Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Says "Cancel Air Force One!"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G David Bock
    replied
    Air Force One - why is it so expensive?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38236404

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    So all you that complained about Obama the last eight years are snowflakes? Who'd a thunk it?
    Actually, we pointed out his failings at POTUS.

    Trump hasn't even been sworn in and the snowflakes are screaming.

    There's a different between bitching about being in the rain, and crying because someday it might rain.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Got it, here's from the Wiki page ...

    ETOPS is an aviation acronym for Extended Operations. The term used to signify Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes but the meaning was changed by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) when regulations were broadened to include aircraft with more than two engines.[1] It refers to the standards and recommended practices (SARPS) issued by ICAO for aircraft (such as the Airbus A300, A310, A320, A330 and A350, the Boeing 737, 757, 767, 777, 787, the Embraer E-Jets, and the ATR 72) to fly long-distance routes that had been off-limits to twin-engined aircraft, and subsequently to extended range operations of four-engined aircraft (such as the Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental).

    In aviation vernacular, the colloquial backronym is "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim", referring to the inevitable emergency water landing of a twin engine aircraft after a double engine failure over water outside gliding range of land. But ETOPS operation has no direct correlation to water or distance over water. It refers to flight times between diversion airports, regardless as to whether such fields are separated by water or land.

    There are different levels of ETOPS certification, each allowing aircraft to fly on routes that are a certain amount of single-engine flying time away from the nearest suitable airport. For example, if an aircraft is certified for 180 minutes, it is permitted to fly any route not more than 180 minutes single-engine flying time to the nearest suitable airport.
    ...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

    While the original 747 design was 1960's, upgrades in engines, avionics, and airframe materials does make the -800 fairly "new". Sort of like 2016 Ford Mustang is still a Mustang, just not the 1965 version.
    You got it. To make it really simple, twins flying trans-Pacific routes may not be able to take the most direct flight path since they have to stay in reach of diversion airports. Quads don't have this same restriction.
    To be ETOPS certified, the individual aircraft must maintain stricter recordkeeping and maintenance standards. They must show a history of no inflight problems.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    All correct. The 757 however, has been out of production for years. The 767 is still being made, but only as an AF tanker or the freighter version. The 787 is a bit small but the 777 is the right size. The problem is that it is a twin. With all the international flights the POTUS makes, that's very important. I'm at work and can't do a long, detailed explanation, but google ETOPS.
    Got it, here's from the Wiki page ...

    ETOPS is an aviation acronym for Extended Operations. The term used to signify Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes but the meaning was changed by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) when regulations were broadened to include aircraft with more than two engines.[1] It refers to the standards and recommended practices (SARPS) issued by ICAO for aircraft (such as the Airbus A300, A310, A320, A330 and A350, the Boeing 737, 757, 767, 777, 787, the Embraer E-Jets, and the ATR 72) to fly long-distance routes that had been off-limits to twin-engined aircraft, and subsequently to extended range operations of four-engined aircraft (such as the Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental).

    In aviation vernacular, the colloquial backronym is "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim", referring to the inevitable emergency water landing of a twin engine aircraft after a double engine failure over water outside gliding range of land. But ETOPS operation has no direct correlation to water or distance over water. It refers to flight times between diversion airports, regardless as to whether such fields are separated by water or land.

    There are different levels of ETOPS certification, each allowing aircraft to fly on routes that are a certain amount of single-engine flying time away from the nearest suitable airport. For example, if an aircraft is certified for 180 minutes, it is permitted to fly any route not more than 180 minutes single-engine flying time to the nearest suitable airport.
    ...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

    While the original 747 design was 1960's, upgrades in engines, avionics, and airframe materials does make the -800 fairly "new". Sort of like 2016 Ford Mustang is still a Mustang, just not the 1965 version.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    So all you that complained about Obama the last eight years are snowflakes? Who'd a thunk it?
    ergo.....

    To clarify; it isn't all, there were somethings that President Obama did that really raised legitimate issues.
    Last edited by Nichols; 07 Dec 16, 15:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    So all you that complained about Obama the last eight years are snowflakes? Who'd a thunk it?

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    IMO, snowflakes can be liberal, moderate, conservative.......

    Doesn't matter what beliefs they have, they feel a need to complain.....
    So all you that complained about Obama the last eight years are snowflakes? Who'd a thunk it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    IMO, snowflakes can be liberal, moderate, conservative.......

    Doesn't matter what beliefs they have, they feel a need to complain.....
    It's more of a generational thing isn't it? Like Millennials, or Baby Boomers.

    It's just that they grew up in a permissive, soft environment and don't expect disappointments or challenges. The everyone wins generation...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    I'm not sure what this means. I'm a member of the airliners.net forum and they know much more about planes than anyone here except Pitchrate and that forum is much more liberal than this one. I guess that would make them snowflakes.
    IMO, snowflakes can be liberal, moderate, conservative.......

    Doesn't matter what beliefs they have, they feel a need to complain.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    I wonder how much $$$ is going to be spent on defensive systems. I for one would like to see a laser installed like El AL airliners. (Anti-missile defensive system.) Perhaps we should just buy them from the Israelis instead of developing one ourselves...

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    Snowflakes will cry about an older plane that isn't as fuel efficient as current planes......
    I'm not sure what this means. I'm a member of the airliners.net forum and they know much more about planes than anyone here except Pitchrate and that forum is much more liberal than this one. I guess that would make them snowflakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Trump may be "right" to question costs, but a bit early to cancel, especially if an alternate replacement isn't in the equation.
    I honestly don't think he'll cancel, I think he do what he has always done.....'The Art of The Deal'

    Boeing will buckle and offer a substantial savings for the 747. Trump will appear to have created another 'deal' that saves the government a ton of money. People will rejoice, snowflakes will melt and no one will realize how the public has been fooled again.

    About 10 years ago, the government made it mandatory to include life cycle costs on all contracts. From the RFI to retirement of the system, all costs were included. That is why everything from the F-35 to simple simulations have risen in costs.

    My guess is that Trump will allow Boeing to only cost out the airframes with all the bells and whistles without life cycle cost...... all of a sudden the cost goes from $4 billion to maybe $600-800 million.

    Trump looks good, Boeing looks good.....conservatives will talk about how much was saved. Snowflakes will cry about an older plane that isn't as fuel efficient as current planes......

    and the world will continue to turn with a new version of 'smoke and mirrors'

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Or go back to an older one designed in the 1930's and still flying, like a fleet of DC-3s (Shows America knows how to build 'em and make 'em last)

    The wide-body size of the 747 offers more workroom and payload than some newer ones like the 757 or 767 and the replacement is using know configuration and lay-out. Question is if the 777 or 787 would have equal or better capacity in space and payload?

    Both the 777 and 787 are twin engine and can fly on one, while the 747 has four (and newest tech) and could fly on two.

    Either way, current "AF-1" is wearing out and will need replacement within a few years. Trump may be "right" to question costs, but a bit early to cancel, especially if an alternate replacement isn't in the equation.
    All correct. The 757 however, has been out of production for years. The 767 is still being made, but only as an AF tanker or the freighter version. The 787 is a bit small but the 777 is the right size. The problem is that it is a twin. With all the international flights the POTUS makes, that's very important. I'm at work and can't do a long, detailed explanation, but google ETOPS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post

    Boeing and the air force do know how to do the add-on, they've done it before.
    I know that they have done it before, but that isn't the subject. The subject is added costs to give the 747 a capability that is already included in the delivery cost of a C-17.

    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Entirely different model--it first flew in 2010
    Remember, my response was to your public perception. Do you think public is going to realize that it is an aircraft from 2010 or an aircraft from a long time ago?

    Even in your business, public perception is that a Colt 6920 is an Assault Rifle....no matter how many times you tell them...it is still an assault rifle.

    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Not with the POTUS on board. Besides, they normally fly into the same airport as AF!.
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Read the RED.
    They start out and finish at Quantico. If the C-17 would become AF-1, more airfields all over the world would be open for AF-1. They wouldn't have to shut down international airports every time the President visits other states and countries. this alone would make security a lot easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    1. Until they take away the requirement, it is still a requirement.

    2. If the concern is public perception, then maybe we should get a newer aircraft....not one that was designed in the 60's and first flew in 1969.

    3. The C-17 that supports all AF-1 flights uses short airfields every time AF-1 takes to the air.
    Or go back to an older one designed in the 1930's and still flying, like a fleet of DC-3s (Shows America knows how to build 'em and make 'em last)

    The wide-body size of the 747 offers more workroom and payload than some newer ones like the 757 or 767 and the replacement is using know configuration and lay-out. Question is if the 777 or 787 would have equal or better capacity in space and payload?

    Both the 777 and 787 are twin engine and can fly on one, while the 747 has four (and newest tech) and could fly on two.

    Either way, current "AF-1" is wearing out and will need replacement within a few years. Trump may be "right" to question costs, but a bit early to cancel, especially if an alternate replacement isn't in the equation.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X