official, new AF 1 selected.

[West Coast]

No great shock to anyone I imagine.

Pentagon picks new Air Force One plane - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/28/politics/boeing-air-force-one-fleet/index.html)

[Martin the Martian]

Move along, nothing to see here, I guess.

[Pontius Navigator]

Wonder if Airbus would like to offer an A380 for a similar role in the EU.

[glad rag]

""NEW"


ROFL...

[MPN11]

A380 far too big for many airports. POTUS wouldn't be able to drop in for a campaigning visit [sorry, meaningful discussions] using one of them.

Carry on, Boeing ... you know it makes some sense. The fleet of other aircraft that have to accompany Barry are built by you as well, aren't they?

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, not POTUS but POTEU or UEDuP or some such. :)

[MPN11]

Haha .. POTEU will deffo have an A360 for the combination of range and flexibility. And demand an upper deck for the comms crew :cool:

I wonder who flies TB around these days? Does he succumb to commercial, or has some oily oerson lent him a large private jet? Or does he just sit at home(s) and 'work' by Skype?

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, the latter.

He uses a Bombadier.

Former prime minister Tony gets a £30m Blair Force One - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/10341587/Former-prime-minister-Tony-gets-a-30m-Blair-Force-One.html)

The advantage of using a little jet is privacy. He can say there is no capacity for journalists from the gutter press such the Times, Telegraph, Garudian etc.

[West Coast]

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/29/air-force-picks-b747-8/

Artist's rendition of what it may look like. It's a big bastard...

[Turbine D]

Wonder if Airbus would like to offer an A380 for a similar role in the EU.

They probably would if the EU became the "Leader of The Free World" :cool:

[Big Pistons Forever]

Airbus declined to bid becausea condition of the contract was the aircraft had to be built in the USA

[Avionker]

""NEW"


ROFL...

Gladrag, what exactly is amusing about that?

[Pontius Navigator]

Turbine D, aren't we?

We certainly didn't vote for your leader.

Define Free World?

[Heathrow Harry]

"Gladrag, what exactly is amusing about that?"

well in 40 years it will probably be still in service and attracting as many plane spotters as politician spotters as you don't see many 85 year old designs still in front line use (excepting, as always, the DC-3)

Bit the same as if Mrs Merkel turned up in a Ju-52/3m.............

quaint but not exactly cutting edge image

[Martin the Martian]

Airbus would not have bid even if it wasn't required to be built in the US. Who remembers the VH-71 and the KC-45? I'm sure they do.

[KenV]

HH...you don't see many 85 year old designs still in front line use...


HMMMMM. The B-52 is very much still in "front line use" and it's first flight was way back in 1952 and was (loosely) based on a 1946 design. The NEWEST B-52 was built back in 1962. The BUFF will still be flying well into the middle of this century. It's already a third generation bomber (3rd generation in that 3 generations of pilots have flown the same tail number aircraft.) and will likely be a fifth or sixth generation bomber before it is finally retired.

As for the 747-8 not providing a "cutting edge image", name ANY airliner that would provide a more "cutting edge image".

[Pontius Navigator]

As for the 747-8 not providing a "cutting edge image", name ANY airliner that would provide a more "cutting edge image".

787?

Flew in one, loved it.

[KenV]

787?


1. Too small & not enough engines. USAF demands 4 engines.

2. 95%+ of people would not know the difference between a 787 and any other widebody twin-jet.

And separately, the 747-8 has new wings, engines, avionics, flight controls, and lots more. The only thing not new and "cutting edge" is the familiar (and arguably iconic) humped shape of the fuselage. While most airliners all look alike, the 747 is immediately recognizable (OK, the DC-10/MD-11's shape is also kind of unique and easy to recognize.)

[salad-dodger]

KenV, you said (your bold):
name ANY airliner that would provide a more "cutting edge image
PN said 787. I would have added A350 to that too.

S-D

[chopper2004]

Best of luck, then...point of entry is 4/5 years before HMX-1 fully equipped with the VH-92?

Here is an excellent documentary on AF1 by National Geographic, best part is Bush Jnr#s Thanksgiving secret mission into Baghdad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdqIvFOKyGY

[5aday]

I did over 7khours in the 747 classic and the majority in the -400. (- not including time in the bunk). The best large aeroplane I was ever involved with and everyone I know involved with the 747-8 say it far better than the -400.
If its not Boeing then ............

[Heathrow Harry]

Agreed - but then a DC-3 is a similar classic -

the B-52's are not used to land the president in front of the worlds press - it will look VERY old - they may well be the last two flying

Don't understand the 4 engine argument any more

and the maintenance costs will be ..... high

As it has to be FlyAmerica I'd have thought a 777 was a good bet - with newer, miniaturised electronics cp a 747 and they'll be building those for quite a while so you can go for an upgrade later.

[Turbine D]

Original quote by Pontius Navigator:
Turbine D, aren't we?

We certainly didn't vote for your leader.

Define Free World?
Free World today are democracies, although there are some family run and dictator lead countries thrown into the mix.

There are two ways to look at "Leader of the Free World":
A. The leading democratic superpower
B. An individual "leader" of the superpower
As Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go on a regular basis, I tend to look at it from the democratic superpower viewpoint.

So to be the leading democratic superpower, it takes significant resources, money, defensive and offensive weaponry and a large standing military force.

So, at the moment we, in the U.S., are going to spend 22% of our total Federal budget on Defense spending for fiscal year 2015. That translates into $840 Billion that would roughly equal £559 Billion. It does take a lot of money to keep those 10 aircraft carriers circulating, those 10,000 plus fixed wing aircraft flying, not counting the helicopters or drones along with the U.S. troops stationed in "hot-spots" around the world, including 28,500 in Korea alone. Isn't the total defense spending in the UK about £45.5 Billion for 2015?

[Heathrow Harry]

"leader" - as in every small country politician is willing to commit murder to be photographed with you... (see T Bliar, G Brown, E Milliband, Dave......)

[Pontius Navigator]

TD and HH, I was waiting for the bite. :)

Democratic is another flexible word.

Deutsches Democratic Republic being one.

The I can think of many allies of the USA where democratic is probably a flogging offense alongside adultery or driving a car.

Then there are other democracies who would consider themselves free but in no way beholden to the US of A.

Leading, most powerful and arguably only superpower is true, but with the might to impose its will on any other power, by definition, means no other power is free.

I am only arguing, from an intellectual point of view, on the use of the words rather than the real politik.

[Una Due Tfc]

It could even be argued that the USA isn't even a true democracy, seeing as the person who gets the most votes regularly isn't elected president.

The U.K. first passed the post system is similarly flawed

[West Coast]

I was wondering how long the likes of HH would take to turn this into a US bashing thread.

Not long.

[Una Due Tfc]

Apologies, that's not the direction I was trying to take things. No offence intended.

Back on topic. An article I read in the spectators balcony forum states that 3 aircraft will be purchased? Surely a mistake? The CNN article linked by the OP states 2

[Laarbruch72]

(OK, the DC-10/MD-11's shape is also kind of unique and easy to recognize.)

Not really. Most of the public will have a hard time telling that apart from a TriStar. You're not doing your "unique looking" argument a lot of favours with that point.

[Turbine D]

Original post by Una Due Tfc: It could even be argued that the USA isn't even a true democracy, seeing as the person who gets the most votes regularly isn't elected president.


Hmm, there have been 55 U.S. Presidential elections since the beginning of the country. Only 4 Presidents to be elected had less than the majority of votes cast. Three of those elections occurred in the 1800s. Only the 2000 election involving G.W. Bush and A. Gore is a recent example of a loser receiving more popular votes than a winner. So in summation, we've come a long way baby!:ok:

[BEagle]

What's the big deal? It will be much easier to install the various bells and whistles the spooks need to include in Air Force One if the aircraft is an American product.

The VH-71 saga is clear evidence of that.

747-8 seems the obvious solution.

I guess it'll even have windows and decent seats, unlike the rendition-class interior of the KC-46A.

[Avionker]

What's the big deal? It will be much easier to install the various bells and whistles the spooks need to include in Air Force One if the aircraft is an American product.

How do you work that out? I can't see how installing bespoke equipment would be any different, regardless of who manufactured the airframe. It seems to me that the requirement that it be an american manufactured airframe is purely a political one.

[Heathrow Harry]

"I was wondering how long the likes of HH would take to turn this into a US bashing thread.

Not long."

the trouble with Americans is their lack of a sense of irony - it was the "small country politicians" I was taking a pot shot at. They can only think of a photo-opportunity with the Pres. and how well it plays back home. God knows what the President thinks about it but I'm sure a consummate politican he recognises the need in others.........

POTUS IS the leader of the "Free World" - a hackneyed but useful term - and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot

[Heathrow Harry]

"It seems to me that the requirement that it be an american manufactured airframe is purely a political one."

Normally I don't like the of "Buy American" or "Buy British" but in the case of your Head of State it probably is best if they use the best homegrown kit as long as it is approximately competitive

As Mr Boeing employs thousands of Americans it would be really weird to see the President get off an Airbus........................ Airbus would run the pictures non-stop

[BEagle]

Avionker, not unreasonably the US is unwilling to disclose much information about the 'special equipment' needed for Air Force One's mission even to the airframe OEM.

If you look at the problems that caused to the VH-71 programme, it will probably become clearer.

[Avionker]

Avionker, not unreasonably the US is unwilling to disclose much information about the 'special equipment' needed for Air Force One's mission even to the airframe OEM.

And what information would the OEM require? They certainly wouldn't need to know any specifics. Perhaps the approximate weight of components when approving structural changes, for example equipment racks installation, antenna mounting provisions, countermeasure mounting etc. Electrically , all the OEM needs to know is power draw on each bus, and perhaps provisions for load shedding. Also the aircraft are on the military register I believe, so the FAA type approval is not an issue is it?

As I understand it the main problem with the the VH-71 was the continuous moving of the goal posts, adding more and more to the requirement.

[West Coast]

the trouble with Americans is their lack of a sense of irony

The problem with you Harry is you never pass up a chance to bloviate about your hatred of the US. You don't need to scream it from the top of every mountain, we get it.

Back to the thread.

[Heathrow Harry]

West Coast - I have a great admiration and liking for the USA and lived there for many years - I have family and many, many friends states side - I even still pay (some ) taxes there :(

I wouldn't say I supported all US policies but then who in the USA does?

I'd like to see some examples of this "hatred" you quote TBH

I really don't think suggesting there are decent alternatives to an old design really puts me in front of the UnAmerican Activities Committee ....... :ok:

[West Coast]

Wind it down harry, go back to the thread and contribute or ask questions about AF1. Theres threads in JB if you have issues with the occupant of the plane.

[Heathrow Harry]

"according to The Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-picks-boeing-747-8-as-new-presidential-aircraft-1422476986), the U.S. Air Force has set aside $1.65 billion between 2015 and 2019 for two replacement jets."

Base price for a 747-8 is in the $350-$375mm range - but they have to design, fit and certify a lot of extra kit . Air-to-air refueling is probably the most obvious but all the electronics probably have to be hardened and all the comms gear will cost an arm and a leg.

the current VC-25 is quoted at a unit cost of $325 million cp the commercial cost of around $ 80mm per commercial aircraft so the extra cost look as if it is in proportion

[Avionker]

I really don't think suggesting there are decent alternatives to an old design really puts me in front of the UnAmerican Activities Committee .......

The 747-8 is hardly an old design though is it? New engines, new wing, new flight control system, lengthened fuselage etc. And that is in comparison to the 747-400, which in itself was a huge modernization of the 747 Classic (100,200,300, SP).

[tdracer]

the current VC-25 is quoted at a unit cost of $325 million cp the commercial cost of around $ 80mm per commercial aircraft so the extra cost look as if it is in proportion


HH, the $325 million is what the government paid, the actual Boeing cost was more like $500 million each (I was pretty deeply involved, including a couple weeks of 18 hr. days). Now much of the overrun was due to some super dumbass management, but even when they announced the contract it was pretty well understood that best case would be a 'break even' business case. It takes a lot of engineering development to put things like dual APUs, aerial refueling, and defensive countermeasures on a commercial airplane.


And what information would the OEM require? They certainly wouldn't need to know any specifics.
Avionker, it's not always that simple. I was involved on the (cancelled) E-10 program. That big, powerful radar they wanted to mount would have been a direct line-of-sight to one engine's FADEC. So I started getting calls that went something like this:
Caller: How much HIRF can the FADEC handle? (HIRF - High Intensity Radiated Fields)
Me: We tested to 200 volts/meter continuous wave across the frequency range.
Caller: But what can it take?
Me: We tested to 200 volts/meter and it passed, we didn't test to failure. What's the threat?
Caller: Can't tell you the threat - that's classified. What threat can you take? :mad:


The worst part was I had some variation of that conversation (with different callers) about a dozen times :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

One could almost think HH bashing is derigour when my red cloak has been totally ignored. :)

[salad-dodger]

One could almost think HH bashing is derigour when my red cloak has been totally ignored.
WTF are you on about and what is derigour?

S-D

[Heathrow Harry]

de ri·gueur

adjective \də-(ˌ)rē-ˈgər\ : necessary if you want to be fashionable, popular, socially acceptable, etc.


Pontius is all of the above......................... a true SAPEUR............



I think he's disappointed that no-one rose (very much ) to the post


"Leading, most powerful and arguably only superpower is true, but with the might to impose its will on any other power, by definition, means no other power is free."

PS getting priority in the "Hate" stakes is the price of fame...........................

[Heathrow Harry]

TD RACER - thanks I was using the published figures (obviously)

I presume that quite a bit of the refueling probe design can be carried over from the VC-25 but then all the add-ons made on the VC-25 over their 30 year lives will all be lumped together in one big bill for the new AF1

I presume Mr B would give the USAF a decent deal on this one - the PR is worth a lot and they are getting rid of two airframes that otherwise will go to scrap or freighters

[Donkey497]

It is no real surprise that a Boeing airliner has been chosen. The two key parts of the initial requirement that the aircraft have four engines and be assembled in the USA. Add to this a (I understand) requirement that the design offered have a pre-proven safe service history and the field is very limited.


The first part brings the field down to three types: Airbus A340, Boeing 747 & Airbus A380.


The second requirement eliminates the two Airbus types. It is simply impractical to set up a production facility several time zones away from the existing production facilities just to produce two, or at most three aircraft (see earlier posts).


What is really surprising to me, is that the US put this out to a pointless form of competitive tendering, rather than just take the "National Security - driven requirement" and just specify a 747, end of story.


But again, I don't follow the logic of needing 'four engines, more maintenance, more fuel burn & statistically a greater chance that an engine will drop out, due to the fact that there are more of them. The routes and locations flown by AF1 are well within ETOPS, even over nominally unfriendly territory.


The sceptic in me wonders if there is something missing in the [Boeing] twin airframes that is there in the 747 that drives the four engine requirement. The Airbus designs being irrelevant here. My suspicion is that it may be something related to the air to air refuelling capability. Perhaps the fuel management systems are older & simpler on the 747 & hence more robust for upset conditions than more evolved & sensitive systems in the twins. Pure speculation on my part.

[Turbine D]

This is a pretty good video on Air Force One and its mission. There are smaller aircraft that are used, mainly domestically for smaller airports such as Boeing 757s and business jet type aircraft.

I can guarantee that special attention is paid to every aspect of these aircraft including all the parts for the engines. Enjoy the presentation below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd-yjm6uTYc

[GreenKnight121]

But again, I don't follow the logic of needing 'four engines, more maintenance, more fuel burn & statistically a greater chance that an engine will drop out, due to the fact that there are more of them. The routes and locations flown by AF1 are well within ETOPS, even over nominally unfriendly territory.


The sceptic in me wonders if there is something missing in the [Boeing] twin airframes that is there in the 747 that drives the four engine requirement. The Airbus designs being irrelevant here. My suspicion is that it may be something related to the air to air refuelling capability. Perhaps the fuel management systems are older & simpler on the 747 & hence more robust for upset conditions than more evolved & sensitive systems in the twins. Pure speculation on my part.

How about "2 engines are fine - unless one has just been taken out by a manpad/ground fire in whatever foreign airport (or even US airport) we happen to be landing at/taking off from"? How is a twin's "1 engine out" take-off performance?

That IS a specific item in the requirements - to continue to fly (even early in take-off) if one engine is disabled for any reason.

[Donkey497]

From what I can pick up from various discussions here & elsewhere the 777 is somewhat unchallenged losing an engine above V1. Below V1 it's a roll to a stop under normal circumstances. However, I would judge that from what is said in other threads that it would be possible to proceed to take off on only 1 engine.


BUT, in reality, if someone has just shot off one of your engines, be it 1 out of four or one out of two, your are very likely to have other more serious problems. & the safety of the Pres is probably best served by staying on the ground, evacuating & seeking cover from the rearguard security detachment.


....Just sayin'

[tdracer]

Back during the VC-25 development, I was in some real entertaining meetings with the USAF. Lots of questions about taking off with various systems failed. Basically, they were worried about the ability to get the President out of Dodge in a hurry, even if they had a broken airplane.
While I doubt you'd ever get them to admit this - I do think they want the to ability to depart even if they have a failed engine. The 747 has AFM procedures for a 3 engine ferry - with aerial refueling they could take off light, then aerial refuel and fly to pretty much anywhere they wanted. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to try that with a 777.

HH - I certainly hope we still have the engineering for some of the special mods from the VC-25 that would be applicable to a new 747-8 based AF1, although it wouldn't surprise me if much of it's been lost to the sands of time (VC-25 also has a really trick airstairs setup that deploys out of the cargo deck, with stairs up to the main deck).

[Heathrow Harry]

This weeks "Flight" says they are buying THREE.............

or rather "up to three"

[West Coast]

The USAF has other 747s on the roster besides those assigned for the President. Those are older -200s, perhaps they are being replaced as well.

Or maybe Michelle just wants her own ride.

[Heathrow Harry]

Michele will be long gone before these are delivered -

most likely the extra one is for Bill Clinton.................. :}:}

[West Coast]

True, unless Michelle has plans for her post first lady days.

[KenV]

PN said 787. I would have added A350 to that too.

If you're talking "image", how many people can really differentiate between a 787 and A350? Of for that matter 777, 787, A300, A330, and A350? Wide body twins all look pretty much alike. And seeing as this airplane is going to serve for 30+ years, how is ANY aircraft going to look "cutting edge" for 30+ years? Also consider that the current Air Force One is a 747-200. USAF could have opted for a -300 to be more "cutting edge", but that was not what they did.

It is my opinion that the whole notion of a "cutting edge image" is a red herring not at all applicable to the mission of this aircraft.

[KenV]

I was involved in the last AF1 proposal on the losing side: Douglas with the DC-10.

Without going into sensitive technical details, single engine out performance was a BIG deal. The DC-10 could barely, sort of meet the requirements. The 747 met them handily.

Electric power generation requirements were immense and were a huge deal to USAF. Two APUs were required. Providing the required power in flight with an engine out was problematic for the DC-10. Not so the 747. There were other issues.

Douglas had plans to meet all the requirements, but early on it was clear that USAF wanted a four engine jet. Douglas' role was to keep Boeing focussed while looking over their shoulder and the Douglas strategy became to force Boeing to underbid the contract to win it. It worked. Boeing took a financial bath on the last Air Force One project and tied up a bunch of their best engineers for years to solve all the issues.

And as a reminder, the DC-10 had three engines. A twin could not hope to meet those long ago requirements. And the new requirements are MUCH more challenging.

And as an aside, the 747-8 uses GenX engines, same as the 787. These engines and their accessory gear drive have the ability to drive two 250KVA generators EACH. (That is not what is installed on the 747-8, but could be.) With four engines and eight generators, that means 2 gigawatts of installed power, NOT including the APUs (yes, two APUs are required, each also with BIG generators.). I'll leave it up to the reader to conjecture on what all this power is for, but, yes, all that power is needed to power some of the stuff that will be installed on the new Air Force Ones.

As a reminder, the VH-71 was WAY bigger than the VH-3 it was to replace. Yet it was not big enough to handle all the stuff USAF wanted to include. The same with the new Air Force One. The 747-8 is bigger and more powerful than the 747-200 it is replacing, but meeting all the requirements with that bigger airplane will be challenging. Meeting those requirements with a twin cannot be done. It has NOTHING to do with ETOPS or other engine reliability considerations.

[tdracer]

And as an aside, the 747-8 uses GenX engines, same as the 787. These engines and their accessory gear drive have the ability to drive two 250KVA generators EACH. (That is not what is installed on the 747-8, but could be.) With four engines and eight generators, that means 2 gigawatts of installed power, NOT including the APUs (yes, two APUs are required, each also with BIG generators.). I'll leave it up to the reader to conjecture on what all this power is for, but, yes, all that power is needed to power some of the stuff that will be installed on the new Air Force Ones.KenV, the GEnx engine on the 747-8 is not the same as the GEnx on the 787. The GEnx-2B on the 747 has a ~7" smaller fan, one less LP stage on each end, an aircraft bleed system, and naturally a different gearbox without two generators, relative to the GEnx-1B on the 787. So it would be highly impractical to install the 787 engine on the new AF1. Now, it may be possible to install the -1B gearbox on the -2B, but that would be a major engineering effort (oil cooling would be a big problem, and I'm sure it would drive major engine nacelle changes).
I think what may be more likely if they need lots of electricity would be to install 120 KVA IDGs (the 747-8 currently has 96 KVA IDGs which appears to have been a penny wise/pound foolish decision by management very early in the 747-8 program).

[salad-dodger]

It is my opinion that the whole notion of a "cutting edge image" is a red herring not at all applicable to the mission of this aircraft.
Seems to me it was you who made a big deal over cutting edge. You asked a question, got a couple of answers. You didn't like those though, didn't fit with your thinking.

If cutting edge image isn't too important then I would imagine a C17 would be ideal.

S-D

[KenV]

Seems to me it was you who made a big deal over cutting edge. You asked a question, got a couple of answers. You didn't like those though, didn't fit with your thinking


Ummmm, no.. Someone else suggested using a 747 would be "quaint" and not at all "cutting edge". I challanged that notion.

If cutting edge image isn't too important then I would imagine a C-17 would be ideal.
A C-17 could not begin to meet all the requirements. A C-17 is about the size of a 767 externally, and a 4-engine 767 simply could not meet the requirements.

Although technically, a few C-17s have ALREADY been Air Force One. Air Force One is the call sign of ANY airplane with POTUS aboard, and Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all flown on C-17s.

[GreenKnight121]

Air Force One is the call sign of ANY airplane with POTUS aboard, and Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all flown on C-17s.

Not quite - AF1 is only for USAF aircraft.

When POTUS is aboard one of the VH-3Ds or VH-60Ns, he is aboard "Marine One" - and when Bush43 was aboard that USN S-3B Viking on 1 May 2003 flying to CVN-72 to give the "Mission Accomplished" speech, he was aboard "Navy One"!

If he was in a US Army Chinook it would be "Army One".

[Heathrow Harry]

the argument over "cutting edge" is odd- you can only fit what gear is available and keep upgrading it - of course you can argue that a newer design would be more efficient and cost less over the life of service

My comment about "quaint" was nothing to do with efficient but with appearances - like it or not AF1 is part of the Presidential "image" and in 30-50 years time those 747's are going to look very old

Rather as if the presidential limo was still a 1950's Cadillac Eldorado - beautiful - yes, stil running yes - but up to date image noooooooooooooooo

[Willard Whyte]

The 747 still looks unique though, and is likely to continue to do so for decades. It is, quite simply, an iconic design. It has been around for ages and in no way looks dated.

Remember that the 747 first enterd use as Air Force One in 1990, some 20-odd years after it entered passenger service. Anything 'cutting edge' will likely have to see several years of trouble-free operation until adopted as AF1. The Boeing 707 served as an AF1 from '62 to '01, hardly cutting edge, or indeed uniquely styled - though perhaps iconic, for its latter years. I don't look at a 787 or A380 and think cutting edge either - both look entirely conventional in fact. Sure, the A380 is big and the 787 has bendy wings, but neither makes them cutting edge visually - and I don't think the general public of any nation will give two hoots about advanced internal design or anything else.

There are more advanced aerodynamic proposals in (general) development - I'm not referring to enlarged/reduced blueprints of tubes with wings here. Anything 'cutting edge' will likely have to see several years of trouble-free operation until adopted as AF1. And it isn't really that aerodynamics have advanced, it's that material technology has, thus making them viable to build.

Boeing's 'Yellowstone (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/civil-boeing-yellowstone.htm)' is divided in to three projects. Y3 is supposed to lead to a 747 and 777-300 replacement. Might see one of these as AF1 sometime (these are all NASA concepts, I think) probably over 50 years away though. I dare say tdracer has access to a great deal more information.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VlMnuavA--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/19dgs1udix3fjpng.png

http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/85351/lockheed-nasa-plane_large.jpg

http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/85351/boeing-nasa-plane_large.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/430x323/public/nasa_hwb_full.jpg?itok=5KTVzsow

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/946xvariable_height/public/images/747640main_N_Plus_2_2012_rendr_J_full.jpg?itok=J1sBqKrO

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/946xvariable_height/public/images/453787main_lm_supers_upper_engine_original_full.jpg?itok=3SG M8oX1

[Heathrow Harry]

I really like the look of pic #3 Willard but how the hell you get the passengers on and off at LHR or JFK is another question...................

maybe a hatch in the top or bottom of the blended body you can insert a couple of escalators in..................

[salad-dodger]

Perhaps it could be like Thunderbird 2 and carry the passengers in a separate pod.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/016/1/e/1e2a8974e667e98838a92f12a4e8fedc-d1moxql.jpg

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2010/227/a/c/Thunderbird_2_by_Librarian_bot.jpg

Still cutting edge after all these years!

KenV will probably be along shortly to explain that he worked on a proposal for this and why it's not suitable :}

S-D

[Ascoteer]

Don't understand what all the fuss is about, David Cameron has a new 4-engine luxurious business jet?

http://globalaviationresource.com/v2/wp-content/gallery/bae-146-cc-mk2/img_3338_zps29f589b5.jpg

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bae-146-qc-raf-in-mali.jpg