Air Force One

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/

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

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" 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.
..

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