The Brooklyn Dodgers were the first Major League Baseball (MLB) team to own their own plane for team travel, marking a major milestone in both baseball and aviation history. This move earned them the distinction of being the first MLB team airplane owners, ushering in a new era of sports travel.
But the honor of being the first team to fly to a game belongs to the Cincinnati Reds. On 8 June 1934, 19 Reds players boarded two American Airlines–chartered Ford Tri-Motors, while six teammates chose to travel by train. Reds General Manager Larry McPhail believed flying would give the team more time to rest between games.
Soon after, teams like the New York Yankees began chartering planes more frequently throughout the season. But it was the Dodgers who took the next leap by acquiring their own aircraft, becoming the first true MLB team airplane operators.
Fly Me Out to the Ball Game
In the 1940s, trains were the primary method of transportation for teams. However, Brooklyn Dodgers President Branch Rickey had his own Beechcraft, which seated five. Rickey had a business partner named Bud Holman, who worked at Eastern Airlines from Vero Beach, Florida. The two would fly between New York and Florida in the Beechcraft.
In 1948, the Dodgers were considered an elite team. However, they had 84 wins and 70 losses, a 10-win setback from the previous year, and lost the National League pennant to the 91-win Boston Braves. There was no playoff tournament at the time, and the American and National League leaders met at the World Series.
Brooklyn Dodgers Owner Walter O’Malley became interested in purchasing a plane for the team. He met with Holman about the possibility of buying a plane. Holman offered O’Malley a used Douglas DC-3 for free that O’Malley claimed he ‘won in a crap game.’ O’Malley quickly accepted the deal, only having to pay for new engines for the aircraft.
Thus, the DC-3 became the very first MLB team airplane in history.
The ‘Bump’ Brooklyn Needed
The Brooklyn Dodgers’ Douglas DC-3, acquired from Eastern. It was the first MLB team airplane in aviation history. | IMAGE: Museum of Flying
The Dodgers’ DC-3 had 20 seats, so with a 40-player roster, each trip required two flights. Despite the logistical challenge, this MLB team airplane strategy paid off. The team saw more wins and greater flexibility in scheduling—even if they didn’t always clinch the pennant.
In 1949, they won 97 games and lost to the New York Yankees in the World Series. The following year, the Dodgers won 89 games, two shy of winning the National League pennant. In 1951, the Dodgers tied the New York Giants for the best record but lost in a best-of-three series to advance to the World Series. 1952 saw the Dodgers return to the World Series with 86 wins but came up short to the Yankees in seven games.
During this time, the Dodgers employed several former Eastern Airlines pilots to fly the team.
In 1953, however, Holman’s son, Harry, also known as ‘Bump,’ graduated from Florida Southern College. Bump became the Dodgers’ chief pilot at the age of 21. As a teenager, Bump was flying crop dusters and later co-piloted during commercial flights at 18.
Bump went on to fly the Dodgers for 11 seasons, in which they won the World Series in 1955, 1959, and 1963.
Brooklyn Dodgers’ Convair 440 | IMAGE: San Diego Air & Space Museum
The Dodgers also upgraded their plane to a Convair 440 in 1957.
O’Malley would become good friends with Eastern Airlines president and World War I pilot Eddie Rickenbacker. Rickenbacker ordered the 440 as part of a 20-plane bundle for the airline to save money on the plane. Rickenbacker then sold the 440 to the Dodgers for only $700,000.
The Dodgers moved to Los Angeles the following year.
The Holmans After Baseball
In 1964, Bud Holman passed away from a heart attack. The tragedy prompted Bump to leave the Dodgers to take over his father’s business ventures. The Dodgers won an additional championship the following year.
Bump would later become a Quiet Birdmen member, a Seacoast Bank director, and the CEO of Sun Aviation. On 17 January 2021, he passed away under hospice care in Vero Beach at the age of 89.
JetZero is developing a new blended wing aircraft suitable for passenger, military, and cargo missions. The project has attracted support from government agencies and civilian airlines. While this new design has great potential and advantages over typical aircraft, JetZero is learning that it must overcome several key disadvantages before beginning production.
JetZero Blended Wing Aircraft to Have Some Similarities to Current Aircraft
The JetZero Z4 Will Have Standard Pratt & Whitney Engines. | Image: JetZero
JetZero has designed its new blended wing aircraft, the Z4, to carry 250 passengers, similar to the capacity of the Boeing 757. In some ways, it will be quite similar to aircraft flying today. The Z4 can use conventional jet fuel and does not require new engine technologies. The current plans are to power the aircraft with Pratt & Whitney PW2040 engines from the same engine family used in the 757 and the US Air Force C-17 Globemaster.
The Z4 Blended Wing Aircraft Fuselage Will Have Less Drag and More Lift Than Current Designs. | Image: JetZero
Better Fuel Efficiency Due to Less Drag and More Lift
The shape of the Z4 fuselage is probably the main difference between the aircraft flying today. As the entire fuselage forms a wing, the aircraft creates less drag and has more lift from the entire wingspan. This feature leads to its most important advantage: better fuel efficiency.
JetZero estimates its blended wing design will result in as much as 50% less fuel use per passenger mile than conventional jets of similar size. For example, a Z4 flight from New York to Palma de Mallorca, Spain, would use 45% less fuel than aircraft currently flying that route.
JetZero Also Expecting Less Emissions From Blended Wing Design
Besides the Z4’s fuel savings, the JetZero blended wing design produces fewer emissions. Part of this is from being more efficient, but they also plan for it to use sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF is manufactured from sustainable feedstocks like used cooking oil, animal waste fat, and solid waste such as packaging materials, paper, textiles, and food scraps. It can also come from forestry scraps like waste wood and energy crops like algae and fast-growing plants.
Both United and Delta Are Interested in SAF and Reaching Net-Zero Emission Levels. | Image: JetZero
British Petroleum (BP) is working on SAF. They report that it can be blended 50-50 with other jet fuels and that aircraft require no modifications for commercial use. Some key advantages of using SAF include lowering carbon emissions, reducing particulate emissions by about 90%, and practically eliminating sulfur emissions.
Due to higher production costs, SAF is more expensive than regular fuels. However, several airlines, like United and Delta, aim to become more efficient and achieve net-zero emissions and are willing to move to SAF anyway. While the Z4 can fly with regular fuels, its overall efficiency will improve even more with SAF.
The JetZero blended wing aircraft has attracted strong interest from United and Delta. On 24 April 2025, United announced that it is investing in JetZero and plans to buy 200 Z4s. The deal will require JetZero to reach several development goals, including flying a full-scale demonstration model in 2027.
New Aircraft Must Fit Into Existing Airport Infrastructure
United also wants to ensure that the Z4 blended wing aircraft will fit into existing infrastructure like runways, taxiways, and passenger bridges. JetZero has mentioned this, but has not provided any specific details to confirm it.
Delta also has big plans for the Z4. On 05 March 2025, it announced a partnership with JetZero.
“Working with JetZero to realize an entirely new airframe and experience for customers and employees is bold and important work to advance the airline industry’s fuel-saving initiatives and innovation goals,” said Amelia DeLuca, Delta’s Chief Sustainability Officer.
With its Engines on Top of the Wing, The JetZero Blended Wing Aircraft Will be Quieter Than Current Passenger Jets. | Image: JetZero
Another advantage of the Z4 design is that it will be quieter than conventional passenger jets. JetZero’s design has the engines mounted above the wings, which they expect will result in less noise.
A Better Passenger Experience
The company also expects the Z4 to provide a different but better customer experience. The most noticeable difference will be that longer rows will extend across the winged fuselage instead of the several narrow columns from front to back on typical tube-shaped designs. The aircraft might have 15 to 20 rows across the cabin. This layout will allow for larger seats, more dedicated overhead space for belongings, and even a wider main door, making embarkation and debarkation easier.
The Z4 Will Have Wider Seats and More Space For Personal Belongings. | Image: JetZero
Pressurization Biggest Hurdle For JetZero
Despite these advantages, JetZero faces several serious obstacles in developing its blended wing aircraft. The most challenging of these involves pressurization. On a typical passenger jet, the pressure is evenly distributed throughout the length and consistent width of the fuselage.
With its irregular interior shape, a blended wing aircraft finds it more challenging to distribute and maintain equal pressure in the cabin. JetZero states it will overcome this with new composite materials.
Patents May Indicate JetZero Solved Pressure Concerns
It also claims it has intellectual property that addresses the pressurization issue but has not provided any details. This possible solution might include several patents it recently received, one for a mold for aircraft components and another for carbon fiber materials and manufacturing processes.
JetZero has several other engineering challenges to overcome. These include issues with low-speed handling on takeoffs and landings and working with an overall more complex design.
US Air Force Makes Big Investment in JetZero Blended Wing Aircraft.
The hope is that the Z4 blended wing aircraft will not be limited to commercial travel. In 2023, the US Air Force invested $235 million in the aircraft. Besides the obvious fuel efficiency, the service also cited the potential for the design to be used for tanker and cargo missions.
On 17 February 2024, a Lufthansa Airbus A321 bound from Frankfurt, Germany, to Seville, Spain, was briefly left without a conscious pilot at the controls after the first officer (FO) became incapacitated and the captain was locked out of the cockpit during a routine lavatory break.
For roughly 10 minutes, 199 passengers and six crew members were aboard an aircraft being flown solely by automation.
Though resolved without injury or incident, the episode raises red flags within the aviation community. It draws uncomfortable parallels to the Germanwings Flight 9525 tragedy in 2015 and reignites the debate surrounding cockpit security protocols and single-pilot operation (SPO) proposals.
Although this incident occurred more than a year ago, information about it was not released publicly until May 2025.
The 2024 Lufthansa Incident: Autopilot in Command
A Lufthansa Airbus A321 on short final at FRA | IMAGE: By Raimund Stehmann – https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28500020
On a routine early afternoon flight from Frankfurt (FRA) to Seville (SVQ), a Lufthansa Airbus A321-231, operating with the callsign LH77X, was cruising with the autopilot engaged when the 43-year-old captain stepped out for a restroom break, leaving the 38-year-old FO at the controls.
Approximately 30 minutes from landing, the FO suffered a sudden medical emergency and fainted while alone in the cockpit, leaving the aircraft without a pilot at the controls. The captain, locked out due to post-9/11 cockpit security measures, attempted to re-enter using the standard door code, which triggers a chime for the other pilot to unlock the door manually. After five unsuccessful attempts and a failed effort by a flight attendant to contact the FO via the onboard telephone, the captain resorted to an emergency override code.
Just as the door was about to open automatically, the FO, despite being ill, managed to unlock it from inside. Once the captain regained entry to the cockpit, it was evident that his FO was experiencing a debilitating medical emergency. According to an investigation by Spain’s Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission (Comisión de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil, CIAIAC), the FO was “pale, sweating, and moving strangely.”
The captain immediately summoned help from the flight crew, who were able to locate a doctor on board to administer care to the FO. The captain then chose to divert to the nearest suitable airport, which in this case was Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport (MAD), about 88 nautical miles southwest of their location. Once on the ground in Madrid, the FO was met by a waiting ambulance and received medical attention.
Aerial view of Adolfo Suárez Madrid International Airport, Madrid (Spain) | IMAGE: By Michiel1972 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14644813
According to the investigation, the FO experienced a “sudden and severe incapacitation [that] was the symptom of a neurological condition that had not been detected either by the affected person himself or in the previous aeronautical medical examinations.” Although the FO survived, his medical certificate was suspended as a precaution until it was determined what caused the emergency.
Stabilized by its autopilot, the A321 flew without incident at FL350 during the emergency. The CIAIAC report noted that the co-pilot’s unintentional inputs on the controls did not disrupt the autopilot’s operation, averting a potential catastrophe. Nevertheless, for 10 minutes, the flight was without an able pilot in command, posing an unacceptable risk by industry standards.
Eerie Parallels Between the Lufthansa Incident and Germanwings Flight 9525
Airbus A320 (D-AIPX) of Germanwings on final approach at Barcelona Airport. This aircraft crashed on 24 March 2015 in the French Alps as Germanwings Flight 9525 | IMAGE: SEBASTIEN MORTIER, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The Lufthansa incident is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash on 24 March 2015. In that tragedy, FO Andreas Lubitz deliberately locked the captain, Patrick Sondenheimer, out of the cockpit after the latter left for a break.
Lubitz, who had a history of untreated mental health issues, including suicidal tendencies, set the Airbus A320’s autopilot to descend to 100 feet, intentionally crashing the plane into the French Alps and killing all 150 people on board.
That tragedy, also involving a Lufthansa Group carrier, prompted a wave of procedural changes across global aviation, including cockpit access reforms and temporary two-person cockpit mandates in Europe.
The Lufthansa incident from 2024 may have had no malicious intent, but the mechanical factors–the locked-out captain, unresponsive FO, and reliance on autopilot–closely mirror conditions that preceded the Germanwings disaster.
The contrast in outcomes does little to ease the implications: both events exposed a common point of vulnerability that continues to exist nearly a decade later. Further, both events expose the inherent risk of even temporary single-pilot scenarios.
Cockpit Security: A Double-Edged Sword
IMAGE: ALPA
The reinforced cockpit doors central to both incidents were mandated after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks to prevent unauthorized access. Today, they are ICAO-standard across most jurisdictions.
These doors, typically bulletproof with time-delayed emergency override features, are designed to prevent unlawful interference. However, as seen in both incidents, they can inadvertently obstruct legitimate reentry during critical situations.
The emergency access system requires several seconds before unlocking, during which a conscious pilot inside the cockpit may override and block the entry. This safeguard worked against Captain Sondenheimer in 2015 and nearly delayed intervention in 2024. In the Lufthansa case, the FO was too incapacitated to block entry, which may have averted a far worse outcome.
The “Two-in-the-Cockpit” Debate Resurfaces
An image highlighting the “Safety Starts with 2” media campaign | IMAGE: safetystartswith2.com
Following the Germanwings incident, Lufthansa and other European carriers briefly implemented a two-person cockpit rule, requiring a cabin crew member to enter when one pilot steps out. This rule ensures no pilot is left alone, mitigating risks from medical emergencies or intentional acts.
In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has enforced such a policy since the 9/11 attacks. However, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) repealed it in 2017, citing inconclusive evidence of its effectiveness and increased complexity in operations. Lufthansa discontinued the requirement, which was in line with EASA’s guidance. The absence of a second person in the cockpit in the Lufthansa incident is therefore legally compliant, but operationally questionable.
Given the circumstances, renewed scrutiny of the two-person rule is likely. Posts from industry figures, including CNN aviation correspondent Richard Quest, have reignited debate about Lufthansa’s policy decisions and the value of redundancy in flight deck staffing.
A @lufthansa plane flew 10 mins without pilot after capt went to loo and copilot fainted. Hang on – what about a 2 person cockpit rule introduced after Germanwings crash? Well.. 1 year later regulators decided said airlines could go back to old rule if satisfied risk ok. Hmm
Automation and SPO Are Not Substitutes for Human Redundancy
An ad from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) depicting its stance against single-pilot operations | IMAGE: ALPA
The 2024 Lufthansa incident highlights the dangers of single-pilot operations, even in a two-pilot crew on a long-haul flight when one pilot is temporarily absent. Modern airliners rely heavily on automation, such as autopilots, to maintain stable flight, but unexpected events, such as medical emergencies, technical failures, or intentional acts, require immediate human intervention.
In the 2024 incident, the autopilot maintained control, but an unconscious pilot could not respond to air traffic control, monitor systems, or handle contingencies like turbulence or system alerts. Long-range flights, where pilot fatigue and restroom breaks are inevitable, amplify the risk of a single pilot becoming incapacitated. The Germanwings crash exposed an even graver risk: a pilot with malicious intent exploiting a moment of sole control.
Proposals for single-pilot operations on long-haul flights, driven by cost-cutting and advancements in automation, have been debated in the industry. However, both incidents underscore that even with two pilots, temporary single-pilot scenarios can arise, and full single-pilot operations could exacerbate these risks.
These scenarios underscore a key flaw in SPO logic: while systems can fly a plane, they can’t decide how to respond to the unknown.
While systems can fly a plane, they can’t decide how to respond to the unknown.
The Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) has pointed out that having a second crew member in the cockpit provides limited benefits beyond door access. While not trained to fly, a flight attendant can quickly alert other crew or unlock doors when necessary, potentially compressing response times in an emergency.
How Many Wake-Up Calls Will It Take?
Mass grave in Le Vernet cemetery for the unidentifiable remains of the victims. The names of all 149 victims of the Germanwings Flight 9525 tragedy are engraved on the cemetery wall | IMAGE: Elke Wetzig, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The 2024 Lufthansa incident was another wake-up call to the aviation industry: its safety hinges on robust human and systemic redundancies. The Germanwings tragedy prompted changes, including EASA’s temporary two-person cockpit rule and calls for improved mental health screenings. But gaps remain. Politics gets in the way. Rules are loosened. Further, in the case of the Lufthansa incident, there are lingering inconsistencies in how lessons are applied.
To fortify flight desk security and accessibility, the industry might consider:
Reinforce the Two-Person Rule: Especially during phases when one pilot temporarily leaves the flight deck. This is a simple procedural layer that restores immediate situational awareness.
Enhance Medical Screenings: Particularly for neurological and cardiovascular conditions. Improved screening frequency and expanded authority for reporting risk factors without overstepping privacy could prevent undetected conditions.
Improve Cockpit Access Protocols: Developing faster emergency access methods, such as biometric overrides or shorter delay times, could reduce response times without compromising security.
Invest in Automation Safeguards: While automation saved the Lufthansa flight, advanced systems, such as artificial intelligence or cockpit-based physiological monitoring that detect pilot incapacitation, could alert flight or ground crew before loss of situational control.
The aviation industry must balance security, cost, and safety. The Lufthansa incident, though resolved – thankfully – without loss of life, echoes the Germanwings tragedy in exposing vulnerabilities when a single pilot is left in control, whether by circumstance or design.
As discussions about single-pilot operations continue, these incidents argue strongly for maintaining multiple layers of human oversight to ensure the safety of passengers and crew.
While automation and reinforced cockpit doors are critical, they cannot fully replace the presence of a second pilot or crew member. Procedural compliance will never replace operational vigilance.
For an industry that prides itself on redundancy, these events underscore the need for rigorous policies, consistent enforcement, and ongoing scrutiny of single-pilot risks. We cannot afford to allow gaps in the system. As we all know all too well, in aviation, a single point of failure is one too many.
USGlobal Airways remains a curious outlier in aviation history—an airline that, despite existing for over 30 years, never operated one commercial flight.
Many airlines fade into obscurity without operating a single flight, but USGlobal, formerly known as Baltia Air Lines, managed to continue onwards from 1989 through aircraft acquisitions and interactions with governing bodies. Here’s the story of USGlobal Airways—so far.
Greetings from the Soviet Union
Baltia Air Lines was founded in August 1989 by Latvian pilot Igor Dmitrowsky. The airline’s main appeal was its ability to connect many different cities in the Soviet Union to John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York City.
Dmitrowsky proposed nonstop service from the United States to what is now Russia, which was billed as one of the primary means of connecting the two nations after the Cold War.
In 1991, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) granted Baltia authority to operate flights from New York to Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and Riga. Baltia also wanted routes connecting Kyiv, Minsk, and Tbilisi, but the Soviet Union collapsed on 26 December 1991, liberating each destination.
Image: USGlobal Airways
Despite the DOT’s approval, Baltia didn’t have an aircraft to its name yet. Once it acquired a Boeing 747-200 from Cathay Pacific, the DOT revoked its route authority as the airline didn’t have the capital to fly.
Boeing After Boeing of False Starts
Undeterred, Baltia secured new capital in 2007 and regained DOT approval in 2008. The airline now had the right to fly from St. Petersburg to New York. However, the airline sold or scrapped its 747 at some point prior.
Baltia purchased another Boeing 747 from Pakistan International Airlines in 2009, though it didn’t have its engines. The airline gave it to Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport in Malaysia, where it would ultimately be scrapped.
Dmitrowsky acquired another 747 from Northwest Airlines. This time, it was painted in Baltia’s livery. Despite being able to fly, this aircraft, too, never got approval from the DOT.
To save on operational costs, Baltia moved to Willow Run Airport (YIP), a small airport in Ypsilanti, Michigan. This airport was primarily for private jets and other small aircraft. The Boeing had to be parked outside, attracting much attention from locals.
The Boeing was on display at the Willow Run Thunder Over Michigan Airshow in 2014, attended by over 100,000 aviation enthusiasts. However, the airline had to sell this jet two years later.
Dmitrowsky passed away on 4 January 2016. Vice President Anthony Koulouris took over as the airline’s new CEO.
Failure to Launch
In 2017, reports stated that Baltia racked up $119 million in debt. The airline sold shares on the New York Stock Exchange to continue funding the business.
Once again, without a jet, Baltia relocated to Stewart International Airport in New Windsor, New York. Koulouris then renamed the airline to USGlobal Airways. In 2018, the new CEO shared the company’s aspirations to fly from New York to Tel Aviv, Israel, and Paris, France.
USGlobal signed a letter of intent to lease a Boeing 767-300ER from Kalitta Air and attempted to acquire Songbird Airways’ operating certificate, but both plans fizzled. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revoked USGlobal’s Certificate of Public Convenience in 2018.
Coupled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspending the airline’s stock trading after failing to release a financial report in two years, the airline has never given an update since.
With its 1953 Beechcraft T-34A Mentor airplane, the Wisconsin Wing of the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) preserves aviation history and provides a safe, reliable, and fun warbird flying experience for its members and guests.
This is a story of an aircraft with multiple lives, as it has undergone two major restorations. The CAF continues to upgrade and improve their airplane.
The T-34A was the primary trainer for the U.S. Air Force during the 1950s. The original aircraft, a Beechcraft Model 45 developed from the Beechcraft Bonanza, first flew in December 1948. The first military prototype, the YT-34A, had its first flight in May 1950. The U.S. Air Force ordered 450 of the type. The Chilean, Canadian, and Japanese air forces also used the T-34A.
Beech T-34A Mentor at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. | Image: U.S. Air Force photo
The T-34A is 25 feet long and has a 32-foot wingspan. It has a 225-hp Continental Engine, a maximum speed of 191 mph, and a 20,000-foot ceiling.
U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Flew the T-34B Model
The aircraft was a versatile design, as the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps also flew the T-34B model. The T-34B, a U.S. Navy trainer, flew until the early 1970s when it was replaced by the T-34C Turbo-Mentor, which had a turboprop engine. The B model had several changes from the A model, including differential braking for steering control on the ground, additional wing dihedral for increased stability, and adjustable rudder pedals instead of the moveable seats on the T-34A.
T-34B model used by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Marine Corps. | Image: Estrella Warbird Museum
CAF Wisconsin Wing T-34A begins first restoration
The CAF Wisconsin Wing T-34A, tail number N5347W, was manufactured in 1953. It transferred to the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in 1964 and moved between Texas, Nevada, and Alabama. A company in the Philippines bought it in 1971. Then, in 1980, a buyer in California purchased the plane and performed an extensive restoration costing $240,000.
A T-34A during restoration to preserve its place in aviation history. | Image: Mid America Flight Museum
The restoration included updating the avionics, installing a new 300 hp Continental engine with a three-blade propeller, and painting it in its current Air Force paint scheme. The aircraft also received a smoke system, strobe lights, a new Cleveland Brake system, and an Insight engine monitor.
T-34A Donated to Wisconsin Wing of Commemorative Air Force
In 1990, a new owner placed the aircraft in a hangar in Wisconsin, and there it sat, an unused piece of aviation history, until 2017, when he donated it to the Wisconsin Wing of the CAF. Wing member Mike Woods suggested the group consider acquiring a T-34A the year prior. While in the Air Force, he had flown T-34s with the Flying Club at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.
Wisconsin Wing of the Commemorative Air Force T-34A. | Image: Wisconsin CAF Wing
The Wing agreed with Woods and began searching for an aircraft. They were pleasantly surprised to find N5347W in a hangar at the Waukesha County Airport (UES), where they operated.
The owner admired the Wisconsin CAF Wing and donated the T-34 to them, conditional on their taking good care of it. The Wing promised to get the plane flying again.
T-34A, Tail Number N5347W Begins Second Restoration
The renovation began in 2017 and was mostly complete. The plane was ready for test flights in November 2018. The work included removing and overhauling the engine and propeller and adding GAMI fuel injectors.
“We had to replace almost everything except for the crank,” said Otto.
Key Components Overhauled and Replaced
Other significant aspects of the renovation included changing the control surfaces from magnesium to aluminum and replacing hoses, fuel bladders, tires, tubes, and seals.
Another key upgrade of the original restoration was converting the plane to all 24-volt DC power from the original AC and DC system. After these modifications, the Wing had to comply with three additional airworthiness directives. These included a new doubler plate, spar modifications, and complying with wing and tail section airworthiness directives.
Preserving Aviation History Requires Continuous Effort
The aircraft’s work was still incomplete as they found corrosion in the engine and had to send it back to the repair shop for an additional overhaul. There is still more to do, which is typical with maintaining and operating older aircraft and preserving aviation history. The comprehensive renovation was expensive, and the Wisconsin CAF had to raise funds for the work.
Poster from Wisconsin Wing of CAF describing T-34A. | Image: Wisconsin Wing of CAF
Their first estimate was that the renovation would cost about $87,000, but they have spent $147,000 so far. The Wing has received support from many generous pilots, maintainers, and others who want to support the T-34A project.
Wisconsin CAF Wing is Now Flying Their T-34A
Today, members of the Wisconsin CAF wing are enjoying flying T-34A tail number N5347W. Right now, the plane is in the experimental category, and they have a few more modifications to make to get it into the standard category.
The category is important as it will allow the Wing to enroll more people in its RIDES program, bringing in more funding. It will also enable them to carry out the CAF’s mission to honor our veterans, inspire more people to become interested in aviation and aviation history, and educate the public about our heroes who fought for the freedoms we have.
The CAF selected the Wisconsin Wing T-34A as part of its lineup for its 2024 12 Planes of Christmas fundraising campaign. The funds raised will help the CAF restore and maintain aircraft and recognize the good work the Wisconsin CAF Wing is doing to preserve aviation history.
Webinar featuring members of the Wisconsin Wing of the CAF describing their T-34A and how they are preserving aviation history. | Image: Wisconsin Wing of the CAF
While United Airlines has had its ups and downs in terms of service and profitability, one area where the airline has always led is that it is an early adopter of the latest Boeing and Airbus aircraft. The Boeing 767-200 was no exception.
United Airlines was the launch customer for the Boeing 767-200, which launched at about the same time as its smaller twin, the Boeing 757-200. The Boeing 767-200’s first flight took place on 26 September 1981. Just under a year later, on 8 September 1982, the type entered service with United Airlines.
The Boeing 767-200 was very fuel-efficient for its time
In 1982, United didn’t miss a beat in highlighting its new fuel-efficient twin-jet. In this now very retro ad, United touted the advanced technology of the wide-body aircraft. The Boeing 767 was pretty groundbreaking. It had one of the first commercial cockpits with CRT technology (also known as a glass cockpit). The Boeing 767 shared commonality with the Boeing 757, allowing for a common type rating. United’s Boeing 767 also had ‘larger’ bins (tiny by today’s standards) for carry-ons and a more modern cabin. While United retired the 767-200 series in 2005. They still fly both the Boeing 767-300ER (34 in service as of September 2025) and -400ER (16 in service) today.
Imagine a cockpit where critical flight data doesn’t require a downward glance—where altitude, airspeed, terrain alerts, and traffic data appear directly in your line of sight, even in poor visibility.
Imagine a world where solo pilots can access virtual support that enhances decision-making and reduces workload.
No bulky HUDs, no shifting your gaze to the instrument panel. Just critical flight data, highlighted directly in your field of view.
That’s the promise of augmented reality (AR) in aviation, and thanks to cutting-edge technology companies like ZEISS, it’s moving from concept to reality.
This technology was unveiled publicly at the Aircraft Interiors Expo (AIX) in Hamburg, Germany, in April 2025. ZEISS, the German optics powerhouse known for supplying NASA and the European Space Agency with precision glass components for missions like Apollo and the James Webb Space Telescope, is currently developing it.
Now, ZEISS is bringing that same aerospace-grade innovation to the cockpit with its Multifunctional Smart Glass.
Discover the cockpit of the future! 🛫 With augmented reality, we're giving pilots more insights than ever. What does this mean for the cockpit of the future? Find out. ⤵️#Innovation#Mobilitypic.twitter.com/B79lVxQLex
Here are five incredible ways ZEISS’s Multifunctional Smart Glass is set to revolutionizethe pilot experience:
1. Enhanced Situational Awareness–Even in the Worst Conditions
An aircraft navigates through fog and low clouds on final approach | IMAGE: S0820A, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The technology is centered around a touch-free Holographic Human-Machine Interface (HMI).
At the core of the system is its Advanced Augmented Reality Head-Up Display (HUD). Unlike traditional HUDs that rely on bulky displays, ZEISS uses holographic micro-optical structures to project real-time flight data onto the cockpit windshield.
This tech offers a massive upgrade in situational awareness in emergencies and low-visibility conditions like fog, snow, or night flying. Terrain, obstacles, and traffic are overlaid right into your line of sight, so you stay focused on flying, not flipping through instruments or checklists.
Environmental data from infrared and microwave sensors is integrated into the display, allowing pilots to “see” beyond fog, darkness, or precipitation. The benefits for situational awareness, especially during challenging approaches or low-vis departures, are obvious.
2. A Viable HUD Option for Small Cockpits
Artist rendering of an augmented reality cockpit with HUD | IMAGE: ZEISS
One of the longstanding challenges with HUD technology has been size. Due to space constraints, full-scale HUD systems have traditionally been impractical for many business jets and general aviation aircraft. ZEISS’s design addresses this by dramatically reducing the system’s footprint, making it viable for aircraft that previously had to forgo such enhancements.
“Until now, these systems were too bulky for single-pilot cockpits,” explains Dr. Dennis Lehr, Head of ZEISS Microoptics. “We’ve worked to reduce the size and complexity while improving the performance.”
This opens up opportunities for safer flight in smaller aircraft, where workload is high and backup is often limited.
3. A Safety Net for Single-Pilot Operations
Augmented reality use in avionics with HUD | IMAGE: ZEISS
Smart Glass could act as a kind of digital co-pilot for solo pilots, especially those flying IFR or in congested airspace. By visualizing checklists, alerting the pilot to forgotten tasks, and flagging navigational hazards in real time, it provides an extra layer of vigilance—something sorely needed in a sector where human error remains a leading factor in accidents.
Test pilots involved in early evaluations report notable improvements in clarity, usability, and contrast compared to previous-generation HUDs. One commercial pilot noted that “contrast, glare, visibility, and operation are significantly improved,” suggesting the technology could serve as an extension of traditional instruments and a platform for entirely new display modes.
Augmented Reality technology is also an important consideration when considering the prospect of future single-pilot operations (SPO), where workload management is paramount.
“Particularly when there’s only one pilot in the cockpit, there’s a lack of redundancy,” says a commercial airline pilot tester quoted on ZEISS’s website. “HUDs can make a major contribution to overcoming these challenges.”
Incorrectly, or non-, completed checklists remain a leading cause of aviation accidents, and this technology could provide real-time guidance to prevent such errors.
4. A Lighter Aircraft, A Lower Carbon Footprint
Holographic Transparent Displays integrated into cabin dividers based on ZEISS Multifunctional Smart Glass technology project interactive content, providing passengers with personalized information while maintaining an unobstucted view. | IMAGE: ZEISS
The benefits of augmented reality technology extend beyond safety.
Replacing heavy display units and traditional cabin dividers with lightweight smart glass panels reduces aircraft weight, leading to better fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and slashed operating costs.
More than just a tech upgrade—augmented reality an operational win for commercial airlines and cost-conscious general aviation operators alike.
Airlines save on fuel. General aviation operators save on maintenance. This advantage is hard to ignore in an era of ever-increasing environmental and cost pressures.
5. A Glimpse Into the Future of Cockpit Interaction
ZEISS Holographic Transparent Display technology integrated into aircraft windows project dynamic content directly into the passengers’ field of view, enhancing their experience with real-time information while preserving the clear view outside. | IMAGE: ZEISS
ZEISS also envisions a future involving hands-free interaction in the cockpit through voice control and gesture recognition. In future iterations, entire cockpit windows may become dynamic, immersive HUDs, responding to voice commands and offering real-time recommendations based on the aircraft’s surroundings and current flight conditions.
While certainly aesthetically pleasing, the idea isn’t just about modernizing the cockpit’s (or cabin’s) look. Ultimately, it’s about fundamentally changing how pilots manage information, make decisions, and interact with systems.
While pilots stand to gain the most, passengers aren’t left behind.
ZEISS Smart Glass can turn cabin windows into interactive surfaces that display flight paths, real-time maps, or landmark information—all powered by touch-free, holographic controls activated via ultraviolet and infrared sensors.
No smudges. No buttons. Just clean, intuitive interaction—and a cabin design as flexible and futuristic as the tech that powers it.
Clearing the Hurdles: The Path to Adoption
Pilots Linda Kotzur and Tino Janke discuss augmented reality technology with ZEISS Head of Operations Dr. Dennis Lehr | IMAGE: ZEISS
Despite its potential, ZEISS’s Smart Glass system is not yet commercially available. But why?
The biggest barriers remain cost and integration, although both are becoming more manageable as the technology matures.
The change in power and size makes the technology viable for business jets and general aviation aircraft, not just airliners.
Our vision is to make this technology accessible to all pilots, from commercial to private. We want to ensure a safe flying experience in all visibility conditions, from takeoff to landing.
Dr. Dennis Lehr, Head of ZEISS Microoptics
Lehr envisions a future where size and cost are no longer factors in AR technology.
“Our vision is to make this technology accessible to all pilots, from commercial to private,” says Lehr. “We want to ensure a safe flying experience in all visibility conditions, from takeoff to landing.”
According to ZEISS, the system is currently in its testing phase and has a realistic path toward market availability within the next three years.
As airspace becomes more crowded, with drones, air taxis, and autonomous aircraft entering the mix in the years and decades ahead, tools that enhance pilot awareness and reduce workload will be essential.
Whether you fly a Cessna or a Dreamliner, augmented reality may soon become an integral part of your cockpit.
It’s fair to say that the aviation industry has changed quite a bit since 1995 when the Boeing 777 was introduced. Back then, jurassic DC-10s and 747-100s still plied the skies. Over the past 30 years, the classic jumbo jets were slowly replaced by 747-400s, 757, 767s, 777s, and the A380. Then COVID-19 happened and the ‘modern’ twins of 757s, 767s along with the A340s and many A380s were sidelined.
Now, the Boeing 777 turns 30 years old. The venerable jet continues to be a mainstay of airline fleets globally.
If there is one thing that is certain, change in the aviation industry is a constant. That’s why as avgeeks it can be fun to look back into old commercial debuts of popular aircraft, including a jet that made twin-engined international flights the norm.
United Introduced the Boeing 777 in 1995 to Great Fanfare
United Airlines Boeing 777 taking off at Schiphol Airport, Photo by Solitude (wikimedia commons)
The Boeing 777 was one of the most impressive development cycles of a major airliner program ever. Built entirely with computer aided design (CAD), the airliner set a new standard for aircraft development in both speed and quality.
The 777 program was the first airliner to utilize the giant GE90 engine which permitted DC-10, A340, and MD-11 capacity and range with only two engines.
United Airlines was the launch customer for the 777-200. The airline (along with other customers) partnered with Boeing to influence the development of the new twin-engined airliner. The airliner was Boeing’s first fly-by-wire jet and the first twin-engined airliner that was certified with 180 minute ETOPS right from day one.
It featured passenger comforts like large overhead bins, personal TVs, and upgraded first class accommodations. The jet itself was built to be more reliable with onboard diagnostics, improved avionics, and lighter structure which translated into lower fuel costs relative to competing jets.
United’s First Commercial Featured Bigfoot?
United Airlines highly touted their new Boeing. The 777 would allow the airline to replace their aging DC-10 fleet and could comfortably connect routes from Chicago to Europe. As the launch customer, they featured the new jet heavily in advertisements.
One of their first commercials was humorous, if a bit odd. It featured Sasquatch–the fabled bigfoot-like character of lore from in the Pacific Northwest. In the commercial Sasquatch spotted the new Boeing 777 and took a self guided tour of the new jet. He even poured himself some champagne as he made himself at home in the giant aircraft.
Boeing 777’s Legacy Still Being Written
The lighthearted ad by United captured the 777’s appeal—a DC-10 sized jet that felt like a luxury jet, even to a mythical forest creature.
Thirty years later, the Triple Seven continues to be Boeing’s last commercial reveal that wasn’t plagued by controversy. It was both a testament to Boeing’s engineering first culture back then and a sad fact that shows how many challenges that Boeing has faced since.
To date, 1,729 Boeing 777s have been delivered, with around 1,400 still in service across 62 airlines, hauling passengers and cargo from Dubai to Dallas. Emirates leads the pack with 148, mostly 777-300ERs, while United still flies some of the originals.
The oldest active 777, United’s N774UA, a -200 registered in July 1994, is 31 years young, still logging flights with nearly 100,000 hours.
Meanwhile, the next generation, the 777X, is stuck in a holding pattern. Engine woes and structural hiccups have pushed its debut to 2026, six years late, leaving carriers like Lufthansa waiting for their fleet. When the new 777x fleet finally does arrive, with GE9X engines and folding wingtips, it’ll carry on a legacy that started with Bigfoot and made two-engined intercontinental jet travel commonplace.
BONUS: Video of a United 777 Proving Flight
Flight attendant Steve Scott filmed a proving flight for the Boeing 777 just one week before United’s first official flight on June 7, 1995. Check out the video linked below!
In the early 1990s, England’s flagship carrier, British Airways, attempted to orchestrate one of the most heinous PR scandals in air travel history: the ‘Dirty Tricks’ campaign, which targeted Virgin Atlantic.
This covert operation, driven by competitive paranoia and unethical tactics, aimed to undermine Virgin’s growth. This plan, however, backfired spectacularly, costing BA millions and cementing Virgin’s underdog status. Here’s the story of the ‘Dirty Tricks’ campaign.
A ‘Virgin’ in the Airline Industry
In the early 1980s, entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson founded Virgin Atlantic during a ‘boom time’ in the UK, where the average customer had much more wealth to their name, allowing them to afford flights. Virgin’s first flight was on 22 June 1984 on a Boeing 747-200 from London Gatwick (LGW) to Newark (EWR).
The airline quickly won over many travelers, which looked ominous for British Airways’ (BA) market share, thanks to Virgin being among the first airlines to offer in-flight entertainment and Branson’s eccentric personality.
Recently privatized and compelled to keep its position in European air travel, BA saw Virgin not as a minor nuisance but as a major player set out to affect BA’s bottom line. This competition set the stage for a campaign that would unravel into a public relations nightmare.
Virgin Atlantic G-VIRG by Steve Fitzgerald.
Behind closed doors, BA started ‘Dirty Tricks,’ also known as ‘Operation Covert Garden,’ in the Summer of 1990. British Airways tried to gain intel from Virgin by having its employees work with or for the newer airline, dressing as Virgin employees to gain access to its headquarters. BA employees allegedly hacked into Virgin’s computer servers to obtain information about passengers and bookings.
Impersonating Virgin, BA would then call or write to these customers to tell them their flights had been canceled and urge them to rebook with BA. BA also spread rumors about Virgin’s financials to the media, painting the airline as an untrustworthy airline and Branson as an erratic showman.
This plan was hatched by BA executives, with the airline’s marketing and sales teams also involved. Only a select few knew of the scheme’s full scope.
Virgin Fires Back at BA
Virgin and Branson eventually discovered Operation Covert Garden in 1991 after receiving suspicious customer complaints. Branson also received intel from BA whistleblowers outside but learned about several instances of BA personnel attempting to undermine Virgin.
Branson wrote an open letter to Virgin accusing them of ‘sharp business practices.’ BA executives dismissed his accusations, stating Branson was just looking for more attention. He later shared his evidence with investigating journalists.
In 1992, Thames Television’s This Week aired a documentary called Dirty Tricks, which exposed BA’s plan to sabotage Virgin to the public for the first time. Following the broadcast, Virgin filed a lawsuit against BA for libel, unfair competition, and corporate espionage.
British Airways Tried to Pivot
In January 1993, BA settled the lawsuit with Virgin. BA paid Branson, Virgin, and courts of up to £3,000,000. Altogether, BA lost $4.8 million ($10.8 million in 2025) from Operation Covert Garden. At the time, this was the largest libel payout in England’s history. Branson used the payout to expand the airline and award his employees.
British Airways issued a formal apology for the scheme. Chairman Lord John King admitted the scheme was ‘regrettable,’ but the damage was done, and the airline’s public trust and goodwill also went to Virgin. King stepped down from his position in June 1993 but remained president emeritus.
‘I’m not so sure they shouldn’t be put behind bars here,’ Branson told the Independent.
A former BA customer service specialist also revealed that BA targeted Dan Air and Europe Air.
The two airlines have moved on from the fiasco but remain fierce competitors to this day. Both offer the same routes from London-Heathrow Airport (LHR) and transatlantic flights to and from North America.
British Airways currently has over 200 global destinations spanning six continents. BA operates at least 12 flights daily between London and New York City. Virgin remains the smaller of the two airlines at only 32 global destinations, with Delta Air Lines owning a 49% stake in the airline today.
Rumors of a nuclear bomb from Broken Arrow still in swamp
Airmen stationed at Seymour Johnson AFB (SJAFB) in North Carolina have often heard a rumor that a B-52 carrying a nuclear bomb once crashed in a swamp near the base and that the weapon was buried so deep that officials had to leave it there.
While the rumor was not completely accurate, the Broken Arrow event really did happen, and there is more truth to the story than wrong details.
On 4 January 1961, a B-52G from SJAFB was flying about 12 miles north of the base near the small town of Faro, North Carolina, when it developed a fuel leak in its starboard wing.
The pilot, Major Walter Scott Tulloch, contacted the base, which instructed them to remain in a holding pattern off the coast until the aircraft burned enough fuel. Shortly, however, Tulloch radioed that the bomber had lost 37000 pounds of fuel and was told to return to the base.
“Analysis of the Safety Aspects of the MK 39 MOD 2 Bombs Involved in B-52G Crash Near [Goldsboro], North Carolina.” | Public Domain Image
The bomber then lost the entire wing, and Tulloch ordered his crew to eject. Three of the eight crew members lost their lives while attempting to bail out of the aircraft.
The massive bomber broke apart as it descended and struck the field at approximately 700 miles per hour, erupting into flames that cast a bright glare on nearby farmhouses.
Emergency crews arrived on the scene, and once they put out the fires, they began a critical salvage operation. The airmen on the scene began searching for the two 3-4 megaton MK-39 thermonuclear bombs the B-52 was carrying.
Recovery Focused on Finding Two Nuclear Bombs
The B-52 had been flying on alert status, and during those days of the Cold War, it was a standard practice for them to fly with live bombs. The process of detonating these weapons included multiple steps to ensure they were as safe as possible until the moment of detonation.
Unfortunately, the crash damaged the safety mechanisms during this incident, and both weapons began the fusing or arming sequence.
Weapon Began Arming Sequence
Crews found the first thermonuclear weapon several hundred yards from the main crash site. Its parachute deployed when it left the aircraft and got tangled in a tree before hitting the ground.
The nose of the nuclear bomb embedded itself about 18 inches in the ground. According to a document titled “New Details on the 1961 Goldsboro Nuclear Accident,” in a security archive called the Nuclear Vault at George Washington University, “The two-stage Mark 39, which contained highly-enriched uranium in its primary, came dangerously close to denotation.”
More specifically, the crash pulled out lanyards that released saving pins from the weapon. This feature allowed the arming process to continue until the final step, which requires a human to operate the T-249 Arm/Safe switch. Still, “the incident deeply worried Secretary of Defense McNamara.”
Second Nuclear Bomb from Broken Arrow Buried Deep in the Ground
Condition of first weapon after crash. “New Details on the 1961 Goldsboro Nuclear Accident” | Public Domain Image
The second nuclear weapon presented the recovery crews with different problems.
It broke apart at the moment of impact about 500 yards from where the main part of the fuselage struck. The weapon created a crater about six feet deep and eight in diameter. It partially armed but did not complete the sequence.
The soil in the field was very wet, and components of the weapon penetrated deep into the ground. Its tail went about 22 feet down. Crews began trying to dig up the bomb, but a combination of freezing temperatures, rising water in the crater, and the possibility of unexploded High-Explosive (HE) materials slowed their efforts.
Air Force Crews find parts from the second MK-39 nuclear weapon in the crater. “10 Devastating Nuclear Events and Accidents” | Public Domain Image
The crews dug eight feet down on 24 January and 12 feet the next day. They reached 15 feet on 26 January, where they found the parachute, part of the nose, and pieces of the device called the “primary.” They recovered more by 28 January, including the arm/safe switches, which they discovered in the “armed” position.
MC-772 Arm/Safe switch-same type used in MK-39 nuclear bombs. Screenshot from Sandia National Laboratories (2010) “Always/Never: The Quest for Safety, Control, and Survivability – Part 2″ | public domain image
Crews Abandon Search for Weapon
The work continued, and by 7 February, the excavation crews had enlarged the crater to 42 feet deep, 50 feet wide, and 70 feet long. Digging continued for several months until it finally stopped on 25 May.
During that time, the crater continued to fill with water, and 14 pumps were deployed around its perimeter, removing 60,000 gallons per hour, which could not control the flooding.
The Air Force did not release any details about the plutonium or hazards from the Broken Arrow accident, but it did take several actions that strongly hint at the seriousness of the situation. After the accident, the Air Force purchased an easement for $1000 from C. T. Davis, the owner of the field where the weapon was buried.
The easement covered an area in the field 400 feet in diameter and prevented Davis and his heirs from digging or drilling more than five feet deep, although they were allowed to use it for crops, timber, or as a pasture.
Additional evidence of the potential danger is that the North Carolina Division of Radiation Protection tests groundwater near the crash site annually. While they have found no radiation levels beyond what naturally occurs, the Air Force does not intend to stop checking the soil.
Other Broken Arrow Incidents Involving Lost Nuclear Bomb Components
Unfortunately, the Goldsboro crash was not an isolated incident. Similar accidents involving B-52s carrying thermonuclear weapons have occurred, one near Palomares, Spain, and another near Thule, Greenland. The Thule incident, which occurred in 1968, was especially serious.
A B-52 crashed onto sea ice near Thule, and a radioactive cylinder separated from the weapon. It contained uranium and may have dropped through the ice. Salvage crews never found it. However, scientists from Denmark tested the water there for years and found low contamination levels.
Following these accidents, the Sandia National Laboratories studied their causes and began working on new designs to reduce the possibility of radioactive contamination occurring in the future.
Despite this, an earlier report from the Sandia Corporation, “A Survey of Nuclear Weapon Safety Problems and the Possibilities for Increasing Safety in Bomb and Warhead Design,” from 1959, mentions what may be the stark truth about this topic.
In the report, Carl Carlson stated that he “believed that military readiness requirements meant that absolute safety was impossible and that it was necessary to ‘play the percentages’ as ‘uncomfortable’ as that was.”
The Lockheed C-141 Starlifter made strategic airlift common and gave the United States unique capabilities of jet powered airdrop, austere landings, and intercontinental airlift via air refueling.
It’s hard to believe that the C-141 Starlifter first over 60 years ago. The robust capabilities of the Starlifter and the extensive modifications made it seem like the jet could fly forever, just like the venerable C-47. Unfortunately, extensive overuse of the fleet, evolving needs, and wear and tear forced the US Air Force to abandon the platform.
First flight of the C-141
The C-141 first flew on December 17, 1963. At the time, the nascent US Air Force relied on the C-133 Cargomaster and C-124 Globemaster II for airlift capabilities. However, those aircraft were slow and had limited airlift capabilities. The C-141 represented a giant leap forward in capability.
The early 1960’s brought along great promise with turbojet and later turbofan engines. At the time, Lockheed was in its prime as an efficient, forward-thinking aircraft manufacturer. They had recently produced the U-2 and C-130. While developing the C-141 they were also working on advanced aircraft like the SR-71 and had started to design the C-5 Galaxy as well.
The C-141 employed the best of the 1960s jet era technology. With modern jet engines, cargo could travel at airline-like speeds. The aircraft had advanced systems to allow loading of equipment, vehicles, and troops from the rear cargo doors. It’s instruments and pilot panel was very advanced for its time.
The beefy structure could carry up to 90,000 lbs of cargo or up to 154 passengers in a troop configuration. The promise of putting troops and cargo anywhere in the world within an extended duty day was revolutionary for its time. The C-141 Starlifter would etch its name in air mobility history.
Hanoi Taxi. Photo by Jeff Gilmore.
The C-141 Starlifter had quite a career. It was the workhorse of Vietnam and Desert Storm. The jet served on every continent including Antartica. It was involved in every conflict from Vietnam through Afghanistan. Most notably, the C-141 flew the first POWs back from North Vietnam. That aircraft, tail 66-0177, became known as the Hanoi Taxi.
Revolution then an evolution
The C-141 Starlifter had three versions over the course of its career. Most of the original A models were converted to the B models in the late 1970s to early 1980s. This conversion gave the C-141 the ability to air refuel and also added additional cargo capacity to the jet via lengthening of the fuselage. In the 1990s, 60 of the B models were then upgraded to C models with more advanced avionics and a glass cockpit.
C-141 Starlifter is given an ‘early’ retirement
The C-141 retirement was planned but the date was slowly moved forward by structural issues with the jet from intense usage over its career. The jet was replaced by the C-17 Globemaster III.
The C-141 took its last flight on May 6th, 2006 with the Hanoi Taxi being delivered to the National Museum of The Air Force. Today, you can walk through the jet at the museum in Dayton, Ohio.
Below is a video of the retirement ceremony.
All Good Things Come To an End
The C-141 Starlifter Was replaced By the C-17 Globemaster III beginning in 1993. While the C-17 became a much more capable platform, it took over a decade to produce enough aircraft to replace the capabilities of the C-141.
The C-141 Starlifter was an incredibly capable aircraft that evolved over time to meet the needs of the United States. Although none are flying today, you can still see examples of the accomplished airlifter at museums across the country.
Many probably think the dogfights among biplanes in World War I were the first use of aircraft in combat, but nations used balloon aviation in earlier conflicts.
A few might have read about the Union Army using balloons during the Civil War.
Still, the history of balloon aviation in warfare and other purposes goes back to at least the 1700s and possibly much further than that.
Balloon Aviation Used Extensively in the Civil War
During the Civil War, the Union Army deployed balloons during the Peninsula Campaign in 1862. Union forces were approaching Richmond from the east and raised balloons to observe the placements and movements of Confederate troops and to direct artillery fire. During the western campaign, they also used balloons to support efforts around Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg in the east and along the Mississippi. The Confederates also used balloons around Richmond for similar purposes.
The Union Army used the balloon “Intrepid” during the Civil War. | Image: U.S. National Park Service
These balloons could carry three people and rise to about 1000 feet, tethered to the ground by ropes. The balloon operators would use signal flags or lower messages on the ropes to communicate with ground troops. They filled the balloons with hydrogen gas, which they produced by mixing sulfuric acid with iron filings.
France Develops Hydrogen and Hot Air War Balloons
France was developing war balloons long before the Civil War. Brothers Jacques and Joseph Montgolfier conducted early experiments and launched their first hot air balloon, covered with paper and cloth, on 19 September 1783. They used a burning combination of straw, chopped wool, and dried horse manure underneath the balloon to heat the air and inflate it. They found this helpful as it kept the flame low, reducing the risk of setting the balloon on fire, although it did create a lot of smoke.
A Sheep, a Duck, and a Rooster Were the First Balloon Pilots
According to the story, the brothers were afraid to go up on that first flight, so they sent a sheep, a duck, and a rooster to see how it would affect them. The balloon safely landed after eight minutes, and its passengers were unharmed.
Early French balloon designs. | Image: Library of Congress
Another Frenchman, Jacques Alexander Cesar Charles, also worked on balloon aviation development. He came up with the idea of using ballast, valves for the gas, and a net to enclose balloons. He worked with two other men, Antoine Lavoisier, and Guyton Morveau, to create portable hydrogen generators for troops to use in the field. This became a problem when sulfur became scarce because France also needed it to produce gunpowder. Lavoisier then developed a system to generate hydrogen by passing steam over red-hot iron.
Illustration of early balloon flight 21 November 1783 in Paris. | Image: Library of Congress
World’s First Air Force Flew Balloons – Not Planes
Following these developments, in 1794 France’s Committee of Public Safety established a balloon unit, the “Compagnie d’Aerostiers.” It was the world’s first air force. The unit had about 30 men and their own uniforms. Andre Giroud was on that first flight and realized the potential of balloons for military purposes, stating they could be “valuable for observing the movements of armies.”
Image of Battle of Fleurus with observation balloon in upper right corner. | Image: Library of Congress
Several months later, France used balloons for observation purposes in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars during sieges at Maubeuge and Charleroi and a major battle at Fleurus. Napoleon later used balloons during action in Egypt. Many paintings from the period, especially of Fleurus, show balloons over the battlefield.
Another view of the Battle of Fleurus demonstrating balloon aviation. | Image: Library of Congress
Balloon Reports from Russia, Portugal, Mexico, and China
There are also earlier mentions of other nations using balloons for military purposes. In a story from Russia in 1731, a military officer named Kria Kutnoi launched a balloon from Ryazan, a small town about 120 miles south of Moscow. The balloon supposedly crashed into a church tower, upsetting local residents who complained the balloon was made of hides and “filled with evil-smelling smoke.”
Several researchers have suggested that the Nazca Indians of Peru could have used hot air balloons to create the Nazca Line Drawings from 700 B.C. to 200 A.D. There is no general agreement on this, but the story does seem plausible, as there are no mountain peaks overlooking the area from which they could have made the drawings
Sky Sheep and Evil Smoke: A Surprisingly True History of Balloon Aviation 41
Mysterious Nazca Lines in Peru. Could people have used balloons to make them? | Image: Alexander Schimmeck
