Well a few years ago when an Air Force One aircraft flew a few years ago from Brussels to London Stansted Airport prior to a visit by Donald Trump in July 2018 I read that it flew in about half the time it normally takes as it usually takes about 45 minutes but he took about 22 minutes and I was wondering why he came quicker. Is it basically that there are some routes available to military aircraft like that which would not be available to civilian airliners? Also can the plane go any faster than a normal Boeing 747 or would it be around 500 mph or 550 mph at most or around 600 mph at most and actually doesn’t fly any faster or anything different about details of the actual routes available for it to take for this?
I don’t believe so, but the 747 is the fastest airliner currently in service since the Concorde was retired. But on such a short flight the extra speed is probably not going to make a huge difference. I suspect much is the difference is the fact that for commercial flights into congested airspace like London, much of the fight time is actually spent in holding patterns waiting for clearance to land, rather than the actual time it takes to fly directly from A to B. It wouldn’t surprise me if AF1 gets priority and gets to avoid those holding patterns.
Also, where are they getting the “normal” time from? If it’s coming from airlines’ published schedules that time is gate-to-gate time. It includes time for taxiing and some padding to account for minor delays, not just flying time.
It can’t be very much faster, since a plane has to be designed radically differently in every way to be able to go supersonic, and airliners are already most of the way there. If AF1 made better time, especially on a trip that short, it’s probably mostly just that it was given priority for taxiing and landing.
In addition to what was posted above, note that the max speed of a 747 is faster than it’s cruising speed. An airline will almost never operate a 747 anywhere near its max speed because it will burn too much fuel. Fuel economy is not as important to Air Force One as it is to airlines.
Also, in normal airline travel, planes stack up and wait in line to go in and out of the airport. Whenever Air Force One comes into an airport, the entire area is cleared out for both takeoff and landing. The plane doesn’t have to slow down to maintain enough separation between itself and the plane in front of it because there won’t be a plane in front of it.
So in other words, if you were to streamline the whole ATC process and really put the spurs to the plane, you’d get the AF1 flight profile?
More or less, yes.
Disembarking goes a lot faster when Harrison Ford yells “Get off my plane!” and gives you a hard shove.
This is exactly why he flew into Stanstead instead of Heathrow. Stanstead is London’s 3rd busiest airport and has less than half the flights (200k pa) than Heathrow. Closing their single runway for half-an-hour or so while AF1 flies in is far less disruptive than it would be at LHR which runs at 98% of it’s permitted 180k movements a year.
Do other national presidential jets get this same level of red-carpet ATC treatment? If say, the President of Hungary is coming to Washington DC is he also like AF1?
We’d have to ask Stephanie Clifford about that. But she was paid a lot to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so she might not answer.
Brussels to Stansted in 22 minutes seems unlikely. The distance is 170 nautical miles which means an average speed of 465 knots. While that speed is easily achievable at high altitude cruise, it is not possible until above about 18000 feet and the approach and landing is necessarily much slower.
On the other hand, 45 minutes is very slow at an average of only 225 knots.
So apples are being compared to oranges I suspect. The 45 minutes is either block time, including taxi, or it is flight time for a turboprop, or it factors in some holding.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep the political jabs (and lame-ass jokes) out of GQ. No warning issued, but you should know better.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It’s true that it was the fastest airliner other than Concorde when Concorde was still in service, but it’s not the fastest airliner today. The 787, 777 and Airbus A380 all have higher top speeds and cruising speeds.
Question, not snark: higher top speed doesn’t make them faster. Do they have faster climb rate/ landing speed / short haul speed ?
Surprised they don’t have him fly into an RAF base - is there not one convenient to London (like Andrews is to Washington)? I’d think the disruption would be less and security would be easier.
The 777 and 787 certainly do.
Stanstead is used as the “hijack containment” airport near London, so there’s plenty of spare apron space away from prying eyes etc.
In Minneapolis, AF1 lands on a runway shared between the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport and the adjacent Joint Air Reserve Station Base. But AF1 is then moved to the air base hangers, and serviced there. Meanwhile the main civilian airport resumes functioning until the time when AF1 is prepped to depart.
Meanwhile the President rides in a motorcade, usually to downtown, going by the main highway a few blocks from my house. And the Secret Service closes down that highway to other traffic, and closes most of the cross streets, and closes other highways nearby – it takes hours for normal traffic to resume moving!
I don’t think so.
The B747-400 Mmo (maximum Mach number) is M0.92. The B787, B777, A380 are all slower than that.
at our local airport they park AF1 near the UPS terminal. And of course you cannot get near it unless you work for UPS.
I saw a documentary once on AF1 when Bush the younger was president. They took their own fuel to Africa to make sure it was good. I assume they don’t do that for 1st world places like Europe, Japan, etc.