> >Other fun facts: The plane has two huge ridges between the wings, > effectively a luggage rack like the >ones a lot of Third World buses > have. Also, it has to go where it goes on one 200,000-gallon tank of > >fuel. It cannot be refueled in the air, which remains oddly > reassuring, because this is a former Soviet aircraft and who knows > just how former. > Yeah, but that "luggage" was supposed to be Buran. It doesn't hold > anything otherwise. And who cares if it can't be refuelled in > the air? > It can always do things like, uh, land and pick up more fuel. > There's also something about AF1 being a "stretch 747," which is a > quote from > the Airport Commissioner >> > > Well, considering that any 744 is bigger than the 742s that often > serve as > AF1, they must be "super stretch." You are right about the land > and get more > fuel thing. The damn thing is a heavy lift cargo plane, it is not > made to > attack anyone. It needs a lot of space and is not going to be > dropping tanks on > anyone, a la C-130 any time soon. It isn't just attack aircraft which need in-flight refuelling. All sorts of military aircraft are designed to refuel in the air including attack aircraft, cargo aircraft of all sizes (so they can deploy further) and even tankers (so they can stay on station longer). I'm kinda glad the AN225 doesn't have in-flight capability too. Grant SYD QF