Talk:Boeing VC-25

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Air Force One 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-interesting info 

message: Which is it? The article uses both. Rillian (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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#Series letter.  -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: VC-25 or VC-25A

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

message: 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)
replies: text: You are welcome to make improvements to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  crew refusal 

message: , 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)
thread_title:  A hatnote? 

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  EADS/Airbus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of Open-source defensive systems on AFO/VC-25 

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

text: 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. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: VC-25B