Here is a photo of the first Airforce 1, a modified version of a 707. I’ll let other contributors add in the details. It had an incredible history and served numerous Presidents. Enjoy.
Airforce 1 1958-1998
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
The first jet-powered AF1, as there were modified DC-4s, DC-6s, and Lockheed Constellations in that role after WWII.
The VC-137s (B707s) served until 1990 or 1991, when the current VC-25A (747-200) was placed into service as the primary aircraft. The later 707s (numbers 26000 and 27000) remained in backup roles until 1998 and 2001, respectively. Aircraft 26000 is on display at the AF Museum in Dayton; 27000 is inside the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA.
The pictured aircraft (970) was the first VC-137 delivered in 1959. It was based on the 707-100 and was eventually replaced by a newer 707 in 1962 (VC-137C...based on the 707-300 series). Aircraft 970 remained in the inventory until 1996.
In 2025, the new AF1 (747-8) will enter service. Before I retired from the AF, I was fortunate to work with the VC-25B project (which is primarily being upfit in San Antonio). Of interest, the new aircraft are modified passenger versions, originally ordered by the Russian airline Transaero. The airline went bankrupt and the selected airframes were plucked from storage in Mojave, CA.
Since they are modified airliners, these will not be air-refuelable.
The 707 is still one of the coolest, though. I saw it in person as a kid during visits by Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. There's nothing like the old turbofans! Cool post!
The VC-137s (B707s) served until 1990 or 1991, when the current VC-25A (747-200) was placed into service as the primary aircraft. The later 707s (numbers 26000 and 27000) remained in backup roles until 1998 and 2001, respectively. Aircraft 26000 is on display at the AF Museum in Dayton; 27000 is inside the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA.
The pictured aircraft (970) was the first VC-137 delivered in 1959. It was based on the 707-100 and was eventually replaced by a newer 707 in 1962 (VC-137C...based on the 707-300 series). Aircraft 970 remained in the inventory until 1996.
In 2025, the new AF1 (747-8) will enter service. Before I retired from the AF, I was fortunate to work with the VC-25B project (which is primarily being upfit in San Antonio). Of interest, the new aircraft are modified passenger versions, originally ordered by the Russian airline Transaero. The airline went bankrupt and the selected airframes were plucked from storage in Mojave, CA.
Since they are modified airliners, these will not be air-refuelable.
The 707 is still one of the coolest, though. I saw it in person as a kid during visits by Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. There's nothing like the old turbofans! Cool post!
Last edited:
I was stationed at Andrews AFB during those years. Had security clearance to work on the JP5 Fuel delivery systems for that plane. Saw Nixon get off that one once or twice.
Pretty sure the 747-200 was air- refuel capable. The UAL 747-200 simulator was set up for in flight refueling to allow AF-1 pilots to train on our simulator.
The 747-8 could easily be set up to do air refueling. It’s not impossible to do on a commercial airplane - the 737 based wedgetail airborne warning airplane is set up for in flight refueling.
I don’t know why the USAF didn’t specify refueling capability on this version, when, clearly, it can be done.
I don't think in flight refueling was even a thing in those days.
For Vietnam, we had rubber bladders on the ground for jet fuel tanks, well any kind of fuel tank actually. Just dig a hole, make a berm and fill it.
But I did want to become a "Boomer" in the AF, so maybe it was being done. I'd say it was a very new concept at least.
For Vietnam, we had rubber bladders on the ground for jet fuel tanks, well any kind of fuel tank actually. Just dig a hole, make a berm and fill it.
But I did want to become a "Boomer" in the AF, so maybe it was being done. I'd say it was a very new concept at least.
The USAF began in flight refueling of bombers with the boom system in 1950 with the KC-97. So, I don’t know what you mean by “those days”, but the boom system has been around for awhile.
Boeing KC-97 Stratofreighter - Wikipedia
Never said the VC-25A (747-200) wasn't AR capable...was talking about the upcoming VC-25B.
You are not correct on the idea AR capability is easily added (to an existing frame). When you look at the aircraft you mentioned (VC-25A, Wedgetail, P-8, etc.), these were built from the ground-up at the Boeing factory with this capability. They have reinforced frame sections, bulkheads, and fuselage areas at the receptacle where the boom makes contact (and may contact outside the receptacle from time-to-time). And of course they have all the plumbing to route that fuel. These features are "baked in" to the aircraft from new, not added later.
The new aircraft (VC-25B) were completed passenger versions sitting in the desert. To convert them to being AR-capable would basically require ripping them apart and rebuilding specific sections of the jet. Not impossible, but absolutely cost-prohibitive.
DOD acquisitions are based purely on requirements. The new aircraft will not be AR-capable because it wasn't a validated requirement. After all, the 787-8 has ridiculous legs...
Retrofit would be hard, agreed.
I meant during construction. Boeing has added it to commercial frames, including the VC-25.
The cost of this pair of airplanes was well over a billion. If the USAF wanted IFR, if it was a requirement, it could have been done easily when the airplane was first specced out.
DOD acquisitions should be based on requirements, in accordance with the JCIDS framework. Often, however, politics drive addition, or removal, of capabilities within a program.
This airplane was heavily driven by politics. Directly changed by POTUS.
So, I don’t agree that this airplane followed JCIDS, or that the USAF didn’t think it needed IFR, when the requirement set was changed by the White House.
Your assessment is a fair one, although the JCIDS process allows modifications to the requirements...which is what happened here. At the time of this (winning) proposal, there were definitely two opposing camps with regard to AR capability. We can see which side prevailed I guess.
One of the big sticking points with this acquisition was the pending closure of the 747 line (now closed for keeps). A decision had to be made in a hurry...and we all know how fast the government works. If they wanted newly built birds, the clock was running as Boeing really wanted to shut down the line in Everett. When the new Transaero birds suddenly became available - at reduced cost - it greatly helped the decision process (in addition to the aforementioned political pressure)
What will really become interesting - in my opinion - is the eventual replacement of the E-4 (Nightwatch/NAOC) aircraft. These particular 747s are circa-1974 builds and are ripe for replacement. These jets absolutely require air fueling capability, and now that the 747 line is closed they will take the shape of another aircraft. I've sat in more than a few meetings where folks argued about not wanting a twin-engine (777) for this mission (ETOPS considerations) while others howled about the prospect of an A380 with "United States of America" painted on the fuselage. Was actually kind of funny...in a government kind of way...to listen to endless arguments while nothing actually got accomplished. Hard to believe, I know. And while everyone argued, the 747 line shut down, depriving the Air Force of what was most likely the best platform for a new Nightwatch.
In any case, I don't disagree with you. Didn't mean to get off the topic of Snagglefoot's cool picture, but nice to converse with someone familiar with DOD acquisitions. Glad I retired...
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
How many times did the current AF1’s take fuel in flight … ?
I‘m aware of the doomsday scenario of continuing flight - but don’t know if it carries the same wisdom these days … Seems there were back and forths that folks here would not be aware of …
In the commercial setup - the range of 800i is not that much more …
Anyone know with these vs the current ?
I‘m aware of the doomsday scenario of continuing flight - but don’t know if it carries the same wisdom these days … Seems there were back and forths that folks here would not be aware of …
In the commercial setup - the range of 800i is not that much more …
Anyone know with these vs the current ?
Roughly 12 years ago Denver had a hall of presidents exhibit. One was a mock up of Airforce One might have been the 747. The guy manning it was a retired secret service agent. He said one day he called his mom and told her "I'm on Airforce One." She told him "No you're not." And hung up. He swore it was a true story.
There is the E-4B mobile command aircraft. I heard somewhere that it could be expected to last up to 72 continuous hours in flight with aerial refueling. It's generally meant for military leaders with lots of electronics/communications, but I suppose it could serve as Air Force One in a pinch.
From conversations with several pilots, it's not a frequent occurrence. In fact, one joked with me the only time it's done is during recurring AR qualification flights.
A passenger 747-8i is good for up to 7800-800NM. Lufthansa's -8i models are advertised as 7000NM. These figures are very close to the 747-200. Both have amazing range for the aircraft's size...almost 1/3 of the way around the globe.
Actual AF1 performance specs (not those found on the interwebs) are classified.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
But the 800 is set up to fly more PAX+bags … so if the staff remains the same the new AF1 might widen the gap some, eh ?
Also - what I recall from discussions on the hill - they have fueled in training but not with a President onboard …
Last edited:
several of the SAM planes are at the Airforce Museum, in Dayton. I've been through the ones they have there...
Unfortunately, they Don't have the one my Cousin served on, as a steward During the GHW Bush years.... That one is in the Regan library I believe. (SAM 27000)
and here's the plane, SAM970 that The OP's pic is of... ( at a Different Museum, plane on loan from the NMUSAF)
www.museumofflight.org
Unfortunately, they Don't have the one my Cousin served on, as a steward During the GHW Bush years.... That one is in the Regan library I believe. (SAM 27000)
and here's the plane, SAM970 that The OP's pic is of... ( at a Different Museum, plane on loan from the NMUSAF)
Boeing VC-137B "Air Force One" | The Museum of Fli...
The first presidential jet plane, a specially built Boeing 707-120, is known as SAM (Special Air Missions) 970.
www.museumofflight.org
Last edited:
I’ve seen that one. The Seattle Museum of Flight is a wonderful museum.several of the SAM planes are at the Airforce Museum, in Dayton. I've been through the ones they have there...
Unfortunately, they Don't have the one my Cousin served on, as a steward During the GHW Bush years.... That one is in the Regan library I believe. (SAM 27000)
and here's the plane, SAM970 that The OP's pic is of... ( at a Different Museum, plane on loan from the NMUSAF)
Boeing VC-137B "Air Force One" | The Museum of Fli...
The first presidential jet plane, a specially built Boeing 707-120, is known as SAM (Special Air Missions) 970.
….
and here's the plane, SAM970 that The OP's pic is of... ( at a Different Museum, plane on loan from the NMUSAF)
Boeing VC-137B "Air Force One" | The Museum of Fli...
The first presidential jet plane, a specially built Boeing 707-120, is known as SAM (Special Air Missions) 970.
I was going to point that out but you linked it. I would add though, you can not only see it but stroll through it; it’s open to visit and you can walk through the cabin and view the Presidential office area. A Concorde and the first 747 are the same way; the 747 is particularly interesting as it was always a test bed and never in revenue service. It has much of the test instrumentation still in the hull.
The book “On the Beach” brought up the suggestion that if the USA was nuked, a safe haven would be Australia. The distance between Washington, DC and Sydney, Australia is over 9,000 miles, beyond the range of a 747. I’m sure there is a refueling plan in place at Hawaii or one of the other Pacific islands for Air Force One to fuel up on the way to Australia. The other safe havens would New Zealand and perhaps South Africa, or Argentina. I’ll bet there are contingency plans for those trips as well.
Last edited:
Similar threads
