Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
CanadaFair wrote:It was reported someone purchased one of the two aircraft a month or so back, why is it still a secret?
I'm sure many others dont want to follow 748 thread for an answer, so please dont delete this post and let it be simplly answered here, Thanks.
Geoff1947 wrote:CanadaFair wrote:It was reported someone purchased one of the two aircraft a month or so back, why is it still a secret?
I'm sure many others dont want to follow 748 thread for an answer, so please dont delete this post and let it be simplly answered here, Thanks.
Didn't happen. Just a coincidence that one of the Transaero orders was cancelled at the same time as a parked BBJ was sold. Still don't know why only one Transaero orders was cancelled, guess it was on advice of Boeing's lawyers.
Gheoff
CanadaFair wrote:Two were built, so what got canceled?
Slug71 wrote:Would be funny if the Transaero birds ended up as the VC-25 replacements.
I know the USAF has a lot of rework over a stock 747 and therefore get new builds. But if Boeing sold them cheap enough to make it worthwhile, surely it's an option.
The USAF has plenty of time to get the work done.
LAX772LR wrote:Slug71 wrote:Would be funny if the Transaero birds ended up as the VC-25 replacements.
I know the USAF has a lot of rework over a stock 747 and therefore get new builds. But if Boeing sold them cheap enough to make it worthwhile, surely it's an option.
The USAF has plenty of time to get the work done.
Sincerely doubt that that would ever happen.
That, and since when was "cheap" ever really a concern of the military?
...it's the USA's biggest public works/employment/services expenditure, and every time you blink, it grows not contracts.
Flighty wrote:Current president might enjoy the optics of getting 2 reasonably fresh 747s on the cheap. That's something where he has an actual track record.
Slug71 wrote:Would be funny if the Transaero birds ended up as the VC-25 replacements.
I know the USAF has a lot of rework over a stock 747 and therefore get new builds. But if Boeing sold them cheap enough to make it worthwhile, surely it's an option.
The USAF has plenty of time to get the work done.
DfwAussie wrote:Slug71 wrote:Would be funny if the Transaero birds ended up as the VC-25 replacements.
I know the USAF has a lot of rework over a stock 747 and therefore get new builds. But if Boeing sold them cheap enough to make it worthwhile, surely it's an option.
The USAF has plenty of time to get the work done.
The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
Slug71 wrote:Hard to realize it needs that much rework. The fuselage looks relatively stock aside from the antennas. As far as I know, the Transaero birds are stripped inside. Don't recall them going for cabin fit. Not doubting you though. Have read that before too.
Stitch wrote:Slug71 wrote:Hard to realize it needs that much rework. The fuselage looks relatively stock aside from the antennas. As far as I know, the Transaero birds are stripped inside. Don't recall them going for cabin fit. Not doubting you though. Have read that before too.
It might be a case of routing wiring looms and such. Hardened wiring might be a thicker gauge (with shielding) and the existing paths designed for IFE might not be sufficient. There is also probably a fair bit more wiring, period, so they may have to really strip the plane apart.
DfwAussie wrote:Stitch wrote:Slug71 wrote:Hard to realize it needs that much rework. The fuselage looks relatively stock aside from the antennas. As far as I know, the Transaero birds are stripped inside. Don't recall them going for cabin fit. Not doubting you though. Have read that before too.
It might be a case of routing wiring looms and such. Hardened wiring might be a thicker gauge (with shielding) and the existing paths designed for IFE might not be sufficient. There is also probably a fair bit more wiring, period, so they may have to really strip the plane apart.
Definitely rework to make it EMP-proof.
Stitch wrote:Well you could have two new-build 747-8s for Air Force 1 and then build out the two existing birds to a lesser standard as Air Force Two and SecDef's birds.
TWA772LR wrote:Stitch wrote:Well you could have two new-build 747-8s for Air Force 1 and then build out the two existing birds to a lesser standard as Air Force Two and SecDef's birds.
The E4s are getting pretty old...
DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
zeke wrote:DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
leleko747 wrote:Too bad Rossiya didn't pick up the 747-8 order from Transaero.
They brought back a bunch of ex Transaero Jumbos... adding some new 747-8s would be wonderful.
zeke wrote:DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
tjh8402 wrote:zeke wrote:DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
If I remember the consensus in The AF1 thread in the military forum, the USAF was insistent on a 4 holer, with either safety or electric generation requirements being the two cited reasons.
DfwAussie wrote:tjh8402 wrote:zeke wrote:
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
If I remember the consensus in The AF1 thread in the military forum, the USAF was insistent on a 4 holer, with either safety or electric generation requirements being the two cited reasons.
Yeah, I think that's been stated. While having a quad may be deemed unnecessary, no way will the USAF buy a twin as the VC25 replacement.
zeke wrote:DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
SCAT15F wrote:zeke wrote:DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
They simply add that much more electronics to fill the space, the AF does it all the time. In fact, as electronics have shrunk over the last 50 years, they have bought ever bigger aircraft.
DfwAussie wrote:SCAT15F wrote:zeke wrote:
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
They simply add that much more electronics to fill the space, the AF does it all the time. In fact, as electronics have shrunk over the last 50 years, they have bought ever bigger aircraft.
The odds of two engine flameouts have to be extremely high, but the Air Force isn't going to take chances which is why it'll be a 747-8i.
wezgulf3 wrote:DfwAussie wrote:tjh8402 wrote:
If I remember the consensus in The AF1 thread in the military forum, the USAF was insistent on a 4 holer, with either safety or electric generation requirements being the two cited reasons.
Yeah, I think that's been stated. While having a quad may be deemed unnecessary, no way will the USAF buy a twin as the VC25 replacement.
But they will have to on the next purchase!
Wes...
Jayafe wrote:DfwAussie wrote:SCAT15F wrote:
They simply add that much more electronics to fill the space, the AF does it all the time. In fact, as electronics have shrunk over the last 50 years, they have bought ever bigger aircraft.
The odds of two engine flameouts have to be extremely high, but the Air Force isn't going to take chances which is why it'll be a 747-8i.
So better the production line is not closed when they finally sign an agreement, I can't imagine how funny could be having a 4 engine AF1 but, you know, from "the-other" manufacturer
AeroTyke wrote:Does every thread about a 747 really have to turn into the same old arguments about AF1 replacement? Seriously guys, take it a separate thread please and you can hack out the same old tired done-to-death arguments there.
ASQ400 wrote:I personally hope LY might buy in for their New York flights. Those 744s are running at capacity, so I don't want to imagine a 77E on it
Dutchy wrote:ASQ400 wrote:I personally hope LY might buy in for their New York flights. Those 744s are running at capacity, so I don't want to imagine a 77E on it
779 anyone? So to crush your hopes, I don't see it happening, no business case for the B748i.
ASQ400 wrote:Dutchy wrote:ASQ400 wrote:I personally hope LY might buy in for their New York flights. Those 744s are running at capacity, so I don't want to imagine a 77E on it
779 anyone? So to crush your hopes, I don't see it happening, no business case for the B748i.
That's a while in the future. Although I see your point, a 5-year 748 lease by LY is fun to imagine.
zeke wrote:DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
DDR wrote:zeke wrote:DfwAussie wrote:The modifications required would pretty much require rebuilding the entire airplane. I would be curious to know if the VC25 replacements will be based on the -F or 8i model (short upper deck vs. longer one on pax models).
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
I tend to agree with you on this. If it has to be an American built aircraft, the 777-300 would be big enough to carry all the staff as well as the press corp.
DfwAussie wrote:DDR wrote:zeke wrote:
I don't understand why they would need an aircraft the size of a 748 these days. Electronics has made everything smaller.
I tend to agree with you on this. If it has to be an American built aircraft, the 777-300 would be big enough to carry all the staff as well as the press corp.
I don't recall the thread, but the Air Force has dictated it has to be a quad.
Edit, I found the link: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ee/385037/
AvObserver wrote:Makes sense, the USAF wouldn't want to have to deal with the route limitations of the ETOPS protocol, especially for the presidential airplane.