Talk:Boeing VC-25

Merge proposal
The result of the discussion was no merge. Happyme22 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that this should be merged back into Air Force One. Aside from the technical specifications, this article is only about eight paragraphs long (not the best-formatted article, so eight is an estimate of what a properly structured article with the same content might be). It will easily fit in Air Force One. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger - The VC-25 is not Air Force One, they are two aircraft that are used with the callsign Air Force One when required. Air Force One is a callsign not an particularly aircraft. Bit like merging Concorde into Speedbird One. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No merge - Keep seperate. The AF 1 article covers the history and all for the call sign and airplanes used.  The VC-25 article covers the specially modified 747-200Bs.  This article is just as notable as the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft with 2 airplanes. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Oppose merge - the articles are describing two different things: an aircraft type (VC-25) and a callsign that has been applied to a number of different aircraft types over the years. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger - Concur with Milb1 and Fnl. The original AF1 article was becoming far to convulted and mixed up, as it was trying to be both an aircraft article, and one on the history and usage of the term AF1. As such, I propsed and executed spilt. Also, I'm not quite sure what "a properly structured article with the same content" is supposed to mean, as this article follows the proscribed format for aircraft pages per WPAIR's page content guidelines. It is therefore a "properly structured article" already, though perhaps it could use some expansion and editing, as all WP articles are "works in progress". - BillCJ (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, I added the merge tag to the Air Force One per Merge policy. Also, it's usually better to place the merge discussion on the page being kept/merged "to", otherwise it's necessary to add an extra parameter directing to the location of the discussion, which I have done. - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The concern is notability. Nobody has put forward an argument that the VC-25 is notable for anything other than Air Force one, and only two of them seem to actually be in existence. If the VC-25 is not notable in its own right, it should not have an article, per policy. Please address this notability concern. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry the request was for a merge which is nothing to do with notability - but can the two topics be merged. If you are concerned about notability then you should propose it as a candidate for deletion quoting your concerns. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AIR guidelines, all aircraft types/variants are notable on their own. Notability was not brought up in your proposal, hence it was not addressed initially. However, I am posting at WT:AIR to get a broader consensus on the issue, including the notability question. - BillCJ (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't nominate it for deletion since I don't think it should be deleted. I think it should be merged. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK so you accept that it is Notable enough to exist, then the only merge criteria you have mentioned is that the page is short and unstructured which in the opinion of other editors and guidelines is contested. If their was consensus to merge which has not happened yet it should be merged into a page covering a broader topic which in this instance as it is an aircraft would be Boeing 747 not Air Force One. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat what I said before. It is not notable enough in its own right. Different merge options may exist, but as per the article, The VC-25 is most famous for its role as Air Force One [...]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that does not mean they have to be in 1 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * or with the E-4 article even. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not very clear from the article, but it seems those are two different planes that have also been used under the Air Force One call sign? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. There's not much public info on these two airplanes. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, now that you mention it... E-4 does have an awful lot of unreferenced (unverifiable?) content. 0_o Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the VC-25 is a highly customized nuclear bunker command center. That's plenty notable independent of its mission. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Air Force One
They are a number of reference in the article like On board Air Force One are medical facilities.. which should really be Each VC-25A has medical facilities. It mentions that Air Force One had a treadmill added. Do we known if both aircraft are fitted out exactly the same or should it referenced as either 28000 or 29000? Any comments MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-interesting info
''In the office areas, the aircraft has photocopying, printing, and word processing services, as well as telecommunication systems (including 85 telephones and 19 televisions). There are also secure and non-secure voice, fax, and data communications facilities.'' I don't know if redundant is the word, but I really don't think this information has any value. Of course there's telephones on Air Force One. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.63.96 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

VC-25 or VC-25A
Which is it? The article uses both. Rillian (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both are correct. VC-25 covers all variants.  But there's only been 1 variant; A-model.  This is explained some more at 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system.  -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This article consistently uses VC-25, except to explain the A-model now. Let it be, please. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Speed
The speed was incorrect. Mach 0.92 is not 630 miles per hour, it is 690 miles per hour. 630 miles per hour is Mach 0.84. The 630 mph belongs on the line below; not associated with Mach 0.94 as it was in the earlier edit.

It's simple math and doesn't need to be verified with a reference.

0.92 X 1100 feet per second = 1,012 feet per second.

1,012 feet per second X 3600 seconds per minute = 3,643,200 feet per hour.

3,643,200/5,280 = 690 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk)


 * The speed of sound above 35,000 ft is roughly 660 mph. This is also the altitude abouve which most airliners cruise, which is why the Mach numbers/speeds seem off to you. - BilCat (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And see Mach number if that is not enough explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

--

Oh okay then, I guess I was mistaken. I wasn't taking into account that the speed of sound changes with the density of the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
This paragraph is an example of the writing in this article: "The VC-25 is capable of flying 7,800 miles (12,600 km)—roughly one-third the distance around the world—without refueling. It can be refuelled during flight from a tanker aircraft. The VC-25A can accommodate more than 70 passengers. Each VC-25A cost approximately US$325 million. When a VC-25 taxis to an airport's ramp for events, it stops with the port side of the aircraft facing gathered onlookers." This appears to be an assemblage of random statements with no unifying thread - that isn't a paragraph. The last sentence is silly and sounds a lot like original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to make improvements to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

dead
links everywherePhd8511 (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Boeing VC-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090203075650/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com:80/series/on-board/3652/Overview? to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/on-board/3652/Overview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

crew refusal
In Operational History regarding the line:

"The tradition of placing the caskets inside the passenger cabin dates back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, when the crew refused to allow the president's body to be placed in the cargo hold,[10] and again during the state funeral of Lyndon B. Johnson.[11]"

My reading of that is that someone ordered, or instructed the crew to have JFK's body placed in the cargo hold, and the crew refused that order.

The only line on the topic in the cited article is:

"We were sort of in a bind, because there was no place on Air Force One for a casket, and we sure didn't want to put it in the cargo hold," Col. Swindal told the newspaper Florida Today in 2003.

Would more neutral language be appropriate?

Theglenndavid (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I reworded the text to "the crew did not want the president's body placed in the cargo hold" to better match the source. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A hatnote?
, I doubt this rather meaningless edit by an anonymous IP could be taken as evidence that this article needs a hatnote. Boeing VC-25 is not an ambiguous title (it's actually very specific); Air Force One is, which is why there is a lengthy hatnote there. Hatnotes are an eyesore and a distraction; a sometimes useful one, but not in this case, where it doesn't add anything that is not already said in the very first line of the lead. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

EADS/Airbus
, the text in the Future section speaks of Airbus, and after an intervening sentence mentions EADS. Some connection should be made between those two, as an unsophisticated reader (such as me) would not be aware that EADS is the manufacturer of the Airbus. How that is done, does not matter to me. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Airbus was only mentioned as part of the A380 designation. But yes the connection needs to be made for clarity.  I reworded the text to mention EADS and Airbus. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Open-source defensive systems on AFO/VC-25
https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/23/these-are-the-systems-that-protect-air-force-one-from-heat-seeking-missiles/

Sammartinlai (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

VC-25B
The first intended VC-25B "N894BA" was flown this week to "Kelly Field" to start conversion. Dont have a reliable source yet. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked around and saw this article from 2017 that says that the VC-25B won't have aerial refueling capability. I know it isn't used on the current models much or at all, but it is there for doomsday scenarios.  I guess they can't retrofit it into an existing airframe.  --rogerd (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * From reading the sources, it's purely a cost-saving measure, and it could be fitted during conversion if it was paid for. As far as I know, it could still be retrofitted later though its location might be limited. Hopefully it will never be needed. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather they have it and not need it than need it and not have it. (I guess it's ok to be POV on talk pages?) --rogerd (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Especially when going abroad the fuel tanker is along for the trip anyway. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The subtitle and the editorial quality of the article concern me as to bias and accuracy. Probably needs some more research. Admittedly from out here in the cheap seats, it seems like a bad way to cut costs. Seems like there should have been more noise about it. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * People complain that the government spends to much money, and then they complain when the government doesn't spend enough. Politics. - BilCat (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)