner", it makes me think of Top Gear on BBC. I can't wait for the next season!

 

At least there is the American version on tonight to hold me over.

Gotta love Top Gear. AFAIK it's the worlds top rated show?

I wouldn't doubt it. Even my wife can sit and watch the show with me, which speaks in loads for the viewership of a show :P :lol:

BBC Top Gear is huge here as well. I watch it every week.

 

The American one came on and those guys don't quite have their sense of humor refined yet compared to the BBC version. The American hosts are a little too gearhead and not so much with the jokes. Give them time and they will find their rapport with each other, Just need to chill out a bit and make it funny.

 

And for that A380 comment Ro.......The day the US President fly's in an Airbus will be the day that pigs fly......Wait a minute, I just saw a new report that said Swine Flu, so maybe anything can happen...LOL

I'm quite surprised that people are overlooking the 777 as a possible airframe for AF1. What's wrong with it? Sure, it's got 2 engines, and yet it actually outperforms a fully loaded 747-400 both on takeoff and landing. The beauty of the 777-200ER is that with in-flight refueling, it would TRULY be a trans-global aircraft. Another thing that people may find fault with using the 777 for AF1 is that it's simply too big. Well, the 787 is just about the same size as the 767-300, and yet, the added benefit of the 777 is that it can carry MORE. Using the GE90s on the 777 airframe not only maximizes its economy, it also takes advantage of the ONE big thing that people often overlook: noise. That's just my two pennies.

 

The problem is, you have to remember in a time of an emergency, like the out beak of a war, AF1 could very well come under attack, With a 777 or other 2 engine aircraft, If it lost both engines, that's all she wrote. With a 4 engine aircraft, they could lose 3 of the 4 engines, and the aircraft would survive. AF1 is designed to provide the maximum security possible for it's survival and POTUS'. I don't think they would want to sacrifice that safety cushion. Remember the other Airborne Command aircraft are also 4 engine 747's (E-4's). I agree a smaller aircraft would probably suffice, but right now the 747's, A380, and A340's are the only 4 engine aircraft available. The A380's are pretty much ruled out,since it's limitation on the amount of airports it can get in and out of. The A340 would work (discounting the political issues of such a choice), but it's currently out of production. That leaves the 747's,

And there's the Russian candidate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-96

 

Bit of a Cold War relict, those large 'command' planes. But I'm surprised how many folks still consider the vital need for such things. I guess you would not only save some money if the apparatus we have gotten so used to would become a leaner and smarter one.

 

But now that France and Germany run their big planes too (A330 and A340, used ones though), the trend seems to be set and I fully understand that the prestige value plays a role. I just don't know if it was meant that way.

Problem with the USA purchasing foreign aircraft to fly the President......is they will never know where the disable switch is located. Best way to protect the President is by not purchasing foreign aircraft........

 

 

HMMMMMMM.........Makes me think how many foreign parts go into a 747-800..... :rolleyes: