F-22 blasts off with powerful performance demonstrating agility and skill.
The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation Stealth Fighter Jet designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Development of the YF-22 began in 1986 with the aircraft entering service in 2005 and was later renamed the F-22A. The following year, the F-22 later received the prestigious Collier Trophy administered by the U.S. National Aeronautic Association (NAA).
The U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor Demo Team climbs in altitude during the Heritage Flight Course at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., March 2, 2019. The five-day course allows demo teams the opportunity to perfect their performance both on the ground and in the air. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jensen Stidham)
Powering the Raptor are two turbofan engines in conjunction with thrust vectoring. Thrust vectoring nozzles redirect the engine’s thrust by 20 degrees, which improves the pilot control over the pitch of the aircraft’s nose. According to several sources, Thrust Vectoring also increases the aircraft’s roll rate by 50%. The Raptor is the first USAF fighter with the ability to cruise at super sonic speeds without the need to use the afterburner. This quality is commonly referred to as Supercruise.
The F-22 possesses a sophisticated sensor suite allowing the pilot to track, identify, shoot and kill air-to-air threats before being detected. [Source: af.mil] To maintain a Stealth profile, the F-22 conceals all armaments inside the aircraft. At 4:37, the pilot opens the weapon bay doors as the aircraft passes show center. Thunder Over Michigan 2016 marks the First F-22 Raptor Demo display in the event’s history. This rare performance is one of only 23 appearances for the F-22 Team’s 2016 North America Tour. At the end of the video, you will witness the heritage flight featuring the F-22 Raptor and P-51 Mustang.
In Seattle on October 26th the day was filled with star-spangled fanfare and a patriotic salute. Alaska Airlines unveiled a brand new 737-900ER aircraft designed in a new livery dedicated to “Honoring Those Who Serve.” Military customs & courtesies were rendered and the national anthem was sung at the event hosted by the airline again demonstrating its timeless commitment to America’s service-members and veterans.
“All of us at Alaska greatly value the bravery and sacrifices of our servicemen and women and their families. “We are extraordinarily proud to have this symbol of appreciation that our customers will see and fly on every day.” CEO Brad Tilden
5 Star Ruffles & Flourishes
The aircraft tail #N265AK design features include, an “Alaska Airlines Salutes” medallion with five stars representing the five branches of the U.S. Armed Forces: Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. In the rear a fallen soldier crest, with the Battlefield Cross honors those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The aircraft engine inlets are surrounded by five rings in honor of the five branches of the United States military, and the plane is adorned with American flag winglets.
A quote from President Calivin Coolidge is prominently displayed near the boarding door and at the rear cargo door: “No person was ever honored for what they received. Honor has been the reward for what they gave.”
Flying to a station near you
As Veteran’s Day approaches watch the skies over Anchorage, Fairbanks, San Diego and Washington D.C. The “Honoring Those Who Serve” plane will be landing at cities near military bases on her maiden voyages.
How a design flaw and sketchy winter-time conditions put the MD-80 pilots in a bad spot.
Back in March of last year, a Delta MD-80 slid off the runway in a snow storm at LaGuardia. The aircraft was heavily damaged but there were no injuries. I wrote about that incident here.
To recap, the MD-80 landed in really lousy visibility during a snowstorm and slid off the side of the runway and almost into Flushing Bay. While the approach and landing were normal, the aircraft drifted off the left side of the runway after landing, eventually hitting the airport perimeter fence and coming to a rest on the berm that borders the airport and the water.
Since the winds were not particularly strong, my first guess was that the problem might have been a braking problem, but that was not the case. The NTSB recently concluded their investigation of the incident and have blamed the accident on an obscure directional control characteristic of aircraft with tail mounted engines known as “rudder blanking” along with the pilot’s reaction to that effect. The full accident report can be found here.
Design Flaw
Inherent in the design of turbine powered MD-80 with tail mounted engines and thrust reversers is an effect known as rudder blanking. Shortly after touchdown, pilots command the thrust reversers open using levers located on the throttles. On the MD-80, the aircraft involved, baffles actually close over the exhaust of the engines and redirect the thrust to the sides and forward of the engine. This redirected thrust helps to slow the aircraft.
The problem with this configuration is the location of the engines on the rear fuselage near the tail of the MD-80. The redirected thrust also has the effect of reducing the relative wind over the vertical stabilizer and rudder. Reducing the air over the rudder reduces its effectiveness. The reduced rudder effectiveness combined with the crosswind allowed the aircraft to depart the left side of the runway and to hit the boundary fence.
Boeing (which purchased McDonnell Douglas, the manufacturer of the MD-80) was aware of the flaw and recommended that reverse thrust was not to be used at full power during landing. Boeing recommended a further restricted use of reverse thrust when landing on a runway “contaminated by clutter” which is aviation-speak to mean a buildup of snow or slush.
Here’s an excerpt from the Flight Operations Bulletin published by Boeing:
Due to the geometry of the MD-80 thrust reversers, the exhaust gas efflux pattern will, at certain rollout speeds and EPR settings, interfere with the free-stream airflow across the rudder surfaces. This will result in partial “rudder blanking”; with a resultant reduction in directional control authority. As rudder effectiveness is more critical on wet or slippery surfaces, “rudder blanking” becomes a concern above a reverse thrust level of 1.3 EPR. Normal dry runway maximum reverse thrust power is 1.6 EPR [emphasis in original].
Will the Brakes Stop the Airplane on the Runway?
Another concern of the crew was the “braking action” on the runway. This is also aviation-speak to mean the slipperiness of the pavement. The crew had heard reports that the braking had been reported as “fair” which meant that they would not have been able to stop the aircraft on the runway and would have needed to divert. Later on in the flight, the braking action had been reported as “good” by another airliner and the crew made the decision to continue.
The problem with braking action reports by other aircraft is that they are highly subjective. Some pilots make the determination by how many times their anti-skid cycles during a landing. Others use different criteria and each aircraft can respond differently to the same conditions. One pilot’s “fair” report can easily be another’s “good”.
Weather and runway reports from the airport itself indicated that the runway was covered with 1/4 inch of wet snow. The runway had recently been swept, but by the time Delta 1086 landed, it was already white in appearance from new snowfall.
So you can see that as a minimum, this crew was concerned that they didn’t have much room for error on this landing.
The Friction Measuring Trucks Were Parked
As far as the actual condition of the pavement, airport authorities have been using friction measuring equipment for decades. So what was the actual friction measurement at the time Delta 1086 landed? No one knows. Due to bureaucratic ambiguity and confusion between FAA directives and the New York Port Authority, the Port Authority elected to not use either of the two trucks it had available to measure runway surface friction.
From a bureaucratic point of view this makes perfect sense as you can be held liable for inaccurate or missing reports if your policy was to collect them. Change your policy to keep the trucks parked and you’re off the hook. This works best for bureaucrats sitting in heated offices, but not so well for passengers landing in a snowstorm. But it’s completely legal.
On the Edge of Safe
So in essence, the story so far is that the MD-80 landed in 1/4 mile of visibility in a snowstorm on an extremely short runway bounded on three sides by water with an essentially unknown slickness of the pavement.
As a reminder, a quarter mile of visibility is 1320 feet and a touchdown speed of 140 kts is about 236 feet per second. This gave the pilot about five and a half seconds of time between seeing the runway and landing on it. And according to the flight recorder, the touchdown was well within the landing zone and on speed.
What happened next was measured in seconds. Here’s the synopsis from the NTSB report:
During a postaccident interview, the captain stated that, as he was lowering the airplane’s
nose to the ground after main gear touchdown, he moved the thrust reversers to idle and then “one knob width on the reverser handle” to obtain Delta’s target setting of 1.3 engine pressure ratio (EPR).16 FDR data showed that engine reverse thrust exceeded 1.3 EPR between 3 and 4 seconds after main gear touchdown (with the left engine exceeding 1.3 EPR before the right engine) and was advancing through 1.6 EPR immediately after the nose gear touched down. FDR data showed that the EPR value exceeded 1.6 for 5 seconds, reaching maximum EPR values of 2.07 on the left engine and 1.91 on the right engine between 6 and 7 seconds after main gear touchdown. Engine power decreased after this point, and the thrust reversers were stowed at 1102:25 (7.5 seconds after deployment, 9 seconds after main gear touchdown, and 2,500 feet from the runway threshold) at an EPR value of 1.8 on the left engine and 1.6 on the right engine. At that time, the airplane’s groundspeed was 93 knots.
In plain-speak, the pilot used reverse thrust in excess of the recommended amount for a total of five seconds and then stowed the reversers. The aircraft started to drift left at six seconds after touchdown, or three seconds before the reversers were stowed. This meant that it was in the three seconds between the time the aircraft started to drift and the time the reversers were stowed that the problem occurred.
To further complicate the landing, the aircraft by this time had slowed to 93 knots. At this speed the rudder itself loses effectiveness as there is not enough air moving over the surface to keep the aircraft on the runway. Other than the rudder, directional control of an aircraft on the ground is obtained through the use of nosewheel steering and differential braking. Both of these were used but were not effective enough to get the aircraft under control.
(Photo by NYPD)
No Win Situation
Pilots are goal oriented people. We like to get the job done. But we are also called upon to get the job done correctly and are tasked with being the final arbiters of safety. To this end, we are given the tools and the criteria to use those tools correctly. But when some of the supposedly objective information we have turns out to be highly subjective and incomplete, the process becomes a crapshoot.
In my view, these guys were set up. They were told that if the braking was “good” they could land, but if it was “fair” they’d go for a swim. So for a few seconds the pilot overcompensates with too much reverse thrust and they nearly go swimming anyway. Another MD-80 had landed minutes before and had no problem while also exceeding reverse thrust limits. These guys just got hit with an unlucky gust of wind.
The whole idea of risk management is to make sure that the operation does not become a crapshoot. Had these pilots diverted when the “system” said they could make it safely and other airplanes were landing, they’d be questioned by their chief pilot and ridiculed by their passengers. Now they’re probably wishing they had diverted. A three second and immediately corrected deviation from SOP during extreme conditions should not result in a major accident.
In the appendix to the accident report, board member Robert Sumwalt, himself a retired airline pilot, had this to say about the situation facing the captain:
As a former airline pilot for over 20 years, I’m confident saying that having to limit reverse thrust on a relatively short, slippery runway is counter-intuitive: When you need it the most, you have to use it the least.
So the next time your pilot diverts or goes around when others are landing, you will be frustrated or angry that you don’t get to your meeting or home on time. Don’t be. The guy or gal up front is trying to get you where you’re going, but also trying to keep you alive.
Addendum: A Few Words about the The NTSB
I’m going to take a moment to say a few words about the NTSB. Good words. The NTSB in my view is a national treasure. They are staffed with a group of smart and thoughtful professionals who take the time to get to the bottom of the accidents they investigate. And while they don’t have any real regulatory power to force changes, nor do they make economic cost-benefit assessments of their various proposals, their recommendations often serve as signposts to be disregarded by industry and regulators at their peril.
Editors Note: The top photo of this article was taken by Leonard J. DeFrancisci. It is used with permission according to the CC 4.0 license.
Beginning in 2003, the US Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command (AETC) set its sights on replacing the T-38 Advanced Jet Trainer. The T-38 first flew in 1959, and became operational in 1961. More than 1100 aircraft were built. The T-38 is still the Air Force’s advanced jet trainer for Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT). The aircraft will probably remain in service through the early 2020s, giving it an operational life span of more than 60 years.
The T-38: The Air Force’s Advanced Jet Trainer since 1961. (USAF Photo)
The combination of aging airframes, budget restrictions, and increasing demands of the JSUPT to train for 5th Generation fighters, has created delays and changing requirements for the next generation of advanced jet trainers.
The feeling within the industry is that the Air Force cannot put off developing a new trainer for much longer. Current projections suggest that the new trainer should be selected by 2019 or 2020, and operational by 2023 or 2024. The Air Force has indicated that the initial order will be for 350 aircraft, but multiple sources suggest production could reach 1,000 aircraft or more. There is also some suggestion of a fighter-attack or other variants.
In spite of the schedule uncertainty, five manufacturing teams are positioning to offer a solution to the Air Force’s requirements for its next generation advanced trainer—the T-X.
Clean-Sheet Proposals
Boeing-Saab Entry
Boeing, partnering with the Swedish manufacturer, Saab, as recently as September of this year, rolled out its candidate for the T-X. Quoted in a Defense News article (Sep 13, 2016), Darryl Davis, president of Boeing Phantom Works, “Our T-X design features: twin tails, a modern design that allows better maneuverability than a single tailed aircraft, stadium seating that provides rear visibility to the instructor … and a maintenance friendly design. What you can’t see is the advanced design and manufacturing that went into this.”
Boeing also pointed out that this aircraft was “purpose-built” to meet the demanding requirements of the T-X program. While the Air Force requirements to not mention stealth or low-observability, many observers suggested that it’s appearance mimics design features of the F-22 and F-35.
Northrup Grumman Entry
Northrop Grumman is also working on a “clean-sheet design for its T-X trainer candidate. Observers have pointed out that their next-generation trainer somewhat resembles the T-38, which Northrop built in the 1960s. While few details have been release on its design, a flight test prototype has been built by Scaled Composites and has been undergoing high-speed taxi tests at that company’s facilities in Mojave, California. Flight test are expected later this year.
Northrop Grumman’s T-X prototype seen undergoing taxi test in Mojave, California. (Northrop Grumman)
Initially, Northrop Grumman had planned to partner with BAE Systems to propose an advanced version of the Hawk Advanced Jet Training System, but this was abandoned citing performance limitations.
Textron AirLand: Scorpion
Textron AirLand secretly built a prototype Scorpion at the Cessna plant in Wichita, Kansas facility in 2012, and it was first flown in 2013. The shoulder-wing aircraft is of all composite design, powered by two Honeywell TFE731 turbofan engines. It is suggested that Textron AirLand will offer some form of this aircraft design for the T-X. While this is a newly designed aircraft, its initial performance numbers do not seem to approach those anticipated for the T-X. For example, its maximum speed is 518 mph or .68 Mach, which is well below that required for the T-X.
The Textron Scorpion could become a T-X entry. (Photo by Tim Felce)
T-X Trainers Based on Existing Aircraft
Lockheed Martin and Korea Airspace Industries: T-50
Lockheed Martin and Korea Airspace Industries (KAI) are teaming to offer a significantly advanced modified and upgraded and version of the KAI’s T-50. Lockheed Martin has already opened a training center in South Carolina for both final assembly of the T-50A and the ground based training system.
Although based on the T-50 airframe, the T-50A features a blended wing-fuselage with horizontal and vertical stabilizers. It is purpose-built to meet the training requirements of fifth-generation fighters such as F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.
The T-50A is designed to offer fighter-like performance and characteristics to expedite pilot transition to 4th and 5th generation.
The KIA T-50 that will serve as the basic design concept for the T-50 T-X offered by Lockheed Martin and KAI. (Photo Kentaro Lemoto)
The T-50A is powered by a single General Electric F404 turbofan engine equipped with full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) system.
Raytheon/Leonardo/Honeywell Aerospace: T-100
Raytheon/Leonardo/Honeywell Aerospace will propose the T-100 which they claim the twin Honeywell Aerospace F124 engines will deliver best-in-class, thrust-to-weight ratio representative of today’s 4th and 5th generation fighters. The T-100 will feature a modern heads-up display and a fully integrated helmet mounted-display designed to prepare pilots for the advanced avionics used advanced tactical fighters.
The T-100 is based on Leonardo’s (formerly Alenia Aermacchi) MB-346, an advanced trainer and light attack aircraft first flown in 2004 and introduced into service in Italy in 2015.
The Alenia Aermacchi T-346A will be the starting point for the Raytheon/Leonardo/Honeywell Aerospace proposed T-X aircraft. (Alenia Aermacchi photo G.M. Azzellotti)
Summary
The finally competition may come down to a dogfight between brand new designs and adaptations of existing aircraft. New designs can focus entirely on the requirements for the new aircraft, but new designs are also subject to more growing pains. While existing designs start out with a proven aircraft design, the adaptations that are required to meet the new advanced performance goals can be challenging to back-fit into the existing airframe.
All of these competitors will propose complete training systems with ground trainers or simulators, training programs, and support facilities, providing the Air Force with a turn-key training system.
Assuming each of these aircraft can demonstrate Air Force performance goals, the selection will likely be determined by the lowest realistic lifetime cost of ownership.
Currently the T-X trainer does not appear in the DoD budget, but funding is expected to be requested in the next year or two, to get the competition and selection underway. It is unclear what affect the results of the 2016 Presidential elections will have on military budgets. Regardless of candidate claims, budget realities will certainly affect budgets and schedules.
T-X trainer selection could turn into a real dogfight.
Author’s Note
I trained in the T-38 in 1970. It was a good airplane, and although advanced for a trainer at the time, it was still a mechanical, analog aircraft—round gauges and all. And even with upgrades to new electronic cockpits, it is still a T-38 chassis. The transition from the T-38 to an F-35 Lighting II is roughly equivalent to moving from a 1960s stock car to a modern Formula 1 racer. The T-X will provide sufficiently advanced piloting training and experience to allow pilots to transition to the F-22 or F-35 with far lower training costs.
Logo jets are unique but they aren’t new. Most of the majors have had logojets for promotions. Airlines like Southwest led the trend with Shamu. They have had additional tie-ins with the NBA and Sports Illustrated. Other airlines like WestJet, Delta, and Alaska Airlines have had tie-ins with Disney. Now Disney has added a new airline to their advertising fold.
On Saturday, Hawaiian Airlines unveiled a Disney-themed logo jet for their new movie “Moana” which will hit theaters in November. The Airbus A330 jet features the characters from the new movie. This is the first of three specially-themed logo jets.
Photos are posted on Hawaiian Airlines Facebook page.
The De Havilland Comet 4’s “First Flight” Ended Up Being Its Swan Song Too!
On 4 October 1958 British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) operated the first transatlantic jet service with the de Havilland Comet 4. BOAC was also the first airline to offer jet passenger service across Europe and into Africa operating the de Havilland Comet 1. Within two years, all Comet aircraft were grounded due to a series of four crashes, later determined to be from metal fatigue caused by pressurization/depressurization cycles. The Comet had square windows, and the corners of the window openings created an area of weakness that resulted in structural failure of the aircraft in flight.
De Havilland worked through several versions of the Comet, and by the time of the first transatlantic flight to the North America, BOAC was flying the Comet 4, that had been designed to be fail-safe. The fuselage structure was designed so that a crack in the skin was limited to a very small area, and therefore would not be a catastrophic failure.
BOAC comet 4. image via Olympis-kuva oyaa
The Fate of the Comet 4 as a Passenger Airliner was Already Determined Even Before That First Transatlantic Flight
While BOAC could claim initiating transatlantic passenger jet service, before the end of the same month, Pan American Airways (Pan Am) was flying the same route with the new Boeing 707 and later with the Douglas DC-8. The American-built planes were larger, faster, had greater range, and carried more passengers. Even before their first transatlantic flight, BOAC had made the decision to purchase the Boeing 707. With that, the fate of the Comet 4 as a transatlantic aircraft was sealed.
Launch the fleet! Procedure expedited takeoffs to get more B-52 jets in the air faster.
This clip shows a group of Boeing B-52G Stratofortresses executing a MITO (Minimal Interval Take Off). The objective: get off the ground! Faster! The planes roar skyward a mere 15 seconds apart, as two narrators have to hold onto their hats! It’s a smokey mess of bad ass airpower. SAC bases would practice these launches so that if the flag of war was ever raised, our nation’s Air Force would answer the call. Each B-52G carried cruise missiles and bombs, ready to strike the enemy with overwhelming force if directed.
This clip is actually from the movie, “A Gathering of Eagles” that starred Rock Hudson. It showcased the challenges of turning around a struggling unit. Col Caldwell, played by Hudson, will do whatever it takes (including being a hard-ass) to get his unit in tip-top shape.
The movie appears to be filmed at Beale Air Force Base. Today, Beale is home to KC-135R, U-2s, and Global Hawk UAVs.
The B-52G was a modification to extend the service life of the B-52 (affectionately known as BUFF: Big Ugly Fat Fucker), during delays in the B-58 Hustler program. Designers envisioned a radical new concept, with all new wings and Pratt & Whitney engines. The new plane had an increased fuel capacity and water injection, which added about a 17 percent power increase to assist with taking off. In addition, a pair of 700 gallon fuel tanks were slung under the wings. BUFF threw out the design book, scrapping traditional ailerons and using spoilers to control aircraft roll.
Roughly 744 B-52 aircraft (and their variants) were manufactured between 1952 and 1962. The B-52 is still (kicking ass!) in service today. However, almost every B-52G was destroyed in accordance with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1992. As of 2012, only about 85 remain in active service. The others are in the boneyard, museum, or still flying in our dreams.
The world’s first drone was a crude cruise missile that could hit a target up to 75 miles away.
Germany’s V-1 “Buzz Bomb” was an early version of a cruise missile, but not the first! In 1918 during World War I, the US Army contracted Charles Kettering of Dayton, Ohio to design and build an “aerial torpedo” with the capability to strike targets up to 75 miles away, flying at a speed of 50 mph. Kettering hired Orville Wright as his aeronautical consultant for the development of what would be called the “Kettering Bug.”
The biplane design looked like a big model airplane, 12.5 feet long with a wing span of 15 feet. It was powered by a 40-horsepower, four-cylinder De Palma engine manufactured by Ford Motor Company. The airframe was made of wood laminates and paper papier-mâché. The wings were covered with cardboard.
Full-scale model of the Kettering Aerial Torpedo on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
The aircraft was launched from a four-wheeled dolly-and-track system similar to that used by the Wright brothers for their first successful flights at Kitty Hawk.
The challenge was to be able to launch the aircraft and have it travel to, and strike, a specific target carrying 180 pounds of explosive. The challenge was to be able to control the aircraft’s track to the target. The solution was ingenious.
Prior to launch, technicians would plot the precise distance to the intended target and also determine the aircraft’s heading based on wind direction and airspeed. This information was used to determine the number of engine revolutions required to travel to the target.
The Kettering Bug was launched from a four-wheeled dolly on movable tracks.
Once launched, a small onboard gyroscope guided the aircraft toward its destination. To maintain altitude and direction, the system used a pneumatic/vacuum system, an electric control system, and an aneroid barometer/altimeter.
When the revolution counter reached the programmed value, a cam shut off electrical power to the engine. Another control retracted the wing-attachment bolts, releasing the wings. At this point the craft became a ballistic missile falling towards its target. The 180-pound explosive payload detonated upon impact.
The Kettering Bug during early testing
On its first test flight in Dayton, Ohio, the aircraft took off and climbed too steeply, stalled, and crashed. Adjustments were made and subsequent flights were successful.
Toward the end of World War I, the Army conducted a total of 24 test flights, seven of which were successful.
Although the Army spent some $275,000 developing the early drone, the Kettering Bug was never used in combat. Approximately 45 “Bugs” were produced. The existence of the Kettering Bug was kept secret until the beginning of World War II.
A full-scale replica of the Kettering Bug is on display in the “Early Years” Gallery of the National Museum of the United States Airforce.
And we thought drones and cruise missiles were a modern invention!
An uncanny resemblance to the United States Air Force’s B-1 Bone.
In 1972, in response to the United States Air Force’s B-1 Bomber project, the Soviet Union launched a competition to see which company could design the best multi-mission bomber. The idea was to create a new supersonic heavy bomber with variable geometry (in other words, “swing wing” capability), and a max speed of Mach 2.3. Get there fast, kick ass, come home. Fast. The Tupolev design won the competition, with its lengthened, blended wing layout and incorporation of elements from the Tu-144. Recently, the Tu-160 has been on the radar because the Russians are using it to bomb targets in Syria, on combat missions nearly 8,000 miles long!
This video footage, uploaded on April 16th of 2016, shows a Tu-160 Blackjack (NATO designation) in flight. The Tu-160 Blackjack, also known as the ‘White Swan,’ (Russian nickname) was the last strategic bomber produced for the Soviet Union. The Tu-160 was manufactured by the Tupolev Design Bureau. Not sure if they based the design on the Angel of death, or maybe that just happened on its own.
Watch the sleek, silver, majestic White Swan perform an aerial refueling mission. In the video, you’ll also see the air refueling probe that is stored in the nose rise in order to receive the gas. You can feel the tension as you get a great shot the pilot intently focused in the cockpit, then see several of these streamlined beauties flying in formation.
September 30 marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the Berlin Airlift, historically the first major showdown of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West.
World War II hand ended in 1945, and the Allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union divided Germany into four occupation zones. The Soviets controlled the eastern portion of Germany, including the city of Berlin. Although isolated in the Soviet sector, the city was also subdivided into occupation zones. Initially, the Soviets Permitted highway and railroad access to the city. Stalin fully intended that Germany would become a part of the Soviet Union and blockaded rail and road access to Berlin, cutting off critical supply lines of food and fuel.
Berliners watch as a C-54 arrives in Berlin in 1948.
Three air corridors remained open, and in June of 1948, the west initiated “Operation Vittles” (the United States) and “Operation Plainfare” (United Kingdom), delivering food, fuel (coal and gasoline), and other essentials. Russia did not believe the airlift could adequately supply the city of Berlin expecting the city would submit to Soviet rule. The Soviet Union was more focused on its post war recovery, and did not challenge the airlift. Additionally, the western allies were still strong, and had demonstrated the use of nuclear weapons, and the Soviets were not prepared for direct conflict.
The American government, using 1,990 calories as a daily minimum per person and 2 million people in Berlin to feed, set a daily minimum of 1,534 tons of food stuffs including flour, wheat, meat and fish, dehydrated potatoes and vegetables, sugar, salt, coffee and powdered milk. Additionally, for heat and power, 3,475 tons of coal and gasoline were required daily.
The U.S. began the airlift with C-47 (DC-3) aircraft and then added C-54 (Douglas DC-4s). Because of the steeply angled floor of the tail-wheeled C-47, however, it took up to 30 minutes to unload a C-47, while a C-54 could be unloaded in as little as ten minutes. Several airports were limited to C-54 aircraft, which further accelerated the flow of supplies. Many other aircraft were also used, including Sunderland flying boats landing
The Spirit of Freedom, A C-54 operated by the Berlin Airlift Museum
The high volume of aircraft arriving in Berlin created significant traffic flow challenges, but by the end of the first year, aircraft were landing somewhere at Berlin airports every thirty seconds.
The high volume of aircraft operations and limited air traffic control created a hazardous operating environment. There were accidents, especially when poor weather caused landing accidents and the danger of midair collisions.
The Soviet blockade of Berlin ended in May of 1949, but airlift flights continued to allow the city to build up a reserve of supplies. Finally, the Berlin Airlift was officially ended on September 30, 1949.
The last Berlin Airlift flight showing the total tonnage delivered to Berlin during the airlift.
The Berlin Airlift officially ended on 30 September 1949, after fifteen months. In total the USA and United Kingdom delivered 17,835,727 tons, nearly two-thirds of which was coal, on 278,228 flights to Berlin. The Berlin Airlift aircraft flew more than 92 million miles in the process, almost the distance to the sun. At the height of the Airlift, one plane reached West Berlin every thirty seconds.
This video clip catches a rare behind-the-scene look at the dark side of aviation…attitude! Sure, most everyone keeps a running dialogue in the quiet of their own head of what they’d LIKE to say, but they don’t actually say it. Usually. Unfortunately, sometimes an open mic is left on, and that’s when the fun really begins! You just don’t hear pilots and air traffic controllers calling each other dreaded 4-letter words very often these days. Here are the 3 crazy situations you’ll see in this video.
The job of a pilot and the job of an air traffic controller are both very stressful. Combined with fatigue, parks occasionally fly. In Atlanta, we hear a ground controller attempting to help out a Delta flight that is about to join the wrong taxiway. Delta responds calmly, with a voice reserved for warding off grizzlies.
One pilot complained that he happened to have a lady with him at the moment, and that he found the words of the air traffic controller offensive. The controller replied by announcing that the comments had not been about the lady, but about someone else. Of course the comments were about someone else! Nobody knew the lady was there until the pilot mentioned it. It didn’t make the already bad situation any better.
Every once in a while you get a wiseguy… and I can’t tell if the Saudi pilot ‘just not getting it’ was baiting the controller. I mean, when there are only 9 possibilities and you guess 11 times—INCORRECTLY—that has to be on purpose, right?
Bottom line is that controllers do a hell of a job to keep people safe. Mistakes and bad days happen. We’re just glad that these pop-offs are relatively rare.
Cockpit view lets you feel the raw excitement of low level flight.
Experience the emerald green of British landscapes in this high-octane clip! This video footage, uploaded on May 13th of 2014, was filmed from the back seat of an RAF Eurofighter Typhoon, being flown by display pilot Jamie Norris. You get to hangout on board Europe’s premiere tactical combat platform, as they soar, swoop and just plain sizzle.
Jamie calmly walks us through his pre-flight checks, and gently guides his agile craft into the air. He rejoins on “lead,” (the other Typhoon) as they transition from high altitude to the low level environment. We hear him announcing that the weather is good, and the valley is clear. And then we are off for the races! Flying at less than 250 feet above the ground, both jets have to pull impressive amounts of G forces in order to remain within the safe confines of the valley. They are about as low as you’d dare to go, at speeds in excess of 450 knots! So low to the ground that you can plainly see the cars in people’s driveways and the fences that surround their yards. And maybe people waving…at the sound of freedom coming from those twin exhausts.
But why, you ask, would fighters be down in the weeds?
Great question—it’s about infiltration and avoidance. Up high, radar has a clear return. Low level, especially in mountains, there’s too much clutter in the way (thank you terra firma!). Plus, getting a straight shot at a twisting, bucking Typhoon? Fuhgeddabouttit!
The Eurofighter Typhoon is an aircraft with strike force capability. It is in service with six nations – the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, and Saudi Arabia.
We’ve seen and posted some pretty amazing feats of airlifters. As amazing as the C-17 or C-5 jets are, there is something really special about the Herc. With its four fans of freedom that allow it to takeoff and land in very short distances (even an aircraft carrier!), and its landing gear that means its displacement is uniquely light on landing surfaces.
This video footage features a pilot being trained to land a C-130J Hercules on an unusual surface…a beach. We think the footage is shot along various beaches on the shores of western Denmark, known as Vejers Strand.
The C-130 is able to land on such austere surfaces for a couple of reasons. The first is that the high wing, high lift aircraft is well suited for slow-speed landings and short takeoffs. Additionally, the gear is designed such that the weight displacement on the C-130 on a per-tire basis is actually relatively low. This means that the C-130 is less likely to create deep ruts or destroy austere runways surfaces like compacted sand or dirt.
The C-130 Hercules is a four engined turboprop military transport plane, designed and built by Lockheed. The aircraft is known for being able to use unprepared runways for takeoffs and landings. It was originally designed to transport troops, cargo, and medevac equipment. It has also been used as an AC-130 gunship, for airborne assault, for search and rescue efforts, for scientific research and support, for weather reconnaissance, for aerial refueling, aerial firefighting, and maritime patrol.
History of the Herc
The C-130 took its maiden voyage on August 23rd of 1954, and was introduced into service that same year. As of 2015, more than 2,500 of this type of aircraft have been built, and the aircraft is still in production today.
The Lockheed C-130 Hercules is the main aircraft of Air Forces around the world. Primary users of the C-130 are the United States Air Force (USAF), the United States Marine Corps, the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
The most recent variant of this aircraft is the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules.
In 2007, the Lockheed C-130 Hercules became the fifth aircraft to celebrate 50 years of continuous service with its original buyer, which was, in the case, the United States Air Force.
It’s hard to believe that 2007 was more than a decade ago already. Back then it wasn’t as rare to see men and women from the Greatest Generation join events to share their stories. This video harkens back to a time not THAT long ago where WASPs, Tuskegee Airmen, and WWII vets saw over 20 P-51s take to the skies with the distinctive drone of their powerful engines. You’ll see no less than 20 P-51 Mustangs take off, two or three at a time, to fly in formation over the Gathering of Legends and Mustangs at Rickenbacker airport in Columbus, Ohio. The event took place between September 27th and September 30th of 2007.
This made-in-USA video footage was captured from the top of a twelve-foot high photography platform, with a prime seat to catch all the Mustang action. The awesome video clip, uploaded on January 5th of 2011, was produced by Steve Kauzlarich.
About the P-51 Mustang
The P-51 Mustang is an American long range, single seat, fighter bomber plane. Designed in 1940 by North American Aviation, it took ts maiden voyage on October 26th of 1940, and was introduced to the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1942. The P-51 Mustang has been used in World War Two, the Korean War, and other conflicts. Its primary users have been the United States Army Air Force (USAAF), the Royal Air Force (RAF), the Chinese Nationalist Air Force, and others. Since its introduction, more than fifteen thousand P-51 Mustang aircraft have been built. The per unit cost of a P-51 was about $51,000, way back in 1945.
image via national archives
The Mustang was originally designed to use an Allison V-1710 engine, but they were later outfitted with Rolls Royce Merlin engines, which improved performance at altitudes above 15,000 feet. The ultimate version of the aircraft, called the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650-7 engine, and armed with a set of six .50 caliber Browning machine guns.
Attention Avgeeks! There are only a few more months to see active US Air Force F-4 Phantoms flying at airshows. That’s right. In less than three months, the QF-4 program will be gone forever. With the expiration of the QF-4 program, that means that all associated heritage flights at airshows will also end. According to AirshowStuff, the final flying performance of the QF-4 will be on December 20th at Holloman Air Force Base with 4 other appearances between now and then.
Even if you can’t make it to see them in person, you can still be awed by watching them online. Our friends at AirshowStuff also shared some exclusive F-4 Helmet Cam footage with us. In an era of glass cockpits and multi-function displays, it’s so retro to see some old steam gauges in the Vietnam era cockpit. It’s also refreshing to see some precise stick and rudder flying powered by two afterburning General Electric J79s.
The rare footage came features an F-4 formation departure from the AirVenture Airshow at Oshkosh. On departure, you’ll see a high speed pass, photo pass, and dirty pass. That’s the old ‘mini demo’ routine they used to do when they were part of the Heritage Flight program. After departure, they climbed straight out after the dirty pass and transitioned to cruise.
If you’ve ever had the pleasure (or perhaps the terror) of taking off in a commercial plane from Orange County at John Wayne airport, you’ll know that it is a takeoff unlike any other. Just seconds after liftoff, you will feel your stomach drop as the airplane does a very abrupt pushover. This pushover, similar to what you might feel on a rollercoaster or perhaps a hilly backcountry road, will make you light in your seat. You might even feel yourself being restrained by your seatbelt.
The next thing that you will notice is that the sounds in the cabin will change. Specifically, they will get much quieter. The roar of the engines that accompanies all takeoffs will diminish dramatically. You will sense that the nose of the aircraft has dropped significantly. The incline, or what pilots call the “deck angle” will have gone from the usually steep angle used for most takeoffs, to one that is barely distinguishable from level flight. And all this will seem to be happening much too close to the ground.
Finally, you may become aware of an annoying thumping that you feel in your chest. Don’t worry, that’s only your heart pounding.
You may think that this is it…game over…and wonder if there’s enough time to squeeze a goodbye text to your loved ones before plunging into the Pacific Ocean. But you should rest easy. You are not going to die (at least not today). What you have just experienced is known as a noise abatement takeoff. They occur hundreds of times weekly at John Wayne and are an FAA approved and in fact government mandated maneuver. That’s right; pilots and airlines will be fined if they don’t perform this type of takeoff.
So why, you may ask, are you being subjected to an experience that should probably be featured at the nearby Disney theme park? Well, as I mentioned above, noise. Noise and of course politics. For John Wayne airport is the only airport which mandates such a drastic noise reduction profile. And as legend has it, the Duke himself, the airport’s namesake, had a hand in getting those restrictions put in place.
The departure path from John Wayne airport flies almost directly over Newport Beach. As you may know, Newport Beach is a very well-heeled community. And while I’m not going to make judgements on wealth accumulation, one thing wealthy people are good at is getting things done. Starting with the arrival of the first turboprops and jets in the 1970s, community activism followed soon thereafter. Eventually, lawsuits were filed, and the restrictions were put in place.
A little history about John Wayne Airport
John Wayne Airport dates back to 1923 when a landing strip was first opened by a man named Eddie Martin to host a flying school. Then known as Martin Field, Orange County assumed ownership in 1939 with the airport becoming to be known as Orange County Airport. The name was changed to John Wayne Airport in 1979 in honor of actor John Wayne, a nearby resident, upon his death.
Noise restrictions at the airport date back to 1985 when a local group representing residents who lived under the departure path sued the county. The resulting settlement implemented noise regulations and curfew requirements, which remain in force today. Noise meters are deployed along the departure path to measure the sound footprint of each departing aircraft. Those restrictions are unique in being some of the first of their kind, and also just about the only of their kind.
In 1990, Congress, fearing that many localities could eventually hamstring the growth of aviation by implementing their own patchwork of noise restrictions, passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act which outlawed curfews at airports. John Wayne was grandfathered in, however, due to the original lawsuit being filed in 1985.
Why the Rollercoaster?
So knowing why airplanes have to fly quietly, you may be wondering about the “how”. And specifically, you might be wondering why airliners don’t just use less thrust from the get-go instead of the roar followed by the pushover and silence. Without getting too technical about takeoff performance, much of it comes down to the runway length at John Wayne airport, or to be more specific, the lack of runway length.
The longest runway at John Wayne is less than 6000 feet long. At a scant, 5701 feet to be precise, it is one of the shortest runways if not the shortest runway in the nation from which large commercial aircraft fly.
It is the nature of gaining flying airspeed in a very short distance which necessitates the full power takeoff. Once airborne, but before the flaps are retracted, the aircraft reaches a “cutback” altitude of about 800 ft. It is here where the engines are throttled back either manually or by the auto-throttles to a thrust which meets the minimum required climb gradient of about 2.5%. Less thrust also means a shallower climb angle, hence the pushover.
Once beyond the noise sensitive area, or about six miles after takeoff, the aircraft resumes its normal climb profile using full climb thrust.
Are noise abatement departures more dangerous?
I suppose that depends on your definition of the word dangerous. Any time you monkey around with large power changes on a turbine engine, you increase the odds of something going wrong. In fact, many engine failures occur not on initial thrust application such as takeoff, but rather on a large thrust reduction. That said, the odds of that ever happening are infinitesimal. Still, it isn’t unknown for engines to fail as was dramatically illustrated by the uncontained engine failure on a Southwest Airlines 737 several weeks ago. Infinitesimal odds, but not zero.
So no, it isn’t dangerous in the conventional sense of the word. Avoiding flights out of Orange County to avoid takeoffs using this procedure would be silly. And likely more dangerous, as a longer commute up the freeway to LAX would definitely expose you to more absolute danger in your car. Of course, the safest course of action is to hide under the bed, which still won’t protect you from meteorites…or dust bunnies.
So when you do get on that airplane leaving the Orange County, be sure to get a window seat on the left side of the airplane which gives the best views of Catalina, relax and enjoy the ride. But don’t put your arms in the air and scream as if on a real rollercoaster. People will stare.
A highly organized set of rules and procedures allow efficient traffic flow between North America and Europe.
More than two thousand flights a day cross the North Atlantic. However, there is no radar coverage over the North Atlantic, so planes must fly according to a unique set of procedures. They follow a set of daily tracks that behave like highways in the sky.
These are called North Atlantic Tracks, or NATs. The tracks are used by planes that fly at altitudes between 29,000 and 41,000 feet. In this way, the planes can steer clear of each other, as there are potentially hundreds of planes all traveling the same route at the same time, with no direct radar coverage. Airliners use satellite-based tools and HF radio to report position and communicate with controllers in Canada, Scotland, New York or Santa Maria depending on their location.
The North Atlantic tracks are flexible. They are changed daily to take maximum advantage of jet stream winds. The jet stream winds have an average wind speed of about 110 miles an hour, sometimes much higher. Planes that fly in and with these winds can cut an hour or more off their arrival times. For instance, an eastbound flight from New York to London normally takes about six hours and 15 minutes but over time a flight can shave almost an entire hour by taking advantage of the winds. The return flight back to the US is against the winds though. A flight from London to New York could take almost seven hours.
NATs are an amazing example of international cooperation to ensure safe and effective travel across the Atlantic.
STS-9 was the ninth NASA Space Shuttle mission, and the sixth flight of Space Shuttle Columbia. It was launched in November 1983 on a nine-day mission carrying the first Spacelab laboratory module into orbit.
STS-9 was notable for its “firsts.” While this was not Commander John Young’s first Shuttle flight, he was the commander of STS-1, the first Shuttle flight.
STS-9 was a mission of many firsts
This was the first time the Shuttle orbiter flew with six crew members.
It was the first flight for a member of the European Space Agency.
It was the first Spacelab laboratory module mission.
The mission went so well, the mission was extended to 10 days, making STS-9 the longest duration Shuttle flight at that time.
The flight events progressed smoothly. The six astronauts, working in teams of three, worked 12-hour shifts in the Spacelab. Work in the Spacelab went so well that the mission was extended to 10 days, making it the longest-duration shuttle flight at that time.
The Spacelab 1 mission was highly successful, proving the feasibility of the concept of carrying out complex experiments in space using non-NASA persons trained as payload specialists in collaboration with a Payload Operations Control Center (POCC).
Some firsts were not positive
Four hours before scheduled re-entry, one of the flight control computers crashed when the Reaction Control System (RCS) maneuvering thrusters were fired. A few minutes later, a second computer crashed in a similar fashion, but it was successfully rebooted. Young delayed re-entry and allowed the Shuttle to drift in orbit for several hours, double checking their systems.
Re-entry went smoothly and all systems appeared normal throughout the descent and landing.
Then a fire…
What no one knew was that about two minutes before touchdown, two of the three APUs caught fire in the APU compartment in the rear of the Shuttle. The APUs provide hydraulic pressure to operate the orbiter’s flight controls and landing gear.
Unaware of the fire, the crew landed the orbiter without difficulty. The fire continued after the wheels stopped, eventually burning itself out, causing major damage to the compartment. The fact that there had been a fire was not discovered, however, until the APU compartment was opened during post-flight inspections.
Post-flight analysis revealed the first computer failed when the RCS thruster motion knocked a piece of solder loose and shorted the CPU board.
The fire in the APU compartment was caused by a hydrazine fuel leak. Hydrazine is used as a fuel for the RCS thrusters.
During a post-flight press conference, Young remarked that when the first computer failed “…my knees started shaking. When the next computer failed I turned to jelly.” (John Young – Mission Report STS-9)
Ukraine: Where Regulations Must Just Be An Opinion
Eastern European air forces seem to have some different flyover rules than the rest of the world. If a US Air Force pilot attempted this, he or she would lose their wings and probably go to jail! This isn’t the first time we’ve seen some ‘unique’ flying by Eastern Bloc nations. We’ve seen some impressive low passes from the Slovokian Government A319 and Russian SU-24s buzzing the tower.
We don’t have many details on this flyover other than it’s a Ukrainian IL-76 and the flyover is both impressive and downright nuts. Just watch:
On October 4th of 1989, a Rockwell B-1B Lancer from Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, crash landed in Rogers Dry Lake at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The nose landing gear would not extend, so the crew consulted with engineers and maintenance personnel. The crew decided that the plane would attempt a landing on the dry lakebed, where a softer, dryer surface promised less damage to the bomber.
The B-1B landed, spewing smoke and dust while its nose gently dug into the ground. While the incident caused some damage to the bomber, it appeared to be light. The jet was later returned to service.
You can read more about the incident in an original article from 1989 here.
The Rockwell B1-B Lancer is a jet powered, heavy strategic bomber, primarily used by the United States Air Force (USAF). It is a four engine, long range, supersonic aircraft.with mach speed capability. The Rockwell B1-B Lancer served in combat during Operation Desert Fox, and in Kosovo the following year. The B1-B has also supported American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
The The Rockwell B1-B Lancer was manufactured by Rockwell International, which is now a part of Boeing. The B-1B entered service on October 1st of 1986 with the United States Air Force (USAF) Strategic Air Command as a nuclear bomber. The B1-B had a unit cost of about $283 million back in 1998. Roughly 100 Rockwell B1-B aircraft were built.
