Obama should retire the 747's that currently serve the Presidents.

[Hawkeye-X]

and go to a modified 787 Dreamliner - give Boeing an ultimatum to support the union workers that are currently striking, or they'll pull out all government contract with Boeing and go (god forbid) to Airbus Industries and have them make a modified A380 here in the United States.

Incentives, people, incentives!

The modification I mentioned - these are the same modifications that were done in the 747's - a Flying White House.

...Did I mention that it's also evironmentally friendly (saves on gas, uses lightweight carbon instead of aluminium) - and I'm sure they'll figure out a way to make it bulletproof/SAM-proof/etc...

Hawkeye-X

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The Boeing machinists' strike has been settled and they are back at work.

It would be cool if the Dreamliner became the new AF1. It will also be a lot cheaper to operate than a 747.

[RollWithIt]

5. No, AF1 Dreamliner would NOT be cool

Screw that, an American President flying on a foreign made plane? NO! We can build better and create jobs doing it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. The Dreamliner is a Boeing aircraft.

Last I checked, Boeing is a U.S. company. Some components are made elsewhere, but the aircraft is being assembled in Everett, WA.

[RollWithIt]

11. bleh, long night, misread....

My bad. So ya, American made... YA! lol

[Captain Hilts]

2. No. It's already fitted out to carry the limos, the press, etc. nt

[Dennis Donovan]

4. The limos are carried in a seperate aircraft.

[Captain Hilts]

8. I remembered that as soon as I typed it!

[Dennis Donovan]

10. Knowing your interest in FDR, do you know what HIS aircraft was called?

Hint: it WASN'T Air Force One (since the USAF wasn't called that back then).;):hi:

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

16. The 'Sacred Cow'

It's stored at the National Museum of the USAF:

The first purpose-built aircraft to fly the president of the United States, the Sacred Cow is the only VC-54C ever constructed. To an untrained eye, it looks like any other C-54, but the Sacred Cow is unique. Beginning with a C-54A fuselage and C-54B wings, Douglas made numerous modifications. For example, the ailerons are different from any B model. Furthermore, the Sacred Cow underwent extensive interior modifications. One special feature is an elevator behind the passenger cabin to lift the president in his wheelchair in and out of the plane -- an otherwise difficult procedure. The passenger compartment includes a conference room with a large desk and a bulletproof picture window.

http://tinyurl.com/6h8vod

[Captain Hilts]

39. My uncle was radioman on IOWA when they took FDR to Teheran...

He said the bathtub and elevator were installed in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay because the skipper, who'd been FDR's aide, knew they'd figure out what was going on and would leak the information. So, suddenly ALL liberty was cancelled and they put to sea and sat in the Bay for several days while the modifications were being made.

My uncle took FDR the ship's newspaper every day. He was stunned by the degree to which FDR was incapacitated. I just read in a Patton bio how exhausted FDR was after a long drive through the desert in North Africa and how he had to rest to recover. It reminded me of how the presidential train never went above 35 mph becuase FDR did not have the back muscles to keep himself upright on the lurching of a faster train.

[Captain Hilts]

38. Of course!!!

And he HATED to fly!

[RollWithIt]

3. Ernmmm, very misguided

I fail to see how using American workers as a pawn to threaten to move those same American's jobs oversees is a good thing. Fuck Airbus. The idea of Airforce One being built in a foreign country disgusts me. I understand your original premise, I too want to protect American workers, but I doubt Obama would ever be stupid enough to threate to move American jobs overseas.

All American military vehicles HAVE to be built in the US. Period.

[Historic NY]

7. it would be nice but these ones aren't paid for yet...remember

there are more than one, some outfitted as doomsdays planes too. With the budget being trimmed these planes of 1990 vintage have to last at least another 10 yrs.

[yodoobo]

13. In fact they are slated to fly till about 2020

by design.

[RoadRage]

9. He just needs to buy that plane that Palin threw up on eBay..

i'm pretty sure it's a lot cheaper then airforce one. :rofl:

[ashling]

23. Palin threw up in her plane?

That's gotta smell ... phew! ...

Lets keep obama out of that stank. :puke:




:rofl:

[yodoobo]

12. not a bad idea, but Obama would likely not get to fly in it

well, at least not till the middle or end of his second term.

Reagan ordered the current 747's, but they were not delivered into the middle of Bush 1's administration.

I think the current 747's are designed to be in service till about 2020.

Oh btw, the current 747 Airforce one isn't bulletproof either, despite what the movie of the same name claimed.

The weight required to fully armor an aircraft insures that they would never leave the ground. (although I'm sure that selected portions are lightly armored as a form of "safe rooms")

[NWPatriot]

14. I wouldn't go for that...HOWEVER...

The 747's that are in service now (the two AF1 planes and the NEACP {"Kneecap"}) were purchased under the Reagan Administration. They are the only planes big enough to handle everything a President needs: all the communications equipment, a flying medical/surgical suite...just in case, galley that can feed 200 meals, handle all the press, plus the "special" features built in (self-contained airstairs, passive anti-missle defense system, in-flight refueling capability, etc.). The "Kneecap" doesn't have the press facilities, as it's an airborne command post in the event of national emergency/nuclear war.

The 787 isn't as big, and can't haul as much around. Yes, It may even be more fuel-efficient, but it'd be a 'downgrade'. We don't want that for our President.

HOWEVER...the new 747-8 has new fuel-efficient engines that base themselves off the 787's engines, AND it'll have a new composite wing with greater lift efficiency....which also enhances the fuel efficiency.

When we need to upgrade, let's do a 747-8.

[Liberal In Texas]

19. Yes, re-engining the 747(s) would help a lot.

But, I would think that would have been thought of.

I would like to see a new directive that would prevent our government aircraft from being used for political fund raisers. W did this a lot and we paid for it.

[NWPatriot]

29. Thing is...

The engines are still under development. and the new wing is in the design stages. The 747-8 isn't due out for a few years yet.

[matchstick]

15. yep i worked on the first flight sim for the 787 dreamliner

it's gonna be one hell of a plane!

[Aviation Pro]

18. Montreal?

.....

[Aviation Pro]

17. Not until they redesign the wiring.....

....the 78 is woefully behind schedule and the order book is going to start to shrink soon. As far as the A380, thanks but no thanks, Airbus screwed up the landing gear hydraulics and now every A380 requires a separate schematic with zero standardization across the fleet.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. Now here's an idea: An AIRSHIP

Incredibly fuel efficient. They can haul massive amounts of cargo. It would be a "change" from the old to the new. An example of a new way of thinking for more fuel efficient transportation.

Yes, yes, they're a lot slower, but the fleet of jets could be held in reserve if needed for faster trips.

Think about it.

[Cobalt-60]

34. Airships are fabulous.

They're strong and efficient, if not particularly fast.
The only problem is where to put them in rough weather.
There need to be enough monster hangers in which to stash the Zepps when the wind comes up.
Several Zeppelins were lost to the Germans during World War I for lack of rough weather shelter.
(They took the crews off and let them blow away!)
Sufficient mega hangar space and a total prohibition of operating in storms would make it work.
There is no better craft for eco tourism.
And they're just plain cool to watch in the sky!

[Joe the Revelator]

37. That looks awesome...out of curisoity, how fast do they move?

Any chance on introducing them for passenger use?

If they could cut a few hours off my drive back to VA, I'd be all about it. I don't like flying in jets.

[fujiyama]

21. Sorry but that makes no sense

The US government will not and should not use a foreign company's product transport the President of the United States, even if that company faces labor problems.

And while the country faces a massive financial crisis, and with no indication that the current AF1 is obsolete, I see no need to have the government spend millions on modifying the current plane. This sounds like a complete waste of money.

I have a better idea. Actually get a Labor Secretary that cares about *gasp* labor standards and an attorney general that will enforce those laws. In those respects, I am confident Obama will appoint people a million times better than Elaine Chau and Mukasey.

[BluegrassDem]

22. The Dreamliners take forever to deliver...Obama will be out of office by that time!

It would take probably 7 years to get a 787 delivered to the WH. I say keep the 747.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Problem the first: The replacement to the VC-25 couldn't realistically enter service before 2011,

given that the 787 isn't projected to start delivery until 2009 (and has just hit yet another production delay).

Problem the second: They couldn't just buy one off the shelf and start using it; they'd have to develop it practically from the ground up, just as they did with the VC-25 from the 747. Keep in mind took three years to develop the VC-25 from the 747--and that the 787 is not even flyable yet.

Problem the third: Obama even *suggesting* commissioning an European-built Air Force One, even as a ploy, would be a disaster.

Problem the fourth: The 787 is smaller than the 747.

Problem the fifth: Seriously, why bother? The 747 is a modern, distinctive, efficient airliner. The VC-25 is a top-of-the-line aircraft that has undergone continuous upgrades and maintenance. This is just...confusing.

I could maybe see commissioning a new transport based on the 787 to replace the C-32, but the 757 frame works just fine, so I don't really see any purpose but pork, to tell you the truth.

[PJPhreak]

25. Hummmm...

Wouldn't it be more secure and more Eco-Friendly to replace AF1 with a smaller,More High Performance Jet? I play with cars and don't fess to know all that much about planes,but if I was a pilot trying to keep a Missile or Fighter from knocking me outta the air I think I would MUCH rather be flying something Agile,Fast,Light and Very Powerful,rather than a 747....In more simple terms,I would rather be driving a 600 HP Corvette as opposed to a Greyhound Bus!

[ddeclue]

26. I disagree for several reasons:

1) There are already a number of options for being more environmentally friendly for the President on these trips:

besides the TWO VC25's that serve as AF1 there are also two 757's, a Gulfstream, and Marine One (a UH60 Blackhawk) at the President's disposal. If necessary any military aircraft can be put at the President's disposal for travel (witness Bush's aircraft carrier landing trip).

2) The President takes along usually 2 C-5B's or C17's with his package to haul around the motorcade vehicles and helicopters they use. So much for "saving gas"..

3) The Dreamliner is being built from outsourced parts. NOT union friendly.

4) The plane is brand new, not something I would want to trust for Presidential travel. The VC25's (747's) used for AF1 are based on a design that has been around for decades which is very well understood and reliable. Cutting edge is NOT always desirable when you want to be sure all the bugs are worked out. It's better to go with a well understood design.

5) There is a huge expense associated with purchasing, maintaining and flying these aircraft that the taxpayers must pay. Obama would never hear the end of it if he went out and spent BILLIONS of dollars (yes that is what it would end up costing with spares and maintenance and training, etc.) to change out the aircraft. It took until 1991 or so before they finally got the 747's and every President between 1960 and 1991 flew the same 707's they used prior to that.

6) The Boeing 747 design with it's hump is distinctively American and much of the propaganda value of AF1 is associated with letting you know that America's President has come to your town. The 787 really is NOT a very attractive or distinctive aircraft.


Doug D.
Aerospace Engineer and Licensed Pilot

[PJPhreak]

27. The Gulfstream is what came to mind.

When I think of High Performance Aircraft.I would feel better trying to evade something in a Gulfstream rather than a 747. Just the old hippie hot-rodder instinct kickin in.

[ddeclue]

28. hippie hot rodder?

I never associated hippies with "hot rods".. would you settle for a VW micro-bus?

Doug D.

[PJPhreak]

30. Actually...

The last Hot-Rod I had was a 1972 VW "Wanderlust" Hi-Top Camper with a 2 liter Type IV,Twin Weber Carbs,MSD Ignition,Lotsa Machine Work Ect.

Needless to say folks eyes would pop as I sailed by them,crusin at 80,ish,getting about 22mpg on my way down I-5

[Indenturedebtor]

31. I think that spending more money we don't have to buy a bunch of fancy planes

would be a VERY bad idea. I don't care if they're made by medal of honor recipients: buying a bunch of new planes now would drop 20 points from his approval rating.

And a new "anything" isn't environmentally friendly 9 times out of 10. The amount of fuel expended in production is usually more than you save by purchasing a new vehicle before you absolutely have to.

[Lorentz]

32. No Dreamliner -- get an A380. No wait.

[personanongrata]

33. way too provocative

Boeing exists because of government defense contracts. They don't need to threaten with a few purchases.

Environmental concerns matter very little compared to the continuous Asia-US cycles other 747s do.

The Kennedy livery looks best on the 747.

[Cobalt-60]

35. we cant afford a new plane

As much as Obama rates it, we're not Republicans to squander money on luxuries while so deep in debt.
The current aircraft will have to do. Even if one must be cannibalized to support the other.
For my money the VC-137 (707) was the zenith of presidential aviation elegance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-137C_SAM_26000

[high density]

36. 787 is too small for AF1

Wait for the 747-8.