T1B

Left Seater wrote:Or the next AF1 might be built on the 787-900 platform.

Uh, no.

Why not. The 747 program isn't going to be around for ever.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Or the next AF1 might be built on the 787-900 platform.

Uh, no.

Yeah, why would they want to fly 21st century technology when mid 20th century has performed so well?

I see one reason for staying with that airframe. 4 beats 2. Modern widebodies have gone to 2 engines purely for efficiency reasons. The added redundancy doesn't hurt.

4 vs 2 was also an airline discussion about safety and reliability. Virgin Atlantic tried to argue for a number of years that their A-340s were a safer choice on flights across the Atlantic since they had 4 engines vs American Airlines and British Airways move to 777s with 2. Turns out dispatch reliability was actually higher on the 777 than the A-340, and their inflight engine shut down rate was damn near the same.

Funny thing though the A-340 is underpowered despite having 4 engines. Hence the jokes about 4hairdryers hanging from the wings or the 340 being the first commercial aircraft to be certified with 5 APUs.

I don't think number is f engines makes much difference in reliability.

Gotta laugh at the aviation humor.

The 787 is an a/c designed for civilian use only. I doubt it would measure up to the standards needed by the Pentagon.

Get the fuck out of here Diego with your commercial aerospace knowledge. You're supposed to be outraged over Air Force One because the Fuhrer told you to be!

President-Elect Cheeto says he wants to negotiate the deal personally.

Boeing itself is a cautionary tale of what happens when you put a non-aerospace person in charge of things.

Diego in Seattle wrote:The 787 is an a/c designed for civilian use only. I doubt it would measure up to the standards needed by the Pentagon.

As were the 707 and 747. Both were originally designed to be commercial passenger haulers. Bother were later modified for numerous additional roles. Same could happen with the 787. The 787 line will be running long after the 747 line.

Trump today vowed to put a five year ban on USG procurement officials from taking industry jobs after retirement. Just happened after Northrop Grumman announced it added its just retired chief of staff to its board of directors. Oh yeah, those BoD positions pay on average $200k. Not bad. Plus the USAF just awarded a contract to NG for the new bomber, which is geared to be the #1 most expensive program for the Air Force over the next 10 years.

Do the math. I hope he accomplishes this.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Trump today vowed to put a five year ban on USG procurement officials from taking industry jobs after retirement. Just happened after Northrop Grumman announced it added its just retired chief of staff to its board of directors. Oh yeah, those BoD positions pay on average $200k. Not bad. Plus the USAF just awarded a contract to NG for the new bomber, which is geared to be the #1 most expensive program for the Air Force over the next 10 years.

Do the math. I hope he accomplishes this.

Sounds familiar...

Why would they cut it so close on engine power? Would a slightly larger engine do much to fuel mileage?

Fuel burn per available seat mile. Damn near anything larger and no one ever would have bought them.