Air Force One

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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/...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...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."

"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)

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.

"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

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