The Constellation is arguably, and there's no actual argument, the best looking of any AF1.
Airforce 1 1958-1998
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
Potential safe havens.
I’m surprised they chose the 747 for the next Air Force One but I guess there are still over 400 still flying so maintenance is not an issue.
Pretty sure that USAF is going to be handling most of the maintenance at Andrews. UPS has the largest fleet of 747-8 freighters, but I'd think the maintenance isn't likely to be handed out to a third party.
The maintenance is almost certainly handed out to a third party. UAL used to train the AF1 pilots and our maintenance folks handled complex maintenance and inspections on the airplanes. Since we don’t fly the aircraft type any more, it won't be us, but it had been an outside agency for a long time.
OK. Who could do major maintenance for a 747-8? That would seem like it would require security clearances to be able to access it. I understand that there are third-party maintenance operations, but for a 747-8?
Why don’t we find out how they have been managing the two 747’s that are currently flying as Air Force One. They have been in service for over 30 years and currently require a lot of maintenance.
Last edited:
Thought I told you that… The vendor may have changed, but they contracted with a private company. For both simulator training and aircraft maintenance.
Here is some info saying the maintenance is managed at Tinker AFB, and an article suggesting some Boeing technicians were working on one of the planes.
Yeah - in other words - the USAF doesn't do the maintenance on the airplane. I've said that multiple times now. They did not have their own simulators. Sure, like every contracted operation, there is an oversight office.
They, the USAF, the oversight office, don't have the technical capability to do much of the actual work. How many posts, how much research, before you simply accept what I said?
I know UAL used to handle all of AF1 maintenance and all of AF1 pilot training. We did it for decades. We were the choice for Air Force One. I have flown the simulator that we used for Air Force One pilots. I flew an in flight refueling scenario - it was a KC-10 boom with the belly lighting.
When we parked our 747s, we sold off the simulators to make room for simulators that represented our current fleet. We got rid of spare parts and technical capability.
So, the USAF had to find another private company, another vendor, to handle maintenance and pilot training. Boeing makes sense.
What doesn't make sense - continue to search for "answers" when the answer has been provided.
They, the USAF, the oversight office, don't have the technical capability to do much of the actual work. How many posts, how much research, before you simply accept what I said?
I know UAL used to handle all of AF1 maintenance and all of AF1 pilot training. We did it for decades. We were the choice for Air Force One. I have flown the simulator that we used for Air Force One pilots. I flew an in flight refueling scenario - it was a KC-10 boom with the belly lighting.
When we parked our 747s, we sold off the simulators to make room for simulators that represented our current fleet. We got rid of spare parts and technical capability.
So, the USAF had to find another private company, another vendor, to handle maintenance and pilot training. Boeing makes sense.
What doesn't make sense - continue to search for "answers" when the answer has been provided.
Are newer models of aircraft such as the 777 and 787 significantly more efficient than the 747? Its my understanding that ETOPS (I think thats the right term) made a huge impact on aircraft design shifting from 4 engines to 2 and the resulting lower fuel bills, and less engines to maintain.
Or is it also a case of newer engine designs also being more efficient and not being (or unable to be) fitted to the 747.
There are several questions here:
1. ETOPS allowed operating twin engine airplanes over long stretches of water. Prior to ETOPS, which is a standardization protocol that includes things like engine, reliability, and system redundancy, you needed at least three engines to fly, long-distance over water, hence aircraft designs like the DC 10 or the L1011.
2. The 747 really can’t be a twin engine airplane, the amount of thrust needed for the aircraft size would require engines that simply don’t fit under the wings. If there were to only be two engines, it would be an even more difficult redesign of the airplane. The airplane has four hydraulic systems for example, driven by four air demand pumps and four engine driven pumps. You can’t simply jam that all onto two engines without a major redesign.
3. The measure of efficiency for an airliner is the fuel burn per per seat mile. It’s true that the triple seven is slightly more efficient per seat mile than the 747-8. It is also true that the 787 is considerably more efficient than the 777.
4. But you don’t buy Air Force One for the cost per seat mile the way an airline does. The question is one of mission. The airplane needs to be sufficiently big to carry all of the equipment, and have all of the accommodations for crew, president, staff, reporters, and other dignitaries.
5. Even if a triple seven could meet the requirement for lift, both mass and volume, the advantage of a four engine airplane is that it is not subject to ETOPS limitations.
If you shut down an engine on a twin engine airplane, you are immediately looking for a place to land, and it may not be a very hospitable place.
If you shut down an engine on a 747, you descend down to about 29,000 feet, you slow down to about .82 Mach, and you can fly for the next 10 hours to your destination. (At a speed that a 737 or A-320 still can’t match).
So, while it is true that it is a bit cheaper to operate a 777, the ability to shut down an engine and still continue to destination with the president on board outweighs all of that cost savings, from an operational perspective.
If an airline has an unplanned divert, and put a triple 7 in Pago Pago, they’re out the cost of about 400 hotel rooms.
Air Force one makes that same divert with the president on board, you have a major national security issue.
747 for the win.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply astro.
Yes, I realized that you wouldn't be able to convert a 747 to 2 engine aircraft, (I worded that badly), what I meant was, would installing 4x newer more efficient engines on a 747 be viable/has it been done. I imagine that later series would have had more efficient engines fitted than the earlier production models? (or am I entering the 737 max arena?)
Good point regarding Air Force 1 not having running costs as a significant driver - its purpose is quite different to an airlines cash generating asset requirements!
The 747-8 takes advantage of the latest in engine design. Much more thrust at a much lower burn (don’t know the precise percentages, but it is significant).
Still, the airplane didn’t sell well, perhaps because it is so big that, like the A-380, there are limited routes on which it would be profitable.
Here is Boeing‘s comparison with the -400:
Interestingly, a selling point is parts commonality with the -400.
The 747-8 already uses a variation of the GEnx that's used on 787s. I would hope it's more efficient than its predecessor engines.
Yeah like @Astro14 is saying its being maintained by contractors. Contractor logistics support means non-USAF people are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to taking care of the plane with USAF oversight. No doubt there are airmen doing inspections and some maintenance, but it will be with contractor oversight. U-2 is another example of CLS support but with Lockheed instead of Boeing.
I recall that a number of airlines have had maintenance performed in SE Asia overseen by a few US A+P fellas with inspection authorization. Also, l flew a number of times on KC-135 A/C in about 1972-3. Those pre-fanjet planes had little spare power. I had occasion to chat with a boom operator on one and he told of how the crew would set up a game when a new co-pilot would take the controls as the boomer very gradually moved the boom so that the co-pilot would make trim corrections and then quickly'dump' the boom the other way. It was to see how the new guy would react. I doubt that worked with very many for very long. I haven't used my old FCC or A+P licenses as I once had expected to.
I remember the movie that was dark and sobering.
ICBMs and SLBMs have sufficient range to target any place on the Earth when launched from any other place. There is no "safe haven" in a nuclear war. Also Americans would be rather miffed if the President fled to Australia rather than deal with the situation at home.
Similar threads
