Air Force One

"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)

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

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

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)

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.

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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.