After 30 years of 748 in service and since Boeing and Airbus will stop making double decker airplane.... is even 777 MAX whatever the next future 777 will be AF-1? I always under impression that AF-1 must use 4 engines and double decker for safety

You or I have no idea just what will be available in 30 years time! The USAF could even throw Lockheed or Boeing a contract to design and build something. The four engines thing is actually more to do with the power requirements of the planes, as redundancy is starting to be a total non-issue which twins could even demonstrate as being a strength. Only two motors means half the chances something will go wrong.

It could turn out to be a 787-10 derivative as the bulky comms equipment is constantly shrinking. My money is on something that we know nothing of at the moment.

A donkey cart working out of a cave the way things are going.

Channex757 wrote:

You or I have no idea just what will be available in 30 years time! The USAF could even throw Lockheed or Boeing a contract to design and build something. The four engines thing is actually more to do with the power requirements of the planes, as redundancy is starting to be a total non-issue which twins could even demonstrate as being a strength. Only two motors means half the chances something will go wrong.

It could turn out to be a 787-10 derivative as the bulky comms equipment is constantly shrinking. My money is on something that we know nothing of at the moment.

Wow I only can imagine the government is willing to spend $1 Billion in research and development just to make a gigantic replacement of 747-800i just for the President of USA. Redundancy or not, 4 engines is almost guaranteed for AF1 specs. I honestly think A-380 with AF-1 livery will be the most awesome livery ever. But yeah we know US will never buy airbus for their president.

By the time that replacement is required, perhaps it will be a M5.0 capable plane powered by evolved turbo-ramjets. Boeing believes it can do such a plane already.

I cannot see the 747-8i aircraft being replaced very soon. Given they'll get the best of care and not all that much use surely they will last a long time.

By the time the 748 AF1 is obsolete -- probably in Mad Max Capt. Walker fashion ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-fhgFHDsIM

...In our dystopian Beyond Thunderdome world -- AF1 will be like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov2ErYiFemg

After 30 years of 748 in service as AF1 - that will be around year 2065. Taking modification delays and budget overruns into account the 748 will be ready around 2035.

At that time - 2065 - the choice will be rather limited: 737 MAX11-ER BBJ4 (AF code = VC-40J). That will be the only US produced airliner at that time since other types including 797 will likely have been discontinued.

prebennorholm wrote:

After 30 years of 748 in service as AF1 - that will be around year 2065. Taking modification delays and budget overruns into account the 748 will be ready around 2035.

At that time - 2065 - the choice will be rather limited: 737 MAX11-ER BBJ4 (AF code = VC-40J). That will be the only US produced airliner at that time since other types including 797 will likely have been discontinued.

And there'll be no chance that they decide to go with the Airbus A321XLRneoMkIV... the only offering from Airbus in 2065.

gia777 wrote:

After 30 years of 748 in service and since Boeing and Airbus will stop making double decker airplane.... is even 777 MAX whatever the next future 777 will be AF-1? I always under impression that AF-1 must use 4 engines and double decker for safety

you are thinking ahead, given the VC-25B isn't in service yet.

BlueberryWheats wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

After 30 years of 748 in service as AF1 - that will be around year 2065. Taking modification delays and budget overruns into account the 748 will be ready around 2035.

At that time - 2065 - the choice will be rather limited: 737 MAX11-ER BBJ4 (AF code = VC-40J). That will be the only US produced airliner at that time since other types including 797 will likely have been discontinued.

And there'll be no chance that they decide to go with the Airbus A321XLRneoMkIV... the only offering from Airbus in 2065.

I'm sure we'll see promotional images of that exact very plane, with a big awful fly somewhere on the image.

BlueberryWheats wrote:

And there'll be no chance that they decide to go with the Airbus A321XLRneoMkIV... the only offering from Airbus in 2065.

Good question. I think it depends.... Will PW have solved the GTF problems by 2065 ?

If Airbus' only offer will be A318neo2 (with refurbished RR Avon engines), then absolutely no chance.

Well, how long are the C5M and C17 on the books for the USAF? Convert a couple and done.

So, our current presindential transport is based on a frame that originally flew 50 years ago (with improvements of course).
30 years ago, the 777 was on the drawing board. So 30 years from now, the 777 will be 60 years old! So it is in the realm of possibility that the frame will still be in production. My bet will be either be a 777 or 787. By then the A350 may come in to play.

If the pace of development accelerate. Then it is concievable that a BWB would be an option. But the it wouldn't matter to me as I will not be here to see it.

Remember, the key feature is it needs to have enough room for POTUS and the entourage. You can get a smaller frame if you eliminate/reduce the entourage.

bt

You're all assuming there is only one president around 2050 ! The current U.S.A. could've broken up into two or more separate countries by then, one with what are predominantly current southern states, their president being Ivanka Trump. The other being made up of the rest of the current U.S.A. their President I'm not prepared to speculate on, but it could well be Chelsea Clinton.

There is not much direct contact between the two nations, as a giant concrete wall separates the open Northern, Western America, from it's reclusive Southern neighbour. Mexico was forced to build its own wall to keep refugees out from Texas, trying to escape the tyranny of Trump and the Baptists. Attempting to scale the wall to gain access to their former countrymen, is fraught with peril, as every true Trump believer, has now more heavily armed than ever before and a reward is offered for any person caught (dead or alive) trying to escape. As a result, there are heavily armed militia patrolling the wall, as well as the streets looking for "traitors".

The open U.S. president travels on an ageing, yet still viable fleet of 748 aircraft, though they are looking to replace them with a heavily modified version of the Boeing 818. The former European conglomerate Airbus, had since been broken up, after the collapse of the European Union. France, Germany and England, itself part of the former United Kingdom, all offer viable aircraft, but are to busy competing with each other to seriously take on Boeing and the Chinese aircraft manufacturers.

The reclusive Southern U.S. president, will usually travel to Moscow to meet with Emperor Putin, with whatever the Soviets feel is appropriate, usually a IL96. For domestic travel, Trump uses a Sukhoi Superjet.

jupiter2 wrote:

You're all assuming there is only one president around 2050 ! The current U.S.A. could've broken up into two or more separate countries by then, one with what are predominantly current southern states, their president being Ivanka Trump. The other being made up of the rest of the current U.S.A. their President I'm not prepared to speculate on, but it could well be Chelsea Clinton.

There is not much direct contact between the two nations, as a giant concrete wall separates the open Northern, Western America, from it's reclusive Southern neighbour. Mexico was forced to build its own wall to keep refugees out from Texas, trying to escape the tyranny of Trump and the Baptists. Attempting to scale the wall to gain access to their former countrymen, is fraught with peril, as every true Trump believer, has now more heavily armed than ever before and a reward is offered for any person caught (dead or alive) trying to escape. As a result, there are heavily armed militia patrolling the wall, as well as the streets looking for "traitors".

The open U.S. president travels on an ageing, yet still viable fleet of 748 aircraft, though they are looking to replace them with a heavily modified version of the Boeing 818. The former European conglomerate Airbus, had since been broken up, after the collapse of the European Union. France, Germany and England, itself part of the former United Kingdom, all offer viable aircraft, but are to busy competing with each other to seriously take on Boeing and the Chinese aircraft manufacturers.

The reclusive Southern U.S. president, will usually travel to Moscow to meet with Emperor Putin, with whatever the Soviets feel is appropriate, usually a IL96. For domestic travel, Trump uses a Sukhoi Superjet.

My theory on Santa Claus is more believable than this.

jupiter2 wrote:

You're all assuming there is only one president around 2050 ! The current U.S.A. could've broken up into two or more separate countries by then, one with what are predominantly current southern states, their president being Ivanka Trump. The other being made up of the rest of the current U.S.A. their President I'm not prepared to speculate on, but it could well be Chelsea Clinton.

There is not much direct contact between the two nations, as a giant concrete wall separates the open Northern, Western America, from it's reclusive Southern neighbour. Mexico was forced to build its own wall to keep refugees out from Texas, trying to escape the tyranny of Trump and the Baptists. Attempting to scale the wall to gain access to their former countrymen, is fraught with peril, as every true Trump believer, has now more heavily armed than ever before and a reward is offered for any person caught (dead or alive) trying to escape. As a result, there are heavily armed militia patrolling the wall, as well as the streets looking for "traitors".

The open U.S. president travels on an ageing, yet still viable fleet of 748 aircraft, though they are looking to replace them with a heavily modified version of the Boeing 818. The former European conglomerate Airbus, had since been broken up, after the collapse of the European Union. France, Germany and England, itself part of the former United Kingdom, all offer viable aircraft, but are to busy competing with each other to seriously take on Boeing and the Chinese aircraft manufacturers.

The reclusive Southern U.S. president, will usually travel to Moscow to meet with Emperor Putin, with whatever the Soviets feel is appropriate, usually a IL96. For domestic travel, Trump uses a Sukhoi Superjet.

The Boeing 818 cannot be a viable AF1 replacement. It was a TFX proposal. Only two seats. Nice story bro!

Engine redundancy and plane survivability isn't about technical failures or engine power but on third party inflicted damages. So if a let's say 777 gets shot by a heat seeking missile - that aims for the engine exhaust - and disable one engine with debris (as the warhead explodes on proximity, not on direct hit; if a direct hit is achieved, structural problems on the wing will be more important than a disabled engine), the plane could only count on one engine, not the best scenario for elusive manouvers with such an important person on board.
Survivability is a main topic also on air superiority fighters, look at the F4, F22, F15, Su27, MiG25, Su15. For embarked planes, IIRC the twin engine design was mandatory, but A4 / A7 / F8 / A6 were all single engined... maybe someone can refresh my memory.

An IL96, of course.

FatCat wrote:

Engine redundancy and plane survivability isn't about technical failures or engine power but on third party inflicted damages. So if a let's say 777 gets shot by a heat seeking missile - that aims for the engine exhaust - and disable one engine with debris (as the warhead explodes on proximity, not on direct hit; if a direct hit is achieved, structural problems on the wing will be more important than a disabled engine), the plane could only count on one engine, not the best scenario for elusive manouvers with such an important person on board.
Survivability is a main topic also on air superiority fighters, look at the F4, F22, F15, Su27, MiG25, Su15. For embarked planes, IIRC the twin engine design was mandatory, but A4 / A7 / F8 / A6 were all single engined... maybe someone can refresh my memory.

I don’t think this is accurate with fighters or carrier planes at all. Two engines was simply a function of large size to carry radars, missiles, fuel and achieve the required speed. That’s what it took so that’s what went into them. It’s far less about redundancy than it was pure performance. Also the A6 was not single engined.

While not perfect analogs you can basically see what twin vs single engine buys you comparing the F-16 and F-15 or the F-35 and F-22. Basically with a single engine you can achieve some combination of the range, speed payload combo but not all of it.

So, if 4 engines vs. 2 engines relates to the redundancy needed to survive an IR missile attack, then you have 30 years to think about reducing the vulnerability of a 2 engine presidential aircraft to IR missiles. Specifically by then if you can have countermeasures that are 99% effective against shoulder launched IR missiles, then a late model 777 would work fine.

bt

TBH, I was somewhat surprised they even went with a current model 747. I figured they would go the route of the potus car, which is basically it's own design. About the only thing Cadillac with it is the emblem. If they do fly the next 747 for 30 years, there will be very few left in the skies as cargo planes except for iran who will have the only remaining 747 pax service. That may go on until 2100. Remember that they recently retired the 707 just a few years ago I do see 4 engine redundancy being a thing, so after the 748 they will have to build a special potus only plane.

Or just rewire and reengine with then current technology - the airframe will be well within limits due to low usage.

The advantage of having four engines is that if an engine fails, you can choose to fly onward, instead of landing immediately(-ish).

sharles wrote:

The advantage of having four engines is that if an engine fails, you can choose to fly onward, instead of landing immediately(-ish).

This rule was established by the FAA when reliability of jet engines are not as good as today. While this is probably benefitial for AF1 during time of crissis. I would doubt that the Secret Service would allow the aircraft to continue to destination with 3 engines. They are much more adverse to risk. We hear of commercial pilots gets much flak in this type of situation. I don't think those who operate AF1 want to get those type of press.

Besides, doesn't the press sometimes travel by twin's domestically?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

This rule was established by the FAA when reliability of jet engines are not as good as today. While this is probably benefitial for AF1 during time of crissis. I would doubt that the Secret Service would allow the aircraft to continue to destination with 3 engines. They are much more adverse to risk. We hear of commercial pilots gets much flak in this type of situation. I don't think those who operate AF1 want to get those type of press.

Besides, doesn't the press sometimes travel by twin's domestically?

bt

FAA doesn’t have much say as AF1 is a military aircraft.

A 4 eng AF1 can lose a motor, press on to destination, and nobody would be any the wiser... at least until mechanics started working on the engine or the White House has to explain a minor delay.

4 eng for AF1 isn’t so much about safety, although that’s a factor, it’s about schedule and route reliability.

bikerthai wrote:

sharles wrote:

The advantage of having four engines is that if an engine fails, you can choose to fly onward, instead of landing immediately(-ish).

This rule was established by the FAA when reliability of jet engines are not as good as today. While this is probably benefitial for AF1 during time of crissis. I would doubt that the Secret Service would allow the aircraft to continue to destination with 3 engines. They are much more adverse to risk. We hear of commercial pilots gets much flak in this type of situation. I don't think those who operate AF1 want to get those type of press.

Besides, doesn't the press sometimes travel by twin's domestically?

bt

When a C-32 is used as AF1 what does the Secret Service say? Sorry this does not hold water.

Moose135 wrote:

itchief wrote:

When a C-32 is used as AF1 what does the Secret Service say? Sorry this does not hold water.

The C-32 is generally used domestically only. Lose an engine, and there are plenty of friendly places to set down, with various military airfields (plus civilian airports) scattered all over the place. Take a trip to the Middle East, let's say, and lose an engine in a twin when the nearest place to land is in a place that's not on our Christmas card list, and the stakes go up. With a quad, you continue to your destination or at least a friendly country. With a twin, that gets more interesting.

My post is directly for what bikerthai wrote in the post I quoted.

I don't think your answer is really any better, I would bet that AF1 has better route planning that what you are suggesting, no matter how many engines are hanging off the aircraft. They are not going to put themselves into a situation that forces them to land in a place that is "not on our Christmas card list". Sure it will take them out of the way, but safety is always going to be the 1st priority.

My point is even with the current 4 engine configuration, if they lose an engine, they probably would not press on but would head toward the closest safe airport.

30 years from now it is unlikely that there will be a four engine passenger aircraft in production to modify. The largest twin would be a 777 unless Airbus would offer something bigger, which I doubt as both companies are currently concentrating on the 757/767 market.

Personally, I see that they will have to drop the no twin's requirement or they will have to get Boeing to design a BWB twin engine with an option for a third engine mount. Either that or go with the lifting body hypersonic plane. We will get there, one way or another.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

My point is even with the current 4 engine configuration, if they lose an engine, they probably would not press on but would head toward the closest safe airport.

My point is they will continue to destination in the case of run of the mill engine shutdown. This avoids numerous schedule, diplomatic, and security issues. Of course if the engine blows up and there's flame everywhere, etc a divert will occur.

Maybe the BWB will finally come online by then and we see that style of A/C.

With the rise of more easily accessible space travel with vehicles such as the BFR, is it possible that in a few decades AF1 becomes a 'spaceship', so to speak? Musk has already said that he envisions P2P passenger rocket flights - whether or not that's realistic for commercial travel remains to be seen, but what about on a governmental level? Sure there's a lot that could go wrong (mechanically, security concerns, etc.), but there's a lot that could go wrong with the current aircraft as well. It could even alleviate expenses on things such accommodation or security if a President could essentially be like "Hey, I'm gonna go visit such-and-such country tomorrow" and then the next day fly to Florida early in the morning, get on such a vehicle, be at the destination within an hour, do their business, and potentially be back in time for dinner. Minimizing time on the ground at the destination would be the main security benefit, I would think.

Probably completely unrealistic, but this is asking about the future.

Aviation will have disappeared by then as we're all going to be teleporting.

Aesma wrote:

Aviation will have disappeared by then as we're all going to be teleporting.

"Tank, load the jump program."

FatCat wrote:

So if a let's say 777 gets shot by a heat seeking missile - that aims for the engine exhaust - and disable one engine with debris (as the warhead explodes on proximity, not on direct hit; if a direct hit is achieved, structural problems on the wing will be more important than a disabled engine), the plane could only count on one engine, not the best scenario for elusive manouvers with such an important person on board.

Anything bigger than a MANPADS uses a continuous-rod warhead; upon detonation, a small charge expands a folded metal ring that cuts like a buzzsaw through the aircraft. There's no localised 'debris' that would knock out an engine alone, the idea is to chop the fuselage in half or lop-off the outer wing. Having two or four engines is irrelevant.

Incidentally, it's the office of POTUS that's important. Not the person; that way of thinking leads to Kings and Emperors. Too late, I fear...