One last time - Pelosi and/or the Democrats did not request anything, nor are they attempting to justify anything. You’ve made this assertion about a dozen times in this thread, and you’ve been wrong every time.
The range issue is still unresolved to me. I’m reserving final judgement until I see if the C-20—as outfitted for the Speaker—does or does not have more than adequate range. If it does, she should get the C-20. If not, she should get a plane capable of flying the route non-stop.
As far as the security aspect, I would think that flying at a lower altitude, not to mention the slower speeds involved in taking off and landing, would open the plane up to missiles that require sighting of the target. Additionally, refueling, by definition, would require contact with the plane. The less contact, in my absolutely non-expert opinion, should equate to greater safety.
It’s either justified or it is not. We need the range of the outfitted plane to determine that. Unless you’re of the mind that the Speaker should be flying commercial. Is that your position?
I would seriously doubt that Pelosi cares about any security issues that might arise out of a fuel stop. I’d think she’d be far more concerned about the extra couple hours that’d tack onto the trip. Can’t say as I blame her. I wouldn’t imagine that the Speaker of the House has many free hours to spare.
Please back up this assertion or admit that you’re making it up.
Um, folks, he has no intention of doing other than what he has, which seems to provoke all sorts of indignant wrath out of y’all. Haven’t you learned by now to ignore such drivel? 
A C20 has a range that greatly exceeds any distances in the US. With a range of 3,982 miles (full), it could fly from Seattle to Washington DC, divert to Miami Florida, and still have reserves to divert to another city. I don’t understand the fuel dump reference at all and the need to stay aloft also makes no sense given the range of a C20.
Here is the data on a G-III. Range - seats full 3,460 nm (3,982 statute miles).
A fuel stop wouldn’t add a couple of hours it would add around 30 minutes. This is an executive jet that climbs at 4,000 feet per minute so getting to 30,000 feet is a 10 minute run. But as I pointed out, it’s not a fuel issue. It would have to be a capacity issue to need a larger aircraft. She either needs more than 157 cubic feet of baggage space or wants to transport more than 12 people.
You are assuming no landing or takeoff queues and immediate refueling on the ground. I doubt that’s a warranted assumption.
Remember, we’re not talking about a commercial hub city like Chicago, we’re talking about a military base. If it was a civilian operation then fueling would be done at an FBO at a commuter airport. Either way you’re not standing in line waiting for fuel, it’s waiting for you when you pull up. When you get into the aviation world, people in multi-million dollar jets are well catered to. Hell, people with Cessna 150’s are well catered to. Can’t remember ever having to wait on a fuel truck that I called for ahead of time on the radio.
Why I’m not surprised that the Washington Times had their hands on this?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090008
What it surprised me is to see the CNN reporter depending on the WT as a reliable source.
Do they give a reason for that? I can’t read the cite since I’m not registered. I’m having a hard time understanding why you need perfect weather to fly non-stop cross country. As far as I know, the C-20 has the same weather capabilities as the C-32. The GIII is an extremely capable jet aircraft, and if anything, the military version probably has extra capability.
I’m having trouble understanding why a C-20 in any reasonable configuration could not fly direct from Washington to San Fransisco. It has enough range do go almost twice that far while still maintaining IFR reserves.
Frankly, I think partisans on both sides have confused and obscured this whole issue to the point where even the basic facts are hard to fathom.
My personal opinion is that Republicans saw an opportunity to make some political hay, and they’re making it. Democrats do the same thing. Politics as usual.
So the plane has the range to not stop for fuel!
Vs
So the plane does have to make a stop, but does not have to wait for fuel!
Mmm.
I think the extreme right wants to have their cake and eat it too. IMO the moment one is jumping to different and contradictory points in the hopes to make something stick is the moment one should pause and wonder if their sources are pulling one’s leg.
It is not hard: All the points of the extreme right are moot the moment one considers that Pelosi did not made the request and the White house agreed that the extreme right is out of bounds with this.
If by usual you mean the extreme right has the capacity to make points out of thin air, I agree.
Magiver, are you more of an expert on this matter than the Air Force, the Congressional Sergeant guy, and the White House? Do you maybe need to write them a letter letting them know about the capabilities of their aircraft?
Daniel
It’s called “wind”. Usually from the west at those latitudes, ya know. Can get pretty fierce at times, too, especially in the middle Flight Levels.
Why would you think that?
You don’t know the configuration. USAF sets its own reserve requirements, and you don’t know what those are, either.
Where on this issue do you see Democrats confusing or obscuring or making political hay of anything? Or was that just more of the traditional “Well, the other guys do it too. Or would. In an alternate universe” crap we’ve come to expect? :dubious:
I’m having a lot of trouble seeing what the capability of various planes to fly non-stop coast to coast has to do with the selection having been made by the Sergeant at Arms and not Pelosi.
Undoubtedly he consulted with Pelosi about the choice, but they have to take what the military has on hand. The planes that can make it non-stop even in the event of 100 mph headwinds are all large but did anyone ask for modifications to make them luxurious?
This started as a knock on Pelosi and that has been answered. What more is needed or, for that matter, worthwhile? It has turned into a nit-picking haggle over technical details.
Read the last line again. Her staff said that she never made the request. She wouldn’t have made any request for an airplain. Her staff would. That’s what staff is for. This is not an issue beyond the appearance of wasting fuel.
Yes, I know that is not the last line you mention, but that actual last line in the article shows that the Republicans are specifically saying that Pelosi (or the staff :dubious: ) asked for a 757.
So where is the cite that mentions they did so, and that they requested that specific plane?