What is it now, the 25th anniversary of being 1 year from certification?
In all seriousness, it does look like they’ve made some real progress here. And it’s impressive that something that’s been, in all honesty, vaporware, for so long, has managed to keep the lights on and attract continued funding.
This looks like it would make a pretty good UAV engine, being jet fueled and relatively line-maintainable, which I’m sure is where they really hope to make back their investment.
1 reply
The DeltaHawk of today (post ownership change) is worlds different from the previous incarnation that spent two decades trying to develop an engine. This engine will be certified, and it looks like it will be hard to justify a 100LL engine purchase in airframes where it is available when the time comes for overhaul. Great to see a company like this in GA committed to getting it across the finish line. Looking forward to seeing it at OSH in final form, numbers should be impressive.
The engines look “wrong” for some reason, but I can’t put my finger on it. Overall, I prefer this more conservative look.
C’mon–is THIS the biggest issue in the country–the paint job on Air Force 1 aircraft?
Perhaps even worse–the money and the time involved:
These aircraft have already been built, but they are talking 5 years to complete them! That’s longer than it took to ramp up production and win WW II!
Odd that Boeing just delivered the last 747–yet this will be our standard-bearer for the foreseeable future. Given how long it takes to complete these aircraft, perhaps they should be looking for their replacement NOW!
Laying the proposed but rejected red/white/blue paint job on Trump is a cheap shot–read the Air Force link provided in the story.
This “tempest in a teapot” is indicative of just how difficult it is for the government to accomplish ANYTHING today–years of “design”–“finger pointing”–and bickering over two aircraft that are not even in production any more. Perhaps they should be painted white, as in WHITE ELEPHANT!
Just what will the new aircraft accomplish that the existing ones are incapable of performing? With the production line shut down, will these aircraft continue to be able to source new parts?
Perhaps they should be commissioning a study on the obviously defective STAIRS on AF 1–they pose a hazard to the current user of the aircraft–causing repeated falls UPWARD!
“And they wonder why we laugh at them!” (smile)
1 reply
And speaking of “cheap shots”…
I suppose given the position of the USA in the world hierarchy a little fanfare is justifiable. Still, contrast the current operation with how it was done back in the Truman-Eisenhower era, and you have to wonder.
What I do find a little annoying is that the bulk of the presidential use is for political campaigning at taxpayer expense.
1 reply
Perhaps one of the problems with the time and expense to complete the aircraft is that they were already built before being modified. While Trump may have had good intentions, it probably would have been cheaper and faster to “start from scratch”, than to heavily modify an existing airframe. One thing that does rankle me with using a giant plane like this is that they wind up hauling the press corps around with them on every trip. That requires extra seating capacity, plus having to carry the groceries to feed them all. If the press wants to cover whatever event is going on, let them make their own travel arrangements at their expense!
If you ever get the opportunity to tour the Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio, they have a great exhibit of all the Presidential planes used, dating back to the one Roosevelt used to fly to the Yalta conference in WWII. Very interesting to see how they have changed over the years. Since the current 747s are still in use, the last plane in the exhibit is the 707 used to carry JFK’s body back to Washington from Dallas. Its sister ship is at the Reagan library in California,
Exactly! The current admin and many in other government departments including the Pentagon have the automatic knee jerk response to anything associated with Trump, and that response is to oppose no matter the issue.
Quite right You’re, Mr. Gary S.
Given the mission of the VC-25, perhaps 4 engines are preferable to 2, and there is no other (American) 4-engine airplane like the 747. Having flown the 747 since its -100 version, I can tell you that the -8 is nothing like the original, except perhaps in superficial looks. The mission of the VC-25 is generally quite prosaic, carting dignitaries and press around, but when it’s needed (let’s hope it never is) to perform its most demanding missions, as the nerve center of the free world, all that equipment and installation will earn their expensive keep.
There is no more recognizable symbol of the United States that than that aircraft and I, for one, am glad that the historic appearance will remain essentially unchanged, just updated.
New paint design for ‘Next Air Force One’
Published March 10, 2023
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (AFNS) –
President of the United States Joe Biden selected the livery design for the “Next Air Force One,” VC-25B, a design that will closely resemble the livery of the current Air Force One, VC-25A, while also modernizing for the 21st century. (Courtesy rendering)
President of the United States Joe Biden selected the livery design for the “Next Air Force One,” VC-25B, a design that will closely resemble the livery of the current Air Force One, VC-25A, while also modernizing for the 21st century. (Courtesy rendering)
PHOTO DETAILS / DOWNLOAD HI-RESPresident of the United States Joe Biden has selected the livery design for the “Next Air Force One,” VC-25B, a design that will closely resemble the livery of the current Air Force One, VC-25A, while also modernizing for the 21st century.
While accounting for the VC-25B’s larger 747-8i aircraft, the VC-25B livery has three primary differences with the VC-25A’s livery. The light blue on VC-25B is a slightly deeper, more modern tone than VC-25A’s robin’s egg blue. Additionally, the VC-25B engines will use the darker blue from the cockpit area vice the VC-25A’s robin’s egg blue. Finally, there is no polished metal section on the VC-25B because modern commercial aircraft skin alloys don’t allow for it.
A formal contractual decision for a VC-25B livery was not required until this year for Boeing to conduct engineering, certification preparation, and supplier selection activities for the program. The Air Force previously displayed a red, white, and blue livery for the VC-25B because it had been publicly expressed as a preferred livery in 2019. A thermal study later concluded the dark blue in the design would require additional Federal Aviation Administration qualification testing for several commercial components due to the added heat in certain environments.
The VC-25B Program will deliver a new fleet of aircraft to enable POTUS to execute the duties of Head of State, Chief Executive, and Commander in Chief. The aircraft will be uniquely modified to provide the POTUS, staff, and guests with safe and reliable air transportation with the equivalent level of communications capability and security available in the White House.
The VC-25B aircraft will replace the current VC-25A fleet, which faces capability gaps, rising maintenance costs, and parts obsolescence. Modifications to the aircraft will include electrical power upgrades, a mission communication system, a medical facility, an executive interior, a self-defense system, and autonomous ground operations capabilities.
VC-25B deliveries are projected for 2027 for the first aircraft and 2028 for the second aircraft. The Air Force remains postured to keep VC-25A available and mission-ready until delivery of the VC-25B.
You are correct, William. but only one side gets reprimanded; and the other side lectures us about not getting political while getting political.
Non issue.
I know that. Not sure how I got 400 in there. Thanks. I’ll fix.
If Trump gets back in office the airplane can be stripped and repainted.
I think a restored DeHavilland Comet would do for the current administration. Cheap, taxpayer-friendly transportation that is sufficient for the service that the top echelon of our government offers. If we’re to really give them air transportation that was commensurate with the job they do, I would say an old prop-driven Convair like rock stars use to transport their band members and equipment around would work. Waste not, want not!
What’s the fuel savings on the -8 versus the 400?
I once heard 15%.
Since we’re ranting - whoever wrote the press release didn’t know the difference between vice and versus.