Talk:Boeing C-32

message: Is the Pelosi controversy really an appropriate addition to this article, especially as the second paragraph? It is a minor issue and doesn't really reflect much on the aircraft. Also, the story is still early enough that the facts have not panned out. This is not an article on a current event and is not tagged that way. (There were a number of very useful edits made at the same time as the Pelosi paragraph was added, so it shouldn't just be reverted.) arnoha 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since no one has commented, I'm going ahead with the snip. arnoha 21:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it again for the same reasons.. —Cliffb 06:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelosi controversy 

message: Not sure where the photo of the C-32 was taken, but its definitely not Andrews AFB.  I was stationed there from 95' to 98' and know the runway/ramp areas very well.  There are no hills or buildings like the ones in the photo on Andrews.  It looks like a small, regional airport to me.  -John B.
:The original USAF caption says Andrews AFB. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult - as I know its wrong is treated as original research and not really allowed. You really need a reliable source for the location - and at the moment one reliable source (the USAF) says Andrews! might be easier just to remove the location from the image caption! MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, you are right about the USAF caption - I have removed the location in the article as it it not proved. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph attribution incorrect 

message: Are there any additional photos of this aircraft? This photo showing the aircraft taking off in the rain is the only one that I have ever seen. Can someone add others showing the plane in a different context (ie on the tarmac during a visit)? Can someone show the interior and the layout (isn't there a forward stateroom?)?
In the photo gallery that goes with the March 11th Washington Post article "Hillary Clinton widens her circle at the State Department", there are two pictures taken inside an aircraft (is this inside a C-32, a single aisle-aircraft with 2+2 first-class sized seats in the about 25% from the front of the plane? or is this just an charter for Obama's campaign while he was still running for office?). The details of this plane seem relatively secret... maybe since this was VP Cheney's former ride.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.238.175 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added the older pic lower down in the article. Unless an image is absolutely atrocious, such as a grainy b/w image from WWII, it's usually better to leave the former image in the article if there was only one to begin with, the images aren't basically the same view, and if the article is long enough for more than one image to fit without causing blank spaces. In the Air Force Two article, for example, it was best to leave out the second C-32 image, as you did. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Boeing C-32. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613094605/http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90 to http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article states that the B version is equipped with "comfortable seats" - what is the definition of comfortable here? Is this how the Air Force or manufacturer describes them? Are they just standard economy airline seats (if so, comfortable wouldn't be the first word that comes to mind)? first class seats (okay, somewhat more comfortable)? business jet passenger seats (yes, these can be pretty comfortable)? or something even better (BarcaLoungers?)? Not very encyclopedic in that it is a fairly subjective adjective prone to individual interpretation which is something touted as anathema to the noble goal that wikipedia says it aspires to. 
:Thanks for the observation, a lot of the article is woffle and really needs a major clean up using some relaible sourcing. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: In Design & Development the C32B has been modified to give a range of 11000 km, in Specs the C32A has a range of 11000 km.  Miles and nm are messed up too.   Boscaswell talk 20:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range info. conflict  

message: The gallery caption "A C-32A banking on takeoff" is incorrect.  Bank describes the degree to which an aircraft is tilted left or right, causing it to turn.  The aircraft pictured is tilted up in the front, which is called "pitch up", not bank.  That said, the words "pitch up" really are not needed either, as the information is plainly visible and is not unusual. 67.169.166.36 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery caption error 

message: * Wing area: 185.25 sq ft (17.210 m2)
The wing span is listed as just under 125 feet, giving a mean chord of about 1.5 feet. Further, that wing area would give a max takeoff wing loading of about 1,382 pound per square foot, and a max landing weight wing loading of about 1,134 pounds per square foot.
2601:600:9000:ACC0:B941:80E:935C:28C4 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From the 757 article's specs, it's 185.25 sq m, not sq ft. BilCat (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wing area cannot be correct 

message: The cited source for the paragraph stating that "at least two members of the C-32B aircrew are always armed" actually says "When crews are directed to arm, the PIC will determine which aircrew members will be armed (two crew members will be armed unless directed otherwise)." If there are circumstances when crews are directed to arm, there are circumstances when they are not. There's nothing notable about having armed crew members on a military aircraft, and nothing special about this policy for this aircraft. Unless someone wants to suggest a more complicated statement, I think the paragraph should come out. 24.10.14.2 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armed crew 

message: The USAF Fact Sheet linked in the article lists four total active C-32A aircraft; this is consistent with official USAF budget documents and all other public sources I could find.  However, going by USAF tail codes, there are eight Boeing 757 Aircraft assigned to the 89th AW in special livery that fly in support of SAM operations.  The tail codes are: 98-0001, 98-0002, 99-0003, 99-0004, 09-0015, 09-0016, 09-0017, 19-0018.  There was the original purchase of four aircraft, which is the number commonly reported.  I could not find publicly available procurement information for the last four airframes, but this Defense One article mentions the use of eight airframes despite all publicly available information saying four.  Not sure that this is enough to warrant a change in the Wiki article, but just thought I would through this situation out here. 
Edit: even the Wikimedia page for the C-32 lists seven separate concurrent airframes.
2601:445:680:3010:49A5:EAD8:C758:492C (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  USAF Fact Sheet C-32A Numbers