Air Force Two....

N801BH

N801BH

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
17,188
Location
Jackson Hole Wy
Display Name
Display name:
FBH
Can any POA'ers out there in AZ confirm this :dunno:... I poached the posting off another aviation site...

Well, Jumpin Joe Biden came here to Flagstaff today to go on to Sedona. Flew in in his 757, well perhaps he didn't do the flying, maybe he could have done better. Well the 757 landed long, about A5 taxiway went into max reverse and FODed the engines. Now a whole crowd of Air Force is coming in in C130's, C17's to bring engines, dollys, tooling a new pilot and a bunch of maintenance crews to swap the engines so Joe can get home on Sunday. Perhaps the VIP transport boys need to brush up on short high altitude runways. Apparently they are hiring, kind of went two short today
 
Can't confirm it but there is a TFR in that area. 3 TFRs actually.
 
The resident 75 pilot says touchdown at 7k MSL with 4400 remaining would indeed be an interesting day, FWIW.
 
He is in AZ, the TFR near KSEZ is him.

naryde4e.jpg


And it looks like he is going up the road tomorrow.

epa6ydu8.jpg
 
Last edited:
It was like a ghost town at KSEZ, today, except for a handful of nice jets and limos. 'Saved someone from having a very Bad Saturday... they were tooling around down low around Sedona and announced they were going to do a few loops around Oak Creek. They were just seconds from breaking the TFR when I asked if they knew about the TFR. NO. They peeled off quickly with a big "Thanks".
'Didn't see/hear any blackhawks or jets while we sat on the patio for breakfast.
 
First off, its a 5100' runway at 4700 feet. So post 3 is wrong.

Next- any 757 pilots here- is take off even possible?

7100' density altitude right now. 5100' runway . . . whats the T/O distance?
 
comanchepilot said:
First off, its a 5100' runway at 4700 feet. So post 3 is wrong.

Next- any 757 pilots here- is take off even possible?

7100' density altitude right now. 5100' runway . . . whats the T/O distance?
Click to expand...

Living in Jackson Hole for all the years VP Cheney was here and watching just about every one of his arrivals and departures, and I bet that was 50+.... The crew that flew it back then were professional, polite and well trained..... JAC is at 6420 MSL... DA in the summer can get to 10,000 easily... Not once that I know of did they cancel a trip because of DA and every landing was treated like a carrier. They were so good they could get the 757 stopped in half the JAC's 6200' length...

Takeoffs were even more impressive as they would climb like a home sick angel in case a nut job has a shoulder SAM aimed at it... My guess is they were off the ground in 2700 - 3200 feet... And they were carrying enough fuel to take the VP back to DC. The crew flying the AZ leg were idiots of the first order... IMHO..:yes:
 
Last edited:
Flagstaff has 8800ft of runway, sounds like plenty even for a 57.
 
Last edited:
Mike I said:
757s do just fine...

Click to expand...

Really? The airport in the video is at 171 feet MSL. Flagstaff is at 7000 and change. And from the looks of the video the temp is a little lower than Flagstaff as well. The airshow A/C was doubtless empty and light on fuel. Apples and Oranges.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Really? The airport in the video is at 171 feet MSL. Flagstaff is at 7000 and change. And from the looks of the video the temp is a little lower than Flagstaff as well. The airshow A/C was doubtless empty and light on fuel. Apples and Oranges.
Click to expand...

The difference isn't that significant.

The short final speed of a 757 at max landing weight and in landing configuration is 121kts. So at SSL TAS is 121kts, if we bring it up to 7K (and standard temp = 1C) the TAS becomes 134kts. Now I'll increase the temp to 21C (current temp) and TAS becomes 139kts.
The difference in speed is only 18kts, it's is only about a 15% increase in TAS.
 
MachFly said:
The difference isn't that significant.

The short final speed of a 757 at max landing weight and in landing configuration is 121kts. So at SSL TAS is 121kts, if we bring it up to 7K (and standard temp = 1C) the TAS becomes 134kts. Now I'll increase the temp to 21C (current temp) and TAS becomes 139kts.
The difference in speed is only 18kts, it's is only about a 15% increase in TAS.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A lot of jets just have so much excess thrust available on takeoff (when compared to the T/W of most other aircraft) that high DA doesn't affect takeoff that much....at least until you are talking about a high speed abort or losing an engine or whatnot. Landing can be a different scenario if you don't have awesome brakes to match the awesome engines that got you aloft.
 
MachFly said:
The difference isn't that significant.

The short final speed of a 757 at max landing weight and in landing configuration is 121kts. So at SSL TAS is 121kts, if we bring it up to 7K (and standard temp = 1C) the TAS becomes 134kts. Now I'll increase the temp to 21C (current temp) and TAS becomes 139kts.
The difference in speed is only 18kts, it's is only about a 15% increase in TAS.
Click to expand...

The percentage change in ground speed yields approximately twice that percentage change in landing distance.

Similarly, the total energy required to stop a plane is increased, which is why the distinguished gentleman in the post right above me spends so much time in the landing configuration at exactly 8.1 AOA (Rectum Non Bustus and all that).
 
MachFly said:
The difference in speed is only 18kts, it's is only about a 15% increase in TAS.
Click to expand...

And how much of an increase in momentum and kinetic energy[?] . . . 15% increase in speed means about a 32% increase in energy . . . which is a lot. That will increase stopping distance by 50% or so.

I see I made a mistake in location - I suppose the question becomes can a 757 carry enough fuel for a military SAM mission like bringing the VP back to DC given that elevation . . . .

And that, I'll leave to the 757/767 common rated folks out there -
 
CONFIRMED.. TV reports in Phoenix confirmed the FOD event. Airplane still setting in Flagstaff.
 
catmandu said:
The percentage change in ground speed yields approximately twice that percentage change in landing distance.

Similarly, the total energy required to stop a plane is increased, which is why the [I think you meant drunken a hole here :)] in the post right above me spends so much time in the landing configuration at exactly 8.1 AOA (Rectum Non Bustus and all that).
Click to expand...

I try to keep paddles happy. If they don't talk, it's a good night. Trim to 3252 or 8.1 in the HUD, depending on which software you like (I'm a 3252 guy)
 
The 757 is probably also severely underweight. Light fuel load, no luggage, and probably only a small press crew.

--Carlos V.
 
Unbeliever said:
The 757 is probably also severely underweight. Light fuel load, no luggage, and probably only a small press crew.

--Carlos V.
Click to expand...

Must be horrible :)

Seriously though, only things I have ever heard about it are that it is a factory hot rod.
 
Silvaire said:
You make that call based on what?
Click to expand...

Based on a crew of "well trained" pilots who flew a perfectly good airplane into an airport. landed long and used excess reversers to get it slowed down and in the process injested FOD into two perfectly good motors...

And you point was...:dunno::dunno::rolleyes:
 
N801BH said:
Based on a crew of "well trained" pilots who flew a perfectly good airplane into an airport. landed long and used excess reversers to get it slowed down and in the process injested FOD into two perfectly good motors...
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

They are now probably flying C-130s hauling garbage out of Diego Garcia.
 
N801BH said:
Based on a crew of "well trained" pilots who flew a perfectly good airplane into an airport. landed long and used excess reversers to get it slowed down and in the process injested FOD into two perfectly good motors...

And you point was...:dunno::dunno::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That you're talking out your ass because you don't know anything about the crew, who they are or what the circumstances were. Your only real beef is that it's Joe Biden riding on AF2.
 
Silvaire said:
That you're talking out your ass because you don't know anything about the crew, who they are or what the circumstances were. Your only real beef is that it's Joe Biden riding on AF2.
Click to expand...


Ha....

I have NO problem with the VP riding on AF2.... I DO have a problem being a tax payer and having the guv spend 10+ million to fix a obvious error on the crews part......:yes:
 
There you go again. For instance, where do you even come up with the $10 million figure? Do you think that when a jet engine suffers FOD they just haul it off to the local land fill? :dunno:
 
Silvaire said:
There you go again. For instance, where do you even come up with the $10 million figure? Do you think that when a jet engine suffers FOD they just haul it off to the local land fill? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I think 10 million is on the LOW side. They brought in 2 new engines that that they FLEW in.
 
anyone have a link to the details in this story? (yes I searched google news)

I'd like to share the story via email with some buddies.
Thanks
 
DavidWhite said:
I think 10 million is on the LOW side. They brought in 2 new engines that that they FLEW in.
Click to expand...

You use the word "think" but I'm not entirely sure there's that much thinking going on. Ben's $10+ million figure? He pulled it right out of the air based on nothing other than a desire rant about Joe Biden's trip to Arizona. same goes for him trashing a flight crew he knows absolutely nothing about.

You guys seem to be "thinking" that Air Force 2 (or any large commercial airliner for that matter) is operated on the premise that if something happens to the engine they have to go out and buy a brand new one to replace it and that when an engine sustains Foreign Object Damage it is thereafter complete junk. Are you aware of how little damage caused by ingestion of an object requires an engine swap? Are you aware of how often this occurs in the real world?

This really is a silly thing to be going on about.
 
I don't know but do you think that since the sequestration, they grounded the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, and the other military demonstration teams, maybe they TDY'd the usual military pilots of AF2 to another squadron, and gave the piloting job to the lowest bidder to save some money.
 
douglas393 said:
I don't know but do you think that since the sequestration, they grounded the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, and the other military demonstration teams, maybe they TDY'd the usual military pilots of AF2 to another squadron, and gave the piloting job to the lowest bidder to save some money.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are serious here, but if you are, absolutely no. Whether you are flying for a demo team, or flying Air Force 2, you still get the same paycheck (actually a bigger one if you are living in the DC metro area where I assume these guys do). Couple that with the cost of transitioning a fighter guy to a multi-crewed heavy jet, and you would be doing anything but saving money. I can't speak for the T-birds, but I know for a fact that the guys on the Blues (several of which were instructors of mine in a past life) only have military flying experience in the T-34 (or T-37 if they went to Vance), the T-2 (if they are more senior), the T-45 and the F/A-18A-F (or I guess maybe the Prowler if there are any of those on the current team). That is it.
 
35 AoA said:
Not sure if you are serious here, but if you are, absolutely no. Whether you are flying for a demo team, or flying Air Force 2, you still get the same paycheck (actually a bigger one if you are living in the DC metro area where I assume these guys do). Couple that with the cost of transitioning a fighter guy to a multi-crewed heavy jet, and you would be doing anything but saving money. I can't speak for the T-birds, but I know for a fact that the guys on the Blues (several of which were instructors of mine in a past life) only have military flying experience in the T-34 (or T-37 if they went to Vance), the T-2 (if they are more senior), the T-45 and the F/A-18A-F (or I guess maybe the Prowler if there are any of those on the current team). That is it.
Click to expand...
No I was not serious...but you never know. Though, in my past life in the USAF, I saw the military spend more money in trying to figure out how to save less money than it cost them to figure out how to save it. I see it in civilian life in my profession, just not on the grand scale the USAF had done it.
 
DavidWhite said:
I think 10 million is on the LOW side. They brought in 2 new engines that that they FLEW in.
Click to expand...

AF2 uses PW2040 engines. List price new is about $9-10 million. Overhaul cost from FOD damage would depend on the damage, maybe around $500,000-$1,000,000 each. United Airlines has the contract to do the maintenance for the engines (or at least they used to, it may have been re-bid).

FEDEX was paying $10 million for used 757s (the entire aircraft) from the airlines a few years ago.
 
douglas393 said:
No I was not serious...but you never know. Though, in my past life in the USAF, I saw the military spend more money in trying to figure out how to save less money than it cost them to figure out how to save it. I see it in civilian life in my profession, just not on the grand scale the USAF had done it.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right there. It is mind boggling at times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top