Air Force One [Archive] - AviationBanter

Matthew Waugh

July 5th 03, 11:51 AM

You don't care, you won't be around.

They flew the 707 until the only other operators were flying dodgy cargo
trips into South America with it. They'll fly the 747 until the same
situation applies.

Then they'll buy American, even if that means a Citation X because Boeing
bit the big one.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was watching the PBS documentary they were showing this week
> about AF1, and as they had shown the progression from the planes used
> back in Franklin Roosevelt's tenure as President, to the B707 from
> Kennedy to Reagan, to the current AF1 (at least that they showed in the
> documentary, since Bush Jr. was in it), to be a B742 variant. It got me
> wondering...
>
> The B742 is just about all phased out, with the B744 and the
> B777 doing the majority of the long haul runs of the Boeing line (yes,
> the 767 series is there, but doesn't have the range of the 747 and
> 777), So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>
> BL.
> --
> Brad Littlejohn | Email:
> Unix Systems Administrator, |
> Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
> PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
>
>

Bob Noel

July 5th 03, 12:39 PM

In article >, A Guy Called
Tyketto > wrote:

[snip]

> So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?

It might depend on Boeing. IIRC, during the competition for the
VC-25, Boeing effectively said that they would do anything and
everything to win the contract. iow - the President was going
to be flying in a Boeing aircraft.

--
Bob Noel

Robert Browne

July 5th 03, 01:47 PM

There is no way that this administration would buy Airbus or any other
aircraft with a French connection.
There would not be any contest, it would be Boeing all the way.
Bob

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://www.giantcompany.com

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, A Guy Called
> Tyketto > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> > version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> > Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> > B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> > think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>
> It might depend on Boeing. IIRC, during the competition for the
> VC-25, Boeing effectively said that they would do anything and
> everything to win the contract. iow - the President was going
> to be flying in a Boeing aircraft.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

Gilles KERMARC

July 5th 03, 02:17 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
Does the Gov't have a contract with
> Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>
To put it the other way round, it is hard to imagine the french
President flying Boeing in the foreseeable future.
IMHO, the present political relations have little to do with it.

We are in a "buy European" (whenever possible) situation somewhat
similar to your "buy American" situation.

Clark W. Griswold, Jr.

July 5th 03, 04:11 PM

A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
>version of AF1's replacement?

The AF1 747s fly so many less hours than a commercial plane and are so
meticulously maintained, that you will be wearing Depends in a nursing home
before anyone even talks about replacing them. :)

Matthew Mayer

July 5th 03, 06:22 PM

>>So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
>>version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
>>Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
>>B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
>>think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>
>
> It might depend on Boeing. IIRC, during the competition for the
> VC-25, Boeing effectively said that they would do anything and
> everything to win the contract. iow - the President was going
> to be flying in a Boeing aircraft.
>

I vaguely remember somehting about AF1 being required to have four
engines (here's the 2 vs.4 ETOPS argument again...). Urban legend or
not? Think Boeing could hang two extra engines on a Vista-Cruiser or
whatever they've decided to call the 7E7 when the time comes?? :-)

Ardna

July 5th 03, 11:47 PM

I was reading on an English news site 2 weeks ago that there may be a "Blair
Force One" sometime in the immediate future. The British government feels
that the prime minister should have his own airborne command &
control/flying hotel. Currently for oversea trips, the PM just flys on
charted British Airways aircraft.

You can bet if it ever happens, it will be an airbus.

Ardna

"Gilles KERMARC" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> Does the Gov't have a contract with
> > Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> > B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> > think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
> >
> To put it the other way round, it is hard to imagine the french
> President flying Boeing in the foreseeable future.
> IMHO, the present political relations have little to do with it.
>
> We are in a "buy European" (whenever possible) situation somewhat
> similar to your "buy American" situation.
>

Henry Bibb

July 6th 03, 02:34 AM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
...
> ...
> B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>

I think they ought to spiff up a BUFF & use that. :)

Buff5200

July 6th 03, 04:15 AM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
>version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
>Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
>B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
>think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>
>

My understanding is that the cost of the aircraft delivered by Boeing is
less than half the total
cost of the AF1 aircraft.

Airforce one is highly modified to be both a luxury office complex for
schmoozing dignitaries
and an airborne command/control/communication center that is a 21
century version of
"Looking Glass".

If and when a new AF1 is built, it will probably have the same heavy
lift capacity of the 747 line.

Next AF1's will probably be built on C-5A airframes.

>
>

Chris Hoffmann

July 6th 03, 05:27 AM

"lalo" > wrote in message ...
> If Bush keeps ****ing with every country out there, esp. North Korea, this
> will be the next Air Force One..
>
> http://tinyurl.com/g4bn
>

Wish I had a pic of North Korea and "every other country Bush f*cks with"
to post in response...

What are they gonna do, steal our airliners? Keep 'em. Just what a starving,
repressed, dictatorial country needs - An airline industry.

--
Chris Hoffmann
Student Pilot @ UES
<20 hrs

>

mrtravel

July 6th 03, 06:03 AM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> The B742 is just about all phased out, with the B744 and the
> B777 doing the majority of the long haul runs of the Boeing line (yes,
> the 767 series is there, but doesn't have the range of the 747 and
> 777), So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>
> BL.

The US Govt makes employees fly US carriers when possible, they aren't
about to buy a non US plane. Range wouldn't be a problem if they really
need it. After all, AF1 isn't your everyday 747. It can also be refueled
in midair.

mrtravel

July 6th 03, 06:05 AM

Robert Browne wrote:
> There is no way that this administration would buy Airbus or any other
> aircraft with a French connection.

I just had a Gene Hackman flashback, so I thought would look the movie
up at IMDB. I found it... It said, In 2003, this movie was renamed
"Freedom Connection".

Montblack

July 6th 03, 06:49 AM

Wrong (IMHO).

The next AF1 will be small and VERY fast. 20 people, tops!

New sonic boom resistant designs, etc.

Mach 2+ a minimum to enter the bidding.

--
Montblack

"Buff5200"
<snip>
> If and when a new AF1 is built, it will probably have the same heavy
> lift capacity of the 747 line.
>
> Next AF1's will probably be built on C-5A airframes.

Bob Noel

July 6th 03, 11:24 AM

In article >, Buff5200 >
wrote:

> Next AF1's will probably be built on C-5A airframes.

re-opening the C-5A production line is, at best, extremely unlikely.

--
Bob Noel

Cub Driver

July 6th 03, 11:25 AM

>Vista-Cruiser or
>whatever they've decided to call the 7E7

Dreamliner.

I think two engines would qualify, if the single-engine performance is
up to standard. The FAA came around.

(I remember how startled I was in 1986 to find myself flying over the
South China Sea in a two-engine Airbus, having been persuaded by the
FAA how necessary four engines were to my personal safety.)

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

RLB

July 6th 03, 02:42 PM

I don't know about that. If I remember correctly from the National
Geographic presentation, half the reason they retired their 707 was because
it couldn't carry all the people they wanted to carry comfortably. Not to
mention, I doubt you could turn a 20 passenger jet into the mobile White
House like the current jet. They also have two of them that don't fly much
and will probably be around for many many years to come. I'm willing to bet
the next Airforce One will be an aircraft that's not even on the drawling
board yet.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> Wrong (IMHO).
>
> The next AF1 will be small and VERY fast. 20 people, tops!
>
> New sonic boom resistant designs, etc.
>
> Mach 2+ a minimum to enter the bidding.
>
> --
> Montblack
>
>
> "Buff5200"
> <snip>
> > If and when a new AF1 is built, it will probably have the same heavy
> > lift capacity of the 747 line.
> >
> > Next AF1's will probably be built on C-5A airframes.
>
>

ks_av8r

July 6th 03, 04:24 PM

A lot of the costs associated with AF1 (&AF2 as it was often called) were
the electronics, sophisticated wiring systems and secure communication
links. Due to security reasons, I believe the electronics work would be
done in the US irregardless of airframe origin. The Air Force provided
extremely tight security on those aircraft as they were in the modification
stages.

"Buff5200" > wrote in message
...
>
> My understanding is that the cost of the aircraft delivered by Boeing is
> less than half the total
> cost of the AF1 aircraft.
>
> Airforce one is highly modified to be both a luxury office complex for
> schmoozing dignitaries
> and an airborne command/control/communication center that is a 21
> century version of
> "Looking Glass".
>
> If and when a new AF1 is built, it will probably have the same heavy
> lift capacity of the 747 line.
>
> Next AF1's will probably be built on C-5A airframes.
>
> >
> >
>

Jean-Pierre

July 6th 03, 09:07 PM

Maybe buy European Airbus and show some solidarity with Europe rather than
it always being the other way round

Binyamin Dissen

July 6th 03, 09:40 PM

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:07:14 +0000 (UTC) "Jean-Pierre"
> wrote:

:>Maybe buy European Airbus and show some solidarity with Europe rather than
:>it always being the other way round

Yeah, you Europeans were a real help in WW2.

And we certainly saw your support in the UN after 9/11.

--
Binyamin Dissen >
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Tom Fleischman

July 7th 03, 12:10 AM

In article >, Matthew Mayer
> wrote:

> I vaguely remember somehting about AF1 being required to have four
> engines (here's the 2 vs.4 ETOPS argument again...). Urban legend or
> not? Think Boeing could hang two extra engines on a Vista-Cruiser or
> whatever they've decided to call the 7E7 when the time comes?? :-)
>

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it will be 777 over a 7E7.

How else will they be able to carry all those media flacks?

TMOliver

July 7th 03, 12:14 AM

"John Gaquin" > iterated.....

> "Binyamin Dissen" > wrote in
> message
>>
>> Yeah, you Europeans were a real help in WW2.
>
> Unfair and inaccurate generalization. You have to be more
> country specific.
>
> JG
>
>>
>> And we certainly saw your support in the UN after 9/11.
>>

I can see it now....next AF1 built by a reincarnation of the
preWWII Polish PZL (with electrical system by Lucas...)

Think how many years le Grand Charles had to deal with the
less than transAtlantic range of the Caravelle (or the bitter
pill for the French Navy, when after building a new nuclear
carrier of their very own - capable of defending French
dependencies and intersts half the time, so France will not be
threatening when CdG's up on blocks in the dock - only to
discover that the only available AEW a/c came from the US - but
while saving a few francs, the designers had almost shaved away
enough flight deck to operate them).

TMO

Gilles KERMARC

July 7th 03, 08:09 AM

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> I was watching the PBS documentary they were showing this week
> about AF1, and as they had shown the progression from the planes used
> back in Franklin Roosevelt's tenure as President, to the B707 from
> Kennedy to Reagan, to the current AF1 (at least that they showed in the
> documentary, since Bush Jr. was in it), to be a B742 variant. It got me
> wondering...
>
> The B742 is just about all phased out, with the B744 and the
> B777 doing the majority of the long haul runs of the Boeing line (yes,
> the 767 series is there, but doesn't have the range of the 747 and
> 777), So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> Airbus, which could present the A380?

Someone's offering Airbus A340-600 :
<http://perso.wanadoo.fr/konnek-t/Info/index.html> (towards the middle
of the page)

A Guy Called Tyketto

July 7th 03, 09:02 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Matthew Waugh > wrote:
> You don't care, you won't be around.
>
> They flew the 707 until the only other operators were flying dodgy cargo
> trips into South America with it. They'll fly the 747 until the same
> situation applies.
>
> Then they'll buy American, even if that means a Citation X because Boeing
> bit the big one.
>
> Mat

Actually, I do care. otherwise, I wouldn't have posted. I
thought it was interesting about the succession of aircrafts used as
Air Force One, and wanted to get people's opinions on which would be
the next in the line. But since you seem to know how I feel and what my
thoughts are, then you should know that with a post like this, I
wouldn't care what you thought. But I digress.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/CStmyBkZmuMZ8L8RAh62AKD2doFBHmbkDQTUNumoknzHGMvK6Q CdGT2m
Klg0Hu4HVpuFBcqQXY1bvX0=
=+531
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Simon Elliott

July 7th 03, 09:37 AM

TMOliver > writes
>I can see it now....next AF1 built by a reincarnation of the
>preWWII Polish PZL (with electrical system by Lucas...)

I'm not sure whether they are still in business, but PZL were quite
recently building Mi-2 and Mi-14 helicopters under licence.

And they are still immortalised for many glider enthusiasts for their
rate of climb/descent indicator often referred to as "the PZL".
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Simon Elliott

July 7th 03, 10:10 AM

Binyamin Dissen > writes
>On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:07:14 +0000 (UTC) "Jean-Pierre"
> wrote:
>
>:>Maybe buy European Airbus and show some solidarity with Europe rather than
>:>it always being the other way round
>
>Yeah, you Europeans were a real help in WW2.

I'm pleased to learn that we Europeans had so little to do with WW2.
Takes a load off my mind. I'd hate to think that my parents' generation
really had to go through any of that stuff.

The story of London and other British cities being bombed by the
Luftwaffe was probably made up by 1960s planners as an excuse for some
of their bad discussions.

All those who sailed under the white duster, burning with 100-octane
filled tankers, or freezing in the water, unpaid after the first torpedo
hit their ship: safety standards weren't what they are now, or perhaps
the shipowners did it for the insurance?

The squadrons of British, French, Czech, Polish fighter pilots? Probably
drinking tea in the mess while the Eagle Squadrons did most of the real
fighting.

Jan Kubis and Joseph Gabcik? Probably bull****ters. Reinhard Heydrich
was a notorious bad driver.

I was talking to an elderly man the other day. He was reminiscing about
flying Lancaster bombers over the Ruhr. It's a relief to know from your
comments that he's probably senile and his memories are playing him
false. Poor chap, he probably thinks that most of his colleagues died in
action, when actually he's just forgotten their phone numbers.

Then there was the father of a friend, who allegedly was given the
responsibility of documenting one of the concentration camps in Germany,
immediately after it had been liberated by allied forces. There must be
some other reason why he never slept too well after WW2.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Cub Driver

July 7th 03, 11:14 AM

>The story of London and other British cities being bombed by the
>Luftwaffe was probably made up by 1960s planners as an excuse for some
>of their bad discussions.

I think the poster was perfectly willing to admit the role of
Europeans as aggressors and victims during WWII, just not as victors.
(I don't know how he regarded the Russians--perhaps as Asians.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Gilles KERMARC

July 7th 03, 11:44 AM

Simon Elliott wrote:

> I'm not sure whether they are still in business

They sure still are : <http://www.adventureaviation.com/PZL.htm>

Simon Elliott

July 7th 03, 12:04 PM

Gilles KERMARC > writes
>> I'm not sure whether they are still in business
>
>They sure still are : <http://www.adventureaviation.com/PZL.htm>

Cool. Thanks for the update.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 02:26 PM

"scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> The current Air Force Ones [there are 2] are only about 10 years old
> or so.
>

There are currently over 3500 aircraft with the potential to be Air Force
One. The aircraft most often used to transport the President is the VC-25A,
two were delivered in 1990.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 02:28 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> .....For those who may not have realizesd it, there are several
> a/c in the Presidential Flight, and any one of them may serve as
> "AF1", the designation only applicable when POTUS is aboard.
>

There are over 3500 aircraft that could potentially be Air Force One.

John Harlow

July 7th 03, 02:45 PM

> Which aircraft do you think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts?
Opinions?

Perhaps it should be a Cessna 172 and be subject to the same hassle as the
people to whom he is supposedly a "servant".

Binyamin Dissen

July 7th 03, 03:05 PM

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:28:46 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

:>"TMOliver" > wrote in message
.. .

:>> .....For those who may not have realizesd it, there are several
:>> a/c in the Presidential Flight, and any one of them may serve as
:>> "AF1", the designation only applicable when POTUS is aboard.

:>There are over 3500 aircraft that could potentially be Air Force One.

And some of the aircraft, such as helicopters, are Marine One.

--
Binyamin Dissen >
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 03:31 PM

"Binyamin Dissen" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:28:46 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> :>There are over 3500 aircraft that could potentially be Air Force One.
>
> And some of the aircraft, such as helicopters, are Marine One.
>

No, none of those aircraft could be Marine One. Marine One would be a USMC
aircraft. Any USMC aircraft, not just a helicopter.

TMOliver

July 7th 03, 03:41 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > iterated.....

>
> "TMOliver" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> .....For those who may not have realizesd it, there are
>> several a/c in the Presidential Flight, and any one of them
>> may serve as "AF1", the designation only applicable when
>> POTUS is aboard.
>>
>
> There are over 3500 aircraft that could potentially be Air
> Force One.
>
I suppose all USAF-owned and operated a/c could be AF1, although
one tends to automatically rule out the single seat a/c.

Of course, just as an S3 Viking became Navy1 for a while and
USMC helos are frequently Marine1, any old Coast Guard C130
could be Coast Guard1 in a pinch.

TMO

John Harlow

July 7th 03, 03:56 PM

> > Perhaps it should be a Cessna 172 and be subject to the same hassle as
the
> > people to whom he is supposedly a "servant".
> >
>
> If a T-41 was used to transport the President it would still be Air Force
> One

....no problem there...

> and given priority handling.

Problem there. He deserves no more special treatment than you or I.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 04:01 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I suppose all USAF-owned and operated a/c could be AF1, although
> one tends to automatically rule out the single seat a/c.
>

Well, pretty much so. But remember, the sitting POTUS is a former F-102A
pilot, a single-seat fighter.

>
> Of course, just as an S3 Viking became Navy1 for a while and
> USMC helos are frequently Marine1, any old Coast Guard C130
> could be Coast Guard1 in a pinch.
>

Maybe. When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the name of the
military service is stated, followed by the word "One." But is the USCG
truly a military service? While it has the look and feel of the military,
it isn't part of the Department of Defense.

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 04:02 PM

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message ...

> The B742 is just about all phased out, with the B744 and the
> B777 doing the majority of the long haul runs of the Boeing line (yes,
> the 767 series is there, but doesn't have the range of the 747 and
> 777), So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?

If no current US manufacturer (means Boeing at this point) makes a standard
issue plane with the requisite range, I'm sure they'd just mod one of the standard
ones to get the additional range.
..

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 04:04 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message thlink.net...
>
> "scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The current Air Force Ones [there are 2] are only about 10 years old
> > or so.
> >
>
> There are currently over 3500 aircraft with the potential to be Air Force
> One. The aircraft most often used to transport the President is the VC-25A,
> two were delivered in 1990.
>

Yep, and they do use other ones than the VC-25 when the destination runway
can't accomodate it.

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 04:05 PM

"Montblack" > wrote in message .. .
> Wrong (IMHO).
>
> The next AF1 will be small and VERY fast. 20 people, tops!
>
> New sonic boom resistant designs, etc.
>
> Mach 2+ a minimum to enter the bidding.
>

20 people can't even begin to provide presidential support.

What the hell is a sonic boom resistant design?

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 04:06 PM

"Binyamin Dissen" > wrote in message ...

>
> :>There are over 3500 aircraft that could potentially be Air Force One.
>
> And some of the aircraft, such as helicopters, are Marine One.
>
Only becuase they belong to the Marine Corps.

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 04:07 PM

"mrtravel" > wrote in message ...

> The US Govt makes employees fly US carriers when possible, they aren't
> about to buy a non US plane.

Really, not in my governement service. The only qualification was price.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 04:17 PM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Problem there. He deserves no more special treatment than you or I.
>

You're entitled to your opinion. There is an operational priority for ATC
services, the president isn't at the top, but he's not far down the list.

FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-4. OPERATIONAL PRIORITY

Provide air traffic control service to aircraft on a "first come, first
served" basis as circumstances permit, except the following:

NOTE-
It is solely the pilot's prerogative to cancel an IFR flight plan. However,
a pilot's retention of an IFR flight plan does not afford priority over VFR
aircraft. For example, this does not preclude the requirement for the pilot
of an arriving IFR aircraft to adjust his/her flight path, as necessary, to
enter a traffic pattern in sequence with arriving VFR aircraft.

a. An aircraft in distress has the right of way over all other air
traffic.

REFERENCE-
14 CFR Section 91.113(c).

b. Provide priority to civilian air ambulance flights "LIFEGUARD." Air
carrier/taxi usage of the "LIFEGUARD" call sign, indicates that operational
priority is requested. When verbally requested, provide priority to military
air evacuation flights (AIR EVAC, MED EVAC) and scheduled air carrier/air
taxi flights. Assist the pilots of air ambulance/evacuation aircraft to
avoid areas of significant weather and turbulent conditions. When requested
by a pilot, provide notifications to expedite ground handling of patients,
vital organs, or urgently needed medical materials.

c. Provide maximum assistance to SAR aircraft performing a SAR mission.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Providing Assistance, Para 10-1-3.

d. Expedite the movement of presidential aircraft and entourage and any
rescue support aircraft as well as related control messages when traffic
conditions and communications facilities permit.

NOTE-
As used herein the terms presidential aircraft and entourage include
aircraft and entourage of the President, Vice President, or other public
figures when designated by the White House.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Aircraft Identification, Para 2-4-20.
FAAO 7110.65, Departure Clearances, Para 4-3-2.
FAAO 7210.3, Advance Coordination, Para 5-1-1.

e. Provide special handling, as required to expedite Flight Check
aircraft.

NOTE-
It is recognized that unexpected wind conditions, weather, or heavy
traffic flows may affect controller's ability to provide priority or special
handling at the specific time requested.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Flight Check Aircraft, Para 9-1-3.

f. Expedite movement of NIGHT WATCH aircraft when NAOC (pronounced
NA-YOCK) is indicated in the remarks section of the flight plan or in
air/ground communications.

NOTE-
The term "NAOC" will not be a part of the call sign but may be used when
the aircraft is airborne to indicate a request for special handling.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7610.4, Applications, Para 12-1-1.

g. Provide expeditious handling for any civil or military aircraft using
the code name "FLYNET."

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, FLYNET, Para 9-3-6.
FAAO 7610.4, "FLYNET" Flights, Nuclear Emergency Teams, Para 12-4-1.

h. Provide expeditious handling of aircraft using the code name "Garden
Plot" only when CARF notifies you that such priority is authorized. Refer
any questions regarding flight procedures to CARF for resolution.

NOTE-
Garden Plot flights require priority movement and are coordinated by the
military with CARF. State authority will contact the Regional Administrator
to arrange for priority of National Guard troop movements within a
particular state.

i. Provide special handling for USAF aircraft engaged in aerial sampling
missions using the code name "SAMP."

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, SAMP, Para 9-3-15.
FAAO 7210.3, Atmosphere Sampling For Nuclear Contamination, Para 5-3-4.
FAAO 7610.4, Atmospheric Sampling For Nuclear Contamination, Para 12-4-3.

j. Provide maximum assistance to expedite the movement of interceptor
aircraft on active air defense missions until the unknown aircraft is
identified.

k. Expedite movement of Special Air Mission aircraft when SCOOT is
indicated in the remarks section of the flight plan or in air/ground
communications.

NOTE-
The term "SCOOT" will not be part of the call sign but may be used when
the aircraft is airborne to indicate a request for special handling.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Law Enforcement Operations by Civil and Military
Organizations, Para 9-3-10.
FAAO 7610.4, Applications, Para 12-7-1.

l. When requested, provide priority handling to TEAL and NOAA mission
aircraft.

NOTE-
Priority handling may be requested by the pilot, or via telephone from
CARCAH or the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (53WRS) operations center
personnel, or in the remarks section of the flight plan.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Weather Reconnaissance Flights, Para 9-3-17.

m. IFR aircraft shall have priority over SVFR aircraft.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Chapter 7, Section 5, Special VFR (SVFR).

n. Providing priority and special handling to expedite the movement of
OPEN SKIES observation and demonstration flights.

NOTE-
An OPEN SKIES aircraft has priority over all "regular" air traffic.
"Regular" is defined as all aircraft traffic other than:
1. Emergencies.
2. Aircraft directly involved in presidential movement.
3. Forces or activities in actual combat.
4. Lifeguard, MED EVAC, AIR EVAC and active SAR missions.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65 OPEN SKIES Treaty Aircraft, Para 9-3-20.
FAAO 7210.3, OPEN SKIES Treaty Aircraft, Para 5-3-7.
Treaty on OPEN SKIES, Treaty Document, 102-37.

o. Aircraft operating under the National Route Program are not subject to
route limiting restrictions (e.g., published preferred IFR routes, letter of
agreement requirements, standard operating procedures).

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, En Route Data Entries, Para 2-3-2.
FAAO 7110.65, National Route Program (NRP) Information, Para 2-2-15.
FAAO 7110.65, Route or Altitude Amendments, Para 4-2-5.
FAAO 7210.3, Chapter 17, Section 17, National Route Program.

p. If able, provide priority handling to diverted flights. Priority
handling may be requested via use of "DVRSN" in the remarks section of the
flight plan or by the flight being placed on the Diversion Recovery Tool
(DRT).

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7210.3, Diversion Recovery, Para 17-4-6.

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 04:25 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message thlink.net...

> > Of course, just as an S3 Viking became Navy1 for a while and
> > USMC helos are frequently Marine1, any old Coast Guard C130
> > could be Coast Guard1 in a pinch.
> >
>
> Maybe. When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the name of the
> military service is stated, followed by the word "One." But is the USCG
> truly a military service? While it has the look and feel of the military,
> it isn't part of the Department of Defense.
>
The Coast Guard describes itself as a "military, multimission, maratine service
and one of the nations five Armed Services."

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 04:37 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The Coast Guard describes itself as a "military, multimission, maratine
service
> and one of the nations five Armed Services."
>

Well, if one wants to use a broad definition, there are certainly more than
five armed services in the US. If one wants to use a narrow, more
traditional definition, the DoD is divided into just three services; the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Javier Henderson

July 7th 03, 05:11 PM

"John Harlow" > writes:

> > > Perhaps it should be a Cessna 172 and be subject to the same hassle as
> the
> > > people to whom he is supposedly a "servant".
> > >
> >
> > If a T-41 was used to transport the President it would still be Air Force
> > One
>
> ...no problem there...
>
> > and given priority handling.
>
> Problem there. He deserves no more special treatment than you or I.

I don't know where you're going with this. As far as the plane with
the US president goes, I don't have a problem with him getting special
treatment, due to security considerations.

-jav

DALing

July 7th 03, 06:03 PM

well... you have NO IDEA what an utter hassle it was to do the 747s for AF-1
in the first place.

Why 747? well... there was a "sort-of" competition between Boeing (747) and
McD (DC-10) to produce the airframe (747 was used as E4B, DC-10 was KC-10,
so they were BOTH in the "inventory" so to speak, the 747 could just "carry
more"). In the end _4_ engines won out over _3_ and _2_ engines were NEVER
considered (since it was Secret Service's policy that "any number 'more than
2' was REQUIRED"). The "other" issue was that the "required load" had been
increasing substantially to where it was necessary to have a small fleet of
aircraft (still have a C-141 or possibly a C-17 haul "stuff" like the limo,
etc) just to get everything there. The 747 allowed most of the "stuff" to
fly in the same aircraft.

Except that it was "The President WILL Fly Boeing", there was absolutely no
financial gain for Boeing (spin-off publicity from seeing el-presidente get
on/off 747s not withstanding) and Boeing spent a LOT of (unreimbursed)
company money to get him on a "Boeing product". Given the choice, Boeing
probably WOULD do another airframe (747-400) but the rules MIGHT be "a bit"
different (like having "engineering decisions" not subject to some idiot
bureaucrat SS decisions which raise cost without reimbursement)

Anyway, since the 707s lasted well past "normal" obsolescence, there is NO
reason to expect that the current 747-200s will be "replaced" any time in
the foreseeable future.

(just my PERSONAL 2cents worth)

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was watching the PBS documentary they were showing this week
> about AF1, and as they had shown the progression from the planes used
> back in Franklin Roosevelt's tenure as President, to the B707 from
> Kennedy to Reagan, to the current AF1 (at least that they showed in the
> documentary, since Bush Jr. was in it), to be a B742 variant. It got me
> wondering...
>
> The B742 is just about all phased out, with the B744 and the
> B777 doing the majority of the long haul runs of the Boeing line (yes,
> the 767 series is there, but doesn't have the range of the 747 and
> 777), So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
>
> BL.
> --
> Brad Littlejohn | Email:
> Unix Systems Administrator, |
> Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
> PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
>
>

DALing

July 7th 03, 06:05 PM

at the time it was "any number more than _2_"

"Matthew Mayer" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>So, what would do you think the US gov't would do for the B742's
> >>version of AF1's replacement? Does the Gov't have a contract with
> >>Airbus, which could present the A380? Would they stay Boeing, and go
> >>B772 (the B773 has a shorter range than the 772)? Which aircraft do you
> >>think should be the next Air Force One? Thoughts? Opinions?
> >
> >
> > It might depend on Boeing. IIRC, during the competition for the
> > VC-25, Boeing effectively said that they would do anything and
> > everything to win the contract. iow - the President was going
> > to be flying in a Boeing aircraft.
> >
>
> I vaguely remember somehting about AF1 being required to have four
> engines (here's the 2 vs.4 ETOPS argument again...). Urban legend or
> not? Think Boeing could hang two extra engines on a Vista-Cruiser or
> whatever they've decided to call the 7E7 when the time comes?? :-)
>

DALing

July 7th 03, 06:06 PM

not urban legend, it's true (but "more than _2_", not _4_)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Matthew Mayer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I vaguely remember somehting about AF1 being required to have four
> > engines (here's the 2 vs.4 ETOPS argument again...). Urban legend or
> > not?
> >
>
> Urban legend.
>
>
>

John Harlow

July 7th 03, 06:13 PM

> > Problem there. He deserves no more special treatment than you or I.
>
> I don't know where you're going with this. As far as the plane with
> the US president goes, I don't have a problem with him getting special
> treatment, due to security considerations.

Where I'm "going with this" is he's not feeling the effects of his own
syndicate's takeover of civil liberties. It is not acceptible to ground
civilian traffic in order for him to come into a town in order to garnish
support.

July 7th 03, 06:19 PM

"RLB" > wrote in message >...
> I don't know about that. If I remember correctly from the National
> Geographic presentation, half the reason they retired their 707 was because
> it couldn't carry all the people they wanted to carry comfortably. Not to
> mention, I doubt you could turn a 20 passenger jet into the mobile White
> House like the current jet. They also have two of them that don't fly much
> and will probably be around for many many years to come. I'm willing to bet
> the next Airforce One will be an aircraft that's not even on the drawling
> board yet.
>

It will probably be 50+ years before replacements are in order.
Could be longer than that. By then, it will depend entirely upon
what existing airframes are available. It is possible that it
could be an airframe designed for that purpose. More likely
it could be an airframe intended to replace the C-5/C-17 class
of aircraft.

> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Wrong (IMHO).
> >
> > The next AF1 will be small and VERY fast. 20 people, tops!

This isn't all that far afield, depending upon the direction
that the aircraft industry in general goes.

> >
> > New sonic boom resistant designs, etc.
> >
> > Mach 2+ a minimum to enter the bidding.
[snip]

Might be a tad fast, but Mach 1+ might be
a consideration.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 06:26 PM

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dwight Eisenhower was a pilot and flew a Rockwell Commander while he was
> president.
>

Rode or piloted?

>
> I am not sure if it was actually considered Air Force One. This
> was, of course in the 1950's.
>

The use of the call sign Air Force One began during the Eisenhower
administration.

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 06:41 PM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message ...
> > > Problem there. He deserves no more special treatment than you or I.
> >
> > I don't know where you're going with this. As far as the plane with
> > the US president goes, I don't have a problem with him getting special
> > treatment, due to security considerations.
>
> Where I'm "going with this" is he's not feeling the effects of his own
> syndicate's takeover of civil liberties. It is not acceptible to ground
> civilian traffic in order for him to come into a town in order to garnish
> support.

Neither the President nor members of Congress ever really feal the effects
of their own actions. They might act more in the interest of the nation rather
than themselves if they did.

Grumman-581

July 7th 03, 06:51 PM

"TMOliver" wrote ...
> Of course, just as an S3 Viking became Navy1 for a while and
> USMC helos are frequently Marine1, any old Coast Guard C130
> could be Coast Guard1 in a pinch.

I think the correct term for the Coastie's aircraft in that case would be
"Puddle 1"...

Tim K

July 7th 03, 07:30 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net>...

> Maybe. When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the name of the
> military service is stated, followed by the word "One." But is the USCG
> truly a military service? While it has the look and feel of the military,
> it isn't part of the Department of Defense.

Correct, up to a point: The USCG is part of the Dept. of Homeland
Security, formerly part of the Dept. of Transportation. However it is
a military (i.e. armed forces) service. Coast Guardsmen fought on
D-Day and in Vietnam, many lost their lives.

Good official history:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/faqs/when.html

Best,

Tim K

The Bill Mattocks

July 7th 03, 07:33 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net>...
> Maybe. When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the name of the
> military service is stated, followed by the word "One." But is the USCG
> truly a military service? While it has the look and feel of the military,
> it isn't part of the Department of Defense.

During time of declared war (this isn't, despite 'war' designations),
the Coast Guard becomes part of the DoD, specifically the US Navy,
unless this has changed since the CG moved over to the DoHS from DoT
recently...

That's what I recall, anyway. I don't have proof of this, I could be
wrong.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Bob Myers

July 7th 03, 07:50 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> If a T-41 was used to transport the President it would still be Air Force
> One and given priority handling.

If it were an Air Force aircraft, at least.

Bob M.

Bob Myers

July 7th 03, 07:59 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote in message
.. .
> I can see it now....next AF1 built by a reincarnation of the
> preWWII Polish PZL (with electrical system by Lucas...)

Naw....Zeppelin is starting to make airships again....:-)

Bob M.

Tom S.

July 7th 03, 08:02 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
> Maybe. When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the name of the
> military service is stated, followed by the word "One." But is the USCG
> truly a military service? While it has the look and feel of the military,
> it isn't part of the Department of Defense.

It's part of the Dept. of Transportation. So it'd be called "Transport One"?

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 08:37 PM

"Tim K" > wrote in message om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net>...
>
> > Maybe. When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the name of the
> > military service is stated, followed by the word "One." But is the USCG
> > truly a military service? While it has the look and feel of the military,
> > it isn't part of the Department of Defense.
>
> Correct, up to a point: The USCG is part of the Dept. of Homeland
> Security, formerly part of the Dept. of Transportation. However it is
> a military (i.e. armed forces) service. Coast Guardsmen fought on
> D-Day and in Vietnam, many lost their lives.
>

The Coast Guard also maintains that they were present as an armed force
in the pre-revolutionary times before the Army and the Navy.

Cub Driver

July 7th 03, 09:17 PM

>Dwight Eisenhower was a pilot and flew a Rockwell Commander while he was
>president. I am not sure if it was actually considered Air Force One. This
>was, of course in the 1950's

Doesn't sound right to me. It's hard to prove a negative proposition,
of course, but I see no evidence that Ike every got a pilot's license.
There are many pictures of him flying as a passenger in an L-4 in
Europe, none of him at the controls. There's no entry for "pilot" in
David Eisenhower's wartime biography. I sure would like to know more
about this!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

gblack

July 7th 03, 09:17 PM

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
:
: > Which aircraft do you think should be the next Air Force One?
Thoughts?
: Opinions?
:
: Perhaps it should be a Cessna 172 and be subject to the same hassle
as the
: people to whom he is supposedly a "servant".

Air Force one should be a microlight.
First duty of your president should be learning to fly...
betcha aviation rules and regs would make sense then :-))

--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
Home page: http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/

Cub Driver

July 7th 03, 09:23 PM

>Where I'm "going with this" is he's not feeling the effects of his own
>syndicate's takeover of civil liberties.

This is true of everyone in government and most people in business and
academia. Hell, it's true of people in general.

Many's the day I hiked from the Metro stop to the terminal at National
Airport, sweating past and cursing at the exclusive (and no-fee)
parking lot set aside for Members of Congress. It's not just Bush, and
it's not just the prezdint. Most people earning over $100K are
relieved of many of the hassles suffering by the plebes. When you get
up past $1 million, you are relieved of most of them. Nelson
Rockefeller famously didn't carry any money with him. When he wanted
to toss a dime to an urchin, he got one from one of his aides.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Cub Driver

July 7th 03, 09:24 PM

>> civilian traffic in order for him to come into a town in order to garnish
>> support.
>
>But what if it's a really nice garnish?

Let me guess: the other newsgroup this discussion is on is
rec.music.opea, right?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

G.R. Patterson III

July 7th 03, 09:28 PM

gblack wrote:
>
> First duty of your president should be learning to fly...

Well, our current president did that back in the 60s.

> betcha aviation rules and regs would make sense then :-))

You lose .......

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Paul Tomblin

July 7th 03, 09:34 PM

In a previous article, Cub Driver > said:
>> and that AVG recruiters told potential
>>volunteers that Japanese pilots were no good and all wore corrective
>>glasses.
>
>That was Pappy Boyington talking, but it's hard to know at any given
>moment if Boyington was remembering reality or dreaming in an
>alcoholic haze. (I think that "corrective glasses" or maybe "lenses"
>actually appears in Boyington's account.)

I'm almost sure I saw training material from that era showing the tail
gunner in Betty bombers wearing huge glasses.

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
USER, n.:
The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot".

Tim Bengtson

July 7th 03, 09:46 PM

Cub Driver wrote:

> Let me guess: the other newsgroup this discussion is on is
> rec.music.opea, right?

I had visions of the president sprinkling parsley everywhere he went.

Tim

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 10:27 PM

"Tim K" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Correct, up to a point: The USCG is part of the Dept. of Homeland
> Security, formerly part of the Dept. of Transportation. However it is
> a military (i.e. armed forces) service. Coast Guardsmen fought on
> D-Day and in Vietnam, many lost their lives.
>

So what part was not correct?

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 10:28 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The Coast Guard also maintains that they were present as an armed force
> in the pre-revolutionary times before the Army and the Navy.
>

Hmmm.... I don't see how, the USCG wasn't formed until sometime in the
1920s, I believe.

Gig Giacona

July 7th 03, 10:30 PM

I just watched a bio on Paul Tibbets (Enola Gay Pilot) and he talked about
flying Ike to Gabraltor before the North African invasion. According to the
story Ike thought he was one of the best pilots he had ever flown with.
Tibbets said that meant more to him because Ike had private lic.

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Dwight Eisenhower was a pilot and flew a Rockwell Commander while he was
> >president. I am not sure if it was actually considered Air Force One.
This
> >was, of course in the 1950's
>
> Doesn't sound right to me. It's hard to prove a negative proposition,
> of course, but I see no evidence that Ike every got a pilot's license.
> There are many pictures of him flying as a passenger in an L-4 in
> Europe, none of him at the controls. There's no entry for "pilot" in
> David Eisenhower's wartime biography. I sure would like to know more
> about this!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
> Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 10:31 PM

"The Bill Mattocks" > wrote in message
om...
>
> During time of declared war (this isn't, despite 'war' designations),
> the Coast Guard becomes part of the DoD, specifically the US Navy,
> unless this has changed since the CG moved over to the DoHS from DoT
> recently...
>
> That's what I recall, anyway. I don't have proof of this, I could be
> wrong.
>

You're right, but we haven't been in a declared war since WWII, and the use
of "[insert military service here] One" as a call sign for Presidential
aircraft began about twelve years after the war.

Ron Natalie

July 7th 03, 10:32 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message thlink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > The Coast Guard also maintains that they were present as an armed force
> > in the pre-revolutionary times before the Army and the Navy.
> >
>
> Hmmm.... I don't see how, the USCG wasn't formed until sometime in the
> 1920s, I believe.
>
According to the USGS propaganda, they trace back to the "revenue marine" and
predates the Navy by 8 years. The "Coast Guard" name came in 1915 from the
consolidation of the Revenue Cutter Service and the Life Saving Service.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 10:40 PM

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> It's part of the Dept. of Transportation.
>

The Coast Guard was moved from DOT to the Department of Homeland Security.

>
> So it'd be called "Transport One"?
>

"Transport One" identified the Secretary of Transportation.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 10:44 PM

"gblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> Air Force one should be a microlight.
> First duty of your president should be learning to fly...
> betcha aviation rules and regs would make sense then :-))
>

The current president does know how to fly and the rules made more sense
before he entered office.

Grumman581

July 7th 03, 11:14 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote ...
>>The Coast Guard was moved from DOT to the Department of Homeland
Security.<<

So, would it therefore be called "Homey One"?

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 11:22 PM

"Grumman581" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> So, would it therefore be called "Homey One"?
>

Unknown. There's no example given for the USCG, I don't believe the CG has
ever flown the president, and it's unlikely they ever will.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 11:24 PM

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think you owe an apology to the thousands of USCG veterans that stood in
> harm's way.
>

What do you think I owe an apology for?

>
> Not just in 'Nam, but all over the world since 1778, or thereabouts.
>

I think you're about 140 years off the mark.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 7th 03, 11:27 PM

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was closer to 1792, when Alexander Hamilton created the Revenue Cutter
> Service.
>

Actually, it was 1915, when the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving
Service were merged to form the Coast Guard.

Casey Wilson

July 8th 03, 01:09 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I think you owe an apology to the thousands of USCG veterans that stood
in
> > harm's way.
> >
>
> What do you think I owe an apology for?

For your earlier insult: "But is the USCG truly a military service?"

G.R. Patterson III

July 8th 03, 01:41 AM

Grumman581 wrote:
>
> So, would it therefore be called "Homey One"?

No - "Homely One".

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Cub Driver

July 8th 03, 11:30 AM

>Actually, it was 1915, when the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving
>Service were merged to form the Coast Guard.

I suppose you also maintain that the United States didn't have an air
force before September 1947?

Sheez. Put him in the kill file!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Steven P. McNicoll

July 8th 03, 12:15 PM

"scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why does everyone feel the need to point this out?
>

Because not everyone understands it.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 8th 03, 12:17 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suppose you also maintain that the United States didn't have an air
> force before September 1947?
>

I suppose you maintain that the USAF was established in 1907.

Bob Myers

July 8th 03, 05:39 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If it were an Air Force aircraft, at least.
> >
>
> Air Force One is always an Air Force aircraft.

Yes, that was the whole point, you see....

Bob M.

DALing

July 8th 03, 05:49 PM

sure, when it's other than the 747, but "THE" AF-1 has more than 2 engines
(not getting into the semantic argument that AF-1 is whatever USAF aircraft
el presidente just happens to be aboard, no matter how many engines it has)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > not urban legend, it's true (but "more than _2_", not _4_)
> >
>
> No, it's not true. At times Air Force One is a twin.
>
>

DALing

July 8th 03, 05:50 PM

sorry, coast guard was an arm of the treasury (customs) and responsible for
interdicting smuggling and attending lighthouses and other duties

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > The Coast Guard also maintains that they were present as an armed force
> > in the pre-revolutionary times before the Army and the Navy.
> >
>
> Hmmm.... I don't see how, the USCG wasn't formed until sometime in the
> 1920s, I believe.
>
>

DALing

July 8th 03, 05:52 PM

well, technically, it was the USAAC followed by USAAF until 1947 (a rose by
another name...)
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Actually, it was 1915, when the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving
> >Service were merged to form the Coast Guard.
>
> I suppose you also maintain that the United States didn't have an air
> force before September 1947?
>
> Sheez. Put him in the kill file!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
> Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Ron Natalie

July 8th 03, 06:15 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
> Javier Henderson > wrote:
>
> > I don't know where you're going with this. As far as the plane with
> > the US president goes, I don't have a problem with him getting special
> > treatment, due to security considerations.
>
> enjoy the next 5 days. He is in Africa. So no presidential TFR. :-)

The DC one is still here.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 8th 03, 06:35 PM

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, that was the whole point, you see....
>

Apparently you weren't following the thread very closely.

John Godwin

July 8th 03, 06:54 PM

Simon Elliott > wrote in news:GHaEUAAaFTC$Iwc
:

> I'm not sure whether they are still in business, but PZL were quite
> recently building Mi-2 and Mi-14 helicopters under licence.

PZL is now a part of EADS Socata.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 8th 03, 07:44 PM

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
...
>
> sorry, coast guard was an arm of the treasury (customs) and responsible
for
> interdicting smuggling and attending lighthouses and other duties
>

What are you sorry for?

John Harlow

July 8th 03, 08:45 PM

> So what you're saying is Air Force One has more than two engines whenever
a
> USAF aircraft with more than two engines is selected to fly the president,
> which is most of the time. No ****.
>
> The question is whether there's a REQUIREMENT for "Air Force One" to have
> more than two engines, or is it just an urban legend? If it was a
> requirement to have more than two engines then the president could never
be
> flown on a twin. Since he is at times flown on a twin it's clear that
it's
> an urban legend.

How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride have?

Ron Natalie

July 8th 03, 09:05 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message rthlink.net...
>
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride have?
> >
>
> I'm not familiar with any event like that.
>
What do you call that jaunt to the Abraham Lincoln aboard the S-3B?
(which by the way, was a twin).

Robert Moore

July 8th 03, 09:16 PM

"John Harlow" wrote
> How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride
> have?

"Fighter Jet" ???? Do you mean the S-3 Anti-Submarine Warfare
aircraft????

Bob Moore
Former S-2 pilot

mrtravel

July 8th 03, 09:21 PM

Robert Moore wrote:
> "John Harlow" wrote
>
>>How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride
>>have?
>
>
> "Fighter Jet" ???? Do you mean the S-3 Anti-Submarine Warfare
> aircraft????

It fights submarines..
Give him a break.
It has weapons, and it is a jet.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-s3b.html

It's not like its a P-3.

Ron Natalie

July 8th 03, 09:28 PM

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message . 8...
> "John Harlow" wrote
> > How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride
> > have?
>
> "Fighter Jet" ???? Do you mean the S-3 Anti-Submarine Warfare
> aircraft????
>
Well the Navy promotes the B model as a reconnaisance and surface
warfare bird as well.

mrtravel

July 8th 03, 09:40 PM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Robert Moore" > wrote in message . 8...
>
>>"John Harlow" wrote
>>
>>>How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride
>>>have?
>>
>>"Fighter Jet" ???? Do you mean the S-3 Anti-Submarine Warfare
>>aircraft????
>>
>
> Well the Navy promotes the B model as a reconnaisance and surface
> warfare bird as well.
>

I think Mr Pedantic was saying it didn't start with F...
Maybe a little jealous since the S-3 does a lot more than the prop S-2
that he flew.

Tim K

July 8th 03, 09:57 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "Tim K" > wrote in message
> om...

> > "Steven P. McNicoll":
> > > Maybe. When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the name of the
> > > military service is stated, followed by the word "One." But is the USCG
> > > truly a military service? While it has the look and feel of the military,
> > > it isn't part of the Department of Defense.
> >
> > Correct, up to a point: The USCG is part of the Dept. of Homeland
> > Security, formerly part of the Dept. of Transportation. However it is
> > a military (i.e. armed forces) service. Coast Guardsmen fought on
> > D-Day and in Vietnam, many lost their lives.
> >
>
> So what part was not correct?

Actually none of it :-) I just re-read your post (inserted above), you
didn't make a false assertion at all, you just asked a question ("Is
the USCG truly a military service?"). I was arguing that it was, that
the USCG is more than "look and feel" and actually is "truly a
military service".

Tim K

Ron Natalie

July 8th 03, 10:09 PM

"mrtravel" > wrote in message ...

> >
> > Well the Navy promotes the B model as a reconnaisance and surface
> > warfare bird as well.
> >
>
> I think Mr Pedantic was saying it didn't start with F...
> Maybe a little jealous since the S-3 does a lot more than the prop S-2
> that he flew.

Yeah, even with it's "switch army knife" configuration, it still doesn't have much
air-to-air capability you would expect from something termed a fighter.

John Galban

July 8th 03, 11:11 PM

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message >...
> sure, when it's other than the 747, but "THE" AF-1 has more than 2 engines
> (not getting into the semantic argument that AF-1 is whatever USAF aircraft
> el presidente just happens to be aboard, no matter how many engines it has)
>

That's exactly the semantic argument you're getting into :-)) A few
years ago I taxied past Air Force 1 on a ramp in Idaho. On that day,
it was a Grumman G-something twin engine bizjet, painted with the
exact same scheme found on the 747. One is not more AF-1 than the
other.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

G.R. Patterson III

July 8th 03, 11:30 PM

mrtravel wrote:
>
> Maybe a little jealous since the S-3 does a lot more than the prop S-2
> that he flew.

No, I expect that he's pointing out (quite correctly) that it ISN'T a fighter
aircraft.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Robert Moore

July 9th 03, 01:38 AM

mrtravel > wrote

> I think Mr Pedantic was saying it didn't start with F...
> Maybe a little jealous since the S-3 does a lot more than the
> prop S-2 that he flew.

Only flew the S-2 in training, flew the 408 kt P-3 for real. It
did a hell of a lot more than than an S-3.

Bob Moore

mrtravel

July 9th 03, 01:57 AM

Robert Moore wrote:
> mrtravel > wrote
>
>
>>I think Mr Pedantic was saying it didn't start with F...
>>Maybe a little jealous since the S-3 does a lot more than the
>>prop S-2 that he flew.
>
>
> Only flew the S-2 in training, flew the 408 kt P-3 for real. It
> did a hell of a lot more than than an S-3.

But is it faster? (Yeah, I know the answer)

mrtravel

July 9th 03, 02:17 AM

Dave Hyde wrote:
> Robert Moore wrote:
>
>
>>...flew the 408 kt P-3 for real. It
>>did a hell of a lot more than than an S-3.
>
>
> Hehe...how many traps you get in the mighty Orion? :-)

I remember the black exhaust coming out of the ones at Moffett, when I
lived in Sunnyvale.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 9th 03, 06:22 AM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> What do you call that jaunt to the Abraham Lincoln aboard the S-3B?
> (which by the way, was a twin).
>

I call it a morale booster for the troops, it was certainly NOT a PR
joyride.

And an S-3 is not a fighter.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 9th 03, 06:26 AM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> What people are diddling with here is the fact that AF1 means two
> different things: 1) those two Boeings, and 2) any other AF plane the
> man is flying in.
>

Wrong. Air Force One means just one thing, it is the callsign of any USAF
aircraft the president is aboard.

Cub Driver

July 9th 03, 10:24 AM

I believe that's one wire better than a miss--maybe two. It certainly
wasn't the Bushkin at the controls, though he no doubt flew for a bit
during the trip.

>
>> Bird he went aboard in was a two engine COD (not a fighter).
>> Whom ever was flying (GW or Navy Pilot) only got a number four wire so
>> landing was down graded by LSO.
>
>What do you mean by "got a number four wire"?
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

journeyman

July 9th 03, 03:08 PM

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:26:38 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll
> wrote:
>>
>> What people are diddling with here is the fact that AF1 means two
>> different things: 1) those two Boeings, and 2) any other AF plane the
>> man is flying in.
>>
>
>Wrong. Air Force One means just one thing, it is the callsign of any USAF
>aircraft the president is aboard.

Wrong. There are two definitions for the term. The first definition
is the technical/legal one. The second is popular (vulgar?) usage.
Ask any ATC/military/secret-service person what is AF-1, and they will
give the technical definition (any USAF a/c w/ POTUS). Ask any average
person off the street, and they will probably say it's that 747 the
prez flies in (and they may not even be aware that there are two of
them, let alone that there could be any other according to the first
definition).

The Museum of Flight at Boeing Field even has a retired Air Force One
(707) that the public can walk through.

The second definition is not wrong unless there's some body to define
right and wrong speaking. English lexicographers go with the language
people actually use, not by what l'Academie de la langue anglais says
they should use.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine to see technical terms misused by
the general public, but that's reality in my field and in any field
that develops its own jargon.

Morris

Steven P. McNicoll

July 9th 03, 03:35 PM

"Undisclosed" > wrote in message
...
>
> i remember it was a carrier landing, or are we talking another time???
>

The key points are it was not a fighter and not a PR joyride.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 9th 03, 03:38 PM

"journeyman" > wrote in message
u.com...
>
> Wrong.
>

I'm sorry, but you're very much mistaken on this issue.

>
> There are two definitions for the term. The first definition
> is the technical/legal one.
>

That definition is the sole correct one.

>
> The second is popular (vulgar?) usage.
>

That definition is incorrect, thus leaving us with just one correct
definition.

>
> Ask any ATC/military/secret-service person what is AF-1, and they will
> give the technical definition (any USAF a/c w/ POTUS). Ask any average
> person off the street, and they will probably say it's that 747 the
> prez flies in (and they may not even be aware that there are two of
> them, let alone that there could be any other according to the first
> definition).
>

So being wrong in large numbers makes it correct? Sorry, it just doesn't
work that way.

Ron Natalie

July 9th 03, 04:29 PM

DALing

July 9th 03, 05:20 PM

OK (trying this again) - when the original request for bid was sent out for
a replacement for the VC-135s (the fleet of 707s commonly referred to as
"Air Force One") one of the stipulations was that the aircraft had to have
more than 2 engines (flight security requirement). That effectively
narrowed the field to 2 aircraft - 747 and DC-10. The "more than 2 engines
isn't an urban legend" BUT the fact that el presidente can and does utilise
aircraft with _2_ engines OCCASSIONALLY is correct; however, the "main" mode
of transportation as AF-1 is the 747.

BTW - the 2 vs 4 debate and whether 2 will work or is 4 an ACTUAL
requirement came to a head in the YC-14, YC-15 contract where Boeing showed
that _2_ engines would power the aircraft and meet all performance
requirements. The _4_ engine YC-15 variant also performed but didin't
perform as well. The USAF (in its infinite wisdom) decided to cancel the
contract since even though Boeing (YC-14) performed better, it didn't meet
the contract _4_ engines. That's why the C-17 exists today with _4_
engines. NEVER argue with DoD.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > sure, when it's other than the 747, but "THE" AF-1 has more than 2
engines
> > (not getting into the semantic argument that AF-1 is whatever USAF
> aircraft
> > el presidente just happens to be aboard, no matter how many engines it
> has)
> >
>
> So what you're saying is Air Force One has more than two engines whenever
a
> USAF aircraft with more than two engines is selected to fly the president,
> which is most of the time. No ****.
>
> The question is whether there's a REQUIREMENT for "Air Force One" to have
> more than two engines, or is it just an urban legend? If it was a
> requirement to have more than two engines then the president could never
be
> flown on a twin. Since he is at times flown on a twin it's clear that
it's
> an urban legend.
>
>

DALing

July 9th 03, 05:21 PM

it wasn't a fighter (ASW aircraft) and it had _2_ (you mean the "Navy-1"
Hoover ride, I assume)

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > So what you're saying is Air Force One has more than two engines
whenever
> a
> > USAF aircraft with more than two engines is selected to fly the
president,
> > which is most of the time. No ****.
> >
> > The question is whether there's a REQUIREMENT for "Air Force One" to
have
> > more than two engines, or is it just an urban legend? If it was a
> > requirement to have more than two engines then the president could never
> be
> > flown on a twin. Since he is at times flown on a twin it's clear that
> it's
> > an urban legend.
>
> How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride have?
>
>

DALing

July 9th 03, 05:22 PM

Prop?? what "prop"?

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > "Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
> >
> >>"John Harlow" wrote
> >>
> >>>How many engines did the fighter jet he used for his PR joyride
> >>>have?
> >>
> >>"Fighter Jet" ???? Do you mean the S-3 Anti-Submarine Warfare
> >>aircraft????
> >>
> >
> > Well the Navy promotes the B model as a reconnaisance and surface
> > warfare bird as well.
> >
>
> I think Mr Pedantic was saying it didn't start with F...
> Maybe a little jealous since the S-3 does a lot more than the prop S-2
> that he flew.
>
>
>

journeyman

July 9th 03, 06:15 PM

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:38:26 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll
> wrote:

[with snippage]

>> The second is popular (vulgar?) usage.
>
>That definition is incorrect, thus leaving us with just one correct
>definition.

>So being wrong in large numbers makes it correct? Sorry, it just doesn't
>work that way.

There are many, many areas where majority opinion doesn't affect the
correctness of a proposition. All the wishful thinking in the world
won't change basic physics.

The English language, OTOH, is defined by its usage. For example,
on USENET, you will see neologisms such as troll and spam, both of
which were existing words with only the barest connection to their
new usage.

Even when the aircraft cannot use the radio call sign "Air Force One",
there's enough common usage to think of the plane as "Air Force One"
independent of the call sign.

From the boeing site:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/af1/flash.html

Air Force One Background Info
Air Force One is a Boeing 747-200B aircraft that was extensively
modified to meet presidential requirements. The original paint scheme
was designed at the request of President John F. Kennedy, who wanted
the airplane to reflect the spirit of the national character. He also
directed that the words "United States of America" appear prominently
on the fuselage, and that the U.S. flag be painted on the vertical
stabilizer.

From the military:
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/VC_25A___Air_Force_One.html
USAF Fact Sheet
VC-25A - Air Force One

Mission
The mission of the VC-25A aircraft -- Air Force One -- is to provide
air transport for the president of the United States.

Features
The presidential air transport fleet consists of two specially
configured Boeing 747-200B's -- tail numbers 28000 and 29000 -- with
the Air Force designation VC-25A. When the president is aboard either
aircraft, or any Air Force aircraft, the radio call sign is "Air Force
One."

From the White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/whmo/af1.html

In 1962, the first jet aircraft, a Boeing 707, was purchased for use
as Air Force One.

Air Force One Today
The current presidential fleet consists of two specifically-configured
Boeing 747-200B series aircraft - tail numbers 28000 and 29000 - with
Air Force designation VC-25A. . When the President is aboard either
craft, or any other Air Force aircraft, the radio call sign is "Air
Force One."

John Galban

July 9th 03, 06:55 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> mrtravel wrote:
> >
> > Maybe a little jealous since the S-3 does a lot more than the prop S-2
> > that he flew.
>
> No, I expect that he's pointing out (quite correctly) that it ISN'T a fighter
> aircraft.

Quite correct. I think most S-3 pilots would be a bit offended to be
associated with their "fighter puke" colleagues.

Of course, that brings up the question of the Air Force F-117. It's
called a fighter, but realistically, it has no air-to-air fighting
capability at all. It's just a small bomber.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

John Harlow

July 9th 03, 07:53 PM

> > What do you call that jaunt to the Abraham Lincoln aboard the S-3B?
> > (which by the way, was a twin).
> >
>
> I call it a morale booster for the troops, it was certainly NOT a PR
> joyride.

Call it what you will, I call it a frivolous stunt.

Casey Wilson

July 9th 03, 07:54 PM

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
...
> BTW - the 2 vs 4 debate and whether 2 will work or is 4 an ACTUAL
> requirement came to a head in the YC-14, YC-15 contract where Boeing
showed
> that _2_ engines would power the aircraft and meet all performance
> requirements. The _4_ engine YC-15 variant also performed but didin't
> perform as well. The USAF (in its infinite wisdom) decided to cancel the
> contract since even though Boeing (YC-14) performed better, it didn't meet
> the contract _4_ engines. That's why the C-17 exists today with _4_
> engines. NEVER argue with DoD.

Well, there was a tad more to it than that. The YC-14 developed
enormous lift using the Coanda Effect, blowing engine exhaust over the top
of the flaps. Marginally, it could take off and land shorter and with more
weight than the YC-15. But the -14 had a few other problems.
One significant problem was it susceptibility to acquistion and attack
using primitive weapons like the Soviet SA-7 Strella. The wings and flaps
lit up like search lights in the infrared. This led to the inevitable
survivability question, "What happens if one engine is hit?" The mission
scenarios indicated a much higher probablity of an attack and hit on the
YC-14 than the -15. Three engines on the -15 plotted out much better than
the -14's single engine.
This was one of the deciding factors. I actually regretted seeing the
YC-14 lose, it was more than just a little interesting. By the way, the -14
is on display in an Arizona Museum.
http://www.pimaair.org/boe_yc14.htm

DALing

July 9th 03, 07:56 PM

that's what I meant - ain't no steenking props on a HOOVER!

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> DALing wrote:
> > Prop?? what "prop"?
>
> A poster said he flew the S-2
> http://www.warbirdalley.com/c1.htm
>
> http://home.wxs.nl/~roden171/index.html
>
> S-2 has props
>

Cub Driver

July 9th 03, 08:01 PM

>Well, I might delete the term "joyride", but PR is right. PR for the troops
>(at least those on the Abe), but PR for W as well, or else they wouldn't
>have transported all the press out their first.

Gosh, Ron, you needn't be so polite! I am a Republican, and I call it
a PR joyride--a good one, too!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Cub Driver

July 9th 03, 08:06 PM

>OK (trying this again) - when the original request for bid was sent out for
>a replacement for the VC-135s (the fleet of 707s commonly referred to as
>"Air Force One") one of the stipulations was that the aircraft had to have
>more than 2 engines (flight security requirement). That effectively
>narrowed the field to 2 aircraft - 747 and DC-10. The "more than 2 engines
>isn't an urban legend" BUT the fact that el presidente can and does utilise
>aircraft with _2_ engines OCCASSIONALLY is correct; however, the "main" mode
>of transportation as AF-1 is the 747.

Good try, DALing, but it won't make any imprint on the nut cases who
nitpick this stuff. Save your breath and put the jerk in your kill
file.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

David Brooks

July 9th 03, 09:26 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > What do you call that jaunt to the Abraham Lincoln aboard the S-3B?
> > (which by the way, was a twin).
> >
>
> I call it a morale booster for the troops, it was certainly NOT a PR
> joyride.

It was both. I have no doubt the sailors' morale was boosted. Still, I get
the distinct impression that you are waiting for one of us bleeding-nose
liberals to list the objections to this stunt so you can rebut them, so here
are some of them, conveniently numbered:

1) There was no need to use a jet; the Lincoln was well within helicopter
range of land.
2) The WH insisted that the boat had to be maneuvered (at taxpayer expense)
so as not to get the San Diego skyline in the shot.
3) The troops whose morale was boosted would have been home a day earlier
without the PR stunt.

In fairness I don't count the crowds of reporters: they are often present at
morale boosters and probably enhance the effect.

-- David Brooks

Ron Natalie

July 9th 03, 10:12 PM

"David Brooks" > wrote in message ...

> 1) There was no need to use a jet; the Lincoln was well within helicopter
> range of land.

Yes amazingly the rest of Bush's entourage including Security-Bitch Rice had more
conventional transport.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 10th 03, 03:37 AM

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message
...
>
> OK (trying this again) - when the original request for bid was sent out
for
> a replacement for the VC-135s (the fleet of 707s commonly referred to as
> "Air Force One") one of the stipulations was that the aircraft had to have
> more than 2 engines (flight security requirement). That effectively
> narrowed the field to 2 aircraft - 747 and DC-10. The "more than 2
engines
> isn't an urban legend" BUT the fact that el presidente can and does
utilise
> aircraft with _2_ engines OCCASSIONALLY is correct; however, the "main"
mode
> of transportation as AF-1 is the 747.
>

So what you're saying is there is no requirement for Air Force One to have
more than two engines. You are correct. Bye bye.

Steven P. McNicoll

July 10th 03, 03:42 AM

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was both. I have no doubt the sailors' morale was boosted. Still, I get
> the distinct impression that you are waiting for one of us bleeding-nose
> liberals to list the objections to this stunt so you can rebut them, so
here
> are some of them, conveniently numbered:
>
> 1) There was no need to use a jet; the Lincoln was well within helicopter
> range of land.
> 2) The WH insisted that the boat had to be maneuvered (at taxpayer
expense)
> so as not to get the San Diego skyline in the shot.
> 3) The troops whose morale was boosted would have been home a day earlier
> without the PR stunt.
>

None of those are true.

Cub Driver

July 10th 03, 11:14 AM

>1) There was no need to use a jet; the Lincoln was well within helicopter
>range of land.

Of course there was a need to use a jet. It made for a better photo!
And the Bushkin could have been wearing a business suit, too, except
that a flight suit & helmet looked better.

Good grief. There is no reason to paint Air Force One blue and white
in such an elegant design, either. Why not olive drab? For that
matter, why not a C-5A?

Shucks, why does a president wear a business suit, come to that?
Overalls serve just fine. (Oops! He was wearing overalls, wasn't he?)

I get the impression that what folks so hate about this president is
that he's so good at what he does. (Robert Byrd flapping his hands in
horror that the president--the president!--is playing politics :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

July 10th 03, 01:38 PM

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
[snip]
> I get the impression that what folks so hate about this president is
> that he's so good at what he does.
[snip]

Um..... no.

TMOliver

July 10th 03, 03:10 PM

Cub Driver > iterated.....

>
>>1) There was no need to use a jet; the Lincoln was well
>>within helicopter range of land.
>
> Of course there was a need to use a jet. It made for a
> better photo! And the Bushkin could have been wearing a
> business suit, too, except that a flight suit & helmet
> looked better.
>
> Good grief. There is no reason to paint Air Force One blue
> and white in such an elegant design, either. Why not olive
> drab? For that matter, why not a C-5A?
>
> Shucks, why does a president wear a business suit, come to
> that? Overalls serve just fine. (Oops! He was wearing
> overalls, wasn't he?)
>
> I get the impression that what folks so hate about this
> president is that he's so good at what he does. (Robert Byrd
> flapping his hands in horror that the president--the
> president!--is playing politics :)
>

Well writ....

But, IIRC, there's a NAVAIR requirement (likely extending the
Presidents) that folks flying in operational, non-
logistics/transport naval aircraft wear appropriate attire,
steel toed flight boots, flame-resistant flight suit (not
coveralls/overalls for several generations even before they were
orange like mine which no longer fits) and a helmet, mask, etc.
(and receive some brief on the ejection seat/exit system). The
President's qualification as a "licensed driver" of F102s in
TANG, although long ago, did provide him a likely trip through
the "Dunker" or similar "getting out of the damn thing" training
and shucks he may have had his own boots (not cowboy, but laceup
over the ankle, with protective toes.

In none of the photos did I see the neat customized items with
which my sample came, including the pocket sewn upon it for my
genuine Kaybar cnife, nor did he have the old Navy pilot's
standard S&W Model 10 loaded with 6 rounds of tracer in his
harness. Nor did he have ****cutter tucked in a convenient flap
to don one he removed his helmet. Marines salute Presidents
whether they're "covered" or not. I'm sure they gave him a nice
squadron ballcap with the appropriate measure of scrambled eggs
on the brim, and the required 8 sideboys/sidegirls were present.

"Bosun, over the 1MC, 'President, Arriving'."

The current flight suits have none of the comfort the old orange
cotton ones had after a few dozen washings.

TM

Big John

July 10th 03, 04:53 PM

Dan

You said "hands". Did you mean 'mouth' ?

Big John
Point of the sword

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:24 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>>1) There was no need to use a jet; the Lincoln was well within helicopter
>>range of land.
>
>Of course there was a need to use a jet. It made for a better photo!
>And the Bushkin could have been wearing a business suit, too, except
>that a flight suit & helmet looked better.
>
>Good grief. There is no reason to paint Air Force One blue and white
>in such an elegant design, either. Why not olive drab? For that
>matter, why not a C-5A?
>
>Shucks, why does a president wear a business suit, come to that?
>Overalls serve just fine. (Oops! He was wearing overalls, wasn't he?)
>
>I get the impression that what folks so hate about this president is
>that he's so good at what he does. (Robert Byrd flapping his hands in
>horror that the president--the president!--is playing politics :)
>
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
>Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Dave Hyde

July 10th 03, 09:03 PM

Big John wrote:

> Optimum is to hook number three wire. If you don't get
> #3 wire, the LSO (Landing Signal Officer) doesn't give
> you a top grade for the landing.

You don't really think any LSO on the platform
was going to let Navy 1 go the *slightest* bit
low, do you?

Dave "(HAW) OK 4" Hyde

Ron Natalie

July 10th 03, 11:33 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote in message .. .

> The DC-6/C-118 operated by the USAAF for President Truman came
> courtesy of Donald Douglas with a glamourous stylized blue eagle
> paint job, so JFK & Loewy weren't first (and the current VC-25
> paint job is really somewhat diffrent than the first Boeing 700
> series presidential a/c.

I was referring to specifically the 707's before they were re-painted.

The following is the only picture I could find of the old paint job.
It doesn't begin to show how ugly it really was.
http://www.rediscoveredpaper.com/graphics/af1photo.jpg

Actually, the Loewy scheme looks much better on the 707 than it
does on the whales.

Big John

July 11th 03, 02:56 AM

Dave

I'm sure they didn' t want him in the "spud locker" (or on the ramp)
but a 'bolter' would have looked bad on camera so they probably rode
the 'ball' just a little high and missed #3 <G>

Big John
Point of the sword

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:03:10 GMT, Dave Hyde > wrote:

>Big John wrote:
>
>> Optimum is to hook number three wire. If you don't get
>> #3 wire, the LSO (Landing Signal Officer) doesn't give
>> you a top grade for the landing.
>
>You don't really think any LSO on the platform
>was going to let Navy 1 go the *slightest* bit
>low, do you?
>
>Dave "(HAW) OK 4" Hyde

Cub Driver

July 11th 03, 10:40 AM

>> Good grief. There is no reason to paint Air Force One blue and white
>> in such an elegant design, either. Why not olive drab? For that
>> matter, why not a C-5A?
>
>Because despite the fact that the plane is operated by the Air Force and the president
>is cic of the military, we feel that a more "civilian" approach to presidential trips is a
>better image.

Right. It looks better that way. And arriving on an aircraft carrier
in a navy jet looked better than arriving in a helicopter. And
arriving in a flight suit looked better than arriving in a business
suit.

It looked good! It was fun! It was good politics!

Get over it, Senator Byrd & Co.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Simon Elliott

July 11th 03, 11:47 AM

Cub Driver > writes
>Right. It looks better that way. And arriving on an aircraft carrier
>in a navy jet looked better than arriving in a helicopter. And
>arriving in a flight suit looked better than arriving in a business
>suit.
>
>It looked good! It was fun! It was good politics!

UK politicians do this kind of thing too. Mrs. Thatcher visited the
Falkland Islands in January 1983. Mr. Blair has recently visited Iraq.

For myself I don't much like this kind of stunt. It usually smacks of
the politicians trying to catch some reflected glory from a recent armed
conflict. The politicians should reflect that they have put their
country's armed forces in harms way while facing little or no risk to
themselves.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Ron Natalie

July 11th 03, 04:07 PM

"TMOliver" > wrote in message .. .

>
> It's time for a new contest, "Paint the Big Bird!"
>
Besides, both JFK and Loewy have been dead for a while, so who's gonna
complain?

July 11th 03, 08:41 PM

TMOliver > wrote in message >...
[snip]
> ....and sadly, amusingly or whatever, one of the great
> stimulants involved in the rise of Enron was the frequent
> personal presence of Ken Lay....
[snip]

One of the more interesting complaints around here a couple
of division presidents ago was that, for all the general
loathing people had for the man, a top objection was
"...and ya never see him around here". They don't have to
like ya to expect ya to show up once and a while. "Showing
the flag" I think they call it.

Simon Elliott

July 12th 03, 11:39 AM

TMOliver > writes
>> For myself I don't much like this kind of stunt. It usually
>> smacks of the politicians trying to catch some reflected
>> glory from a recent armed conflict. The politicians should
>> reflect that they have put their country's armed forces in
>> harms way while facing little or no risk to themselves.
>
>....As a former serving officer (and once a corporate exec), I
>could not disagree more.
>
>One of my first memories of active service was a visit by JFK to
>an Atlantic Fleet exercise, and in my life to have seen "in
>person"(and in several cases close enough to shake hands with)
>FDR, Truman (through a wet car window dimly), Eisenhower, JFK,
>LBJ (on several occasions, during which one inescapably became
>aware of the enormity of his "presence"), Ford, Reagan and both
>Bushs, the elder to sit next to and talk with during an extended
>lunch and speechifyin' long before he became President, count as
>memorable moments (especially in a land of far more than 200
>million).
>
>Certainly, the mire of politics inevitably muddies the traveling
>leader's hem, but both history and an even better judge, popular
>literature, provide all the evidence needed to support the
>contention that heads of state (in the case of the US) have an
>obligation no less than that of a hereditary sovereign to
>visibly and demonstrably appear in environments which convey the
>iamgery of leadership.
>
>While Mr Churchill may have been one to overplay that sort of
>card, and Ms. Thatcher looked a bit out of place in the Falkands
>(or for that matter, just like my elementary school principal,
>when I saw her on TV on the Front bench), Le Gran Charles
>carefully cultivated (out of absolute necessity for without the
>Army he was without a base) the austere image, unadorned kepi,
>decorationless military tunic, and wore it in public and on the
>parade grounds of damn near every unit in the French forces.
>
>The "working edge" of every military force since before Xenophon
>is young, impressionable, politically naive, and substantially
>swayed by the trappings of leadership.

Talking to many of my fathers' generation who served in WW2 and Korea,
they seemed pretty cynical about their experiences, and if anything
despised the trappings of leadership. But it's possible that the
cynicism was acquired later, when they returned to the UK and found that
those who had stayed at home had done much better for themselves.

But I have this strong feeling that, although most of them say that it
was all a load of ********, if they had their time again most of them
would still do it all over again.

>I'm afraid that your
>perspective is all too cynically civilian, and that while
>Thatcher's trip to the South Atlantic or Bush on a CV or
>certainly political photo-ops, there equal significance is to
>stimulate among the troops the same sort of magic which the Bard
>provided for the Harry, esprit d'corps.

An interesting angle, and one which I hadn't considered, nor discussed
with my various friends and acquaintances in the armed forces. (Most of
them ex armed forces these days. None of us are getting any younger.)

I'd suspect that this is even more important in a conflict which has
limited support at home. It would pretty demoralising to feel that even
the political leaders who had put your neck on the block were distancing
themselves.

Am I correct in thinking that the president of the US is also the
commander in chief of the armed forces? If so, maybe this adds some
further nuance to presidential visits to the troops?
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

TMOliver

July 12th 03, 03:18 PM

Simon Elliott > iterated.....

>
> Am I correct in thinking that the president of the US is
> also the commander in chief of the armed forces? If so,
> maybe this adds some further nuance to presidential visits
> to the troops?

.....and there you have one of the less well recognized
differences between the US and UK "systems". Not only is POTUS
CinC (and indirectly able to exercise command, even occasionally
tactical command, not necessarily a good thing), but he/she's
also controls the purse strings and as in the case of your
sovereign occupies a more spirtual position, "Colonel of the
Regiment" in a tradional sense.

FDR had been Ass't Secretary of the Navy (and because of his
successor's rare public apperarance, in essence the service's
visible spokesperson). JFK and Bush41's naval years provided
them particular cachet with that service (while as a submariner,
Carter - already suspect - had belonged to a uniquely suspect
community in the eyes of many naval officers). Can you imagine
how "The General" was treated by the Army throughout his
presidency and twilight years? Rumsfield is a former Navy
carrier aviator. Even Reagan whose closest brushes with combat
were in front of the lenses of training films, had this mutual
love affair with the military.

Nixon, on the other hand, an (according to the records)
absolutely superior naval officer, had little or no rapport with
the forces. I suspect that it was because he was a "Porkchop",
an officer in the Navy's Supply Corps, just as Paymasters and
Mess caterers were regraded in your own country's forces during
WWII.

Even Bush43's brief pilotage stint in the Texas Air National
Guard raises his relationship with the military. After all,
ALincoln was a militia volunteer in the Blackhawk War...

Asst't Navy Sec. T. R. Roosevelt "made" himself a military
career, while among the least military of US Presidents,
Jefferson could always cite having served (and well if not
always effectively) in the Revolution.

.....But then, I must admit that having Bob Hope and an almost
juvenile Ann Margaret come aboard for a Christmas show in Naples
Bay was better'n a presidential visit...

TMO

Thank God, we've never had a Marine....