Home Blog Page 15

Horrific Hijacking: Why EgyptAir Flight 648 Became One of the Deadliest in History

Hijackings weren’t uncommon in the late 20th century, as proven by EgyptAir Flight 648. But while many hijackers demanded money, a terrorist organization known as Abu Nidal demanded a free flight to Libya, or more passengers would die the longer it took.

In total, 56 passengers died during and after the flight, making it one of the most lethal hijackings in history. Here’s the story of EgyptAir Flight 648.

‘We Thought We Were Dropping From the Sky’

The hijacking of EgyptAir Flight 648
Image: Times of Malta

On 23 November 1985, EgyptAir Flight 648, a Boeing 737-266, departed Athens Ellinikon International Airport (ATH) in Greece en route to Cairo International Airport (CAI) in Egypt. On board were 87 passengers and six crew members. The flight was commanded by two 39-year-old pilots, Hani Galal and Imad Mounib.

At 2010 local time, ten minutes after the Boeing took off, three members of the Palestinian terrorist organization Abu Nidal brandished weapons and took over the flight. The identities of the terrorists were Omar Rezaq, Nar Al-Din Bou Said, and their boss, Salem Chakore.

At the start of the hijacking, Chakore would review all the passengers’ passports, ordering Palestinians and Egyptians to the back of the jet while Americans, Australians, Israelis, and Europeans to the front. Rezaq would enter the cockpit to demand that EgyptAir Flight 648 change course.

Methad Mustafa Kamal, an Egyptian Security Service agent, was next to give his passport to Chakore. Though the hijackers didn’t deem Egyptians as a threat to them, he was afraid they would find out he was still an air marshal. Rather than his passport, he swiftly took out his handgun, shooting and killing Chakore.

This led to a shootout between Kamal and Bou Said. Kamal and two passengers were wounded during the shootout. One of the bullets from Bou Said’s gun punctured the fuselage, prompting the pilot to descend to 14,000 feet so the passengers could still breathe.

One of the surviving passengers, Jackie Pflug of Houston, Texas, commented on the experience during an event in 2017:

‘We thought we were dropping from the sky…We were going to hit the ground and die’.

Pflug, Patrick Baker, and Scarlett Rogenkamp were three Americans on board.

‘Kill Someone Every 15 Minutes’

The hijackers initially demanded to go to Libya, but the descent caused the plane to burn through a lot of fuel. They then decided to divert to the closest airport, Luqa Airport, now known as Malta International Airport (MLA).

Galal informed ATC of the hijacked Boeing’s arrival ahead of time. Malta, however, didn’t want the aircraft to land and turned the lights off at the airport. The Boeing landed there anyway and did so safely.

Rezaq took over the hijacking, demanding refueling for continuation to Libya and a medic to be on hand for Chakore. He told ATC that somebody would die every 15 minutes until both demands were fulfilled.

Hours went by, and Rezaq would execute passengers one by one and throw them down a set of stairs to outside the aircraft. A few victims, though, did manage to survive and escape, having been found by Malta authorities and transported to a hospital.

9a1572118fc4e1a80e7de5220ed2c53c7be5801b
Image: The Age

The United States and Egypt would work together to plan a raid on the parked Boeing at MLA. Egyptian Unit 777 and the US Delta Force would disguise themselves as caterers to ambush the hijackers.

They arrived 90 minutes earlier than planned, scrapping the disguise idea and springing into action. The unit would plan to blow the door open and enter using non-lethal plastic explosives. The cavalry didn’t realize, however, that the hijackers placed a bomb underneath the fuselage. According to Dr. Abella Medici, the unit used more plastic explosives than necessary, which set off this bomb and suffocated many more passengers, as well as Bou Said, to death.

Rezaq’s Run From the Law

A total of 33 passengers and four crew members survived the EgyptAir Flight 648 hijacking. Rezaq was the only hijacker who survived following a confrontation outside the plane with Galal and an Egyptian militant. He was subsequently detained.

On 2 November 1988, Rezaq was found guilty on seven counts, including the killing of a few of the passengers on Egyptair Flight 648. While his initial sentence was 25 years, it was reduced to only seven due to a general amnesty, leading to his release in 1993.

Rezaq, however, was still wanted by the United States for killing a US citizen, that being Rogenkamp. Rezaq fled to Nigeria, where officials denied him entry because he did not have a passport. He was then handed over to the FBI and transported to the United States.

Rezaq is currently spending life in prison at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois.

He-177 Greif Heavy Bomber a Failure for Nazi Germany

During the buildup to World War II, Germany wanted to develop a long-range heavy bomber. Their solution was the Heinkel He-177 Greif.

The design included advanced, unique features Germany hoped would make it a powerful weapon in the coming war. However, many problems kept the Greif from becoming an effective part of the Nazi war machine.

It eventually earned the nickname “The Flaming Coffin,” which gives a good indication of the plane’s success.

German Planning for New Heavy Bomber Began in the Years Leading Up to World War II

From the beginning of the project in 1936, the German Air Ministry had some specific goals for it. The basic requirements were that it fly long distances and be fast enough to outfly Allied fighters. Specifically, they planned for it to carry a 2,200-pound bomb load 3100 miles at about 311 miles per hour. The Germans tasked the Heinkel company with designing and building the new bomber.

He-177 Greif Heavy bomber. | Image: Public Domain
He-177 Greif Heavy bomber. | Image: Public Domain

The Greif had a wingspan of 103 feet and a length of 72 feet, similar in size to the American B-17. Initial plans were for it to have four V-12 engines mounted along the wings. A later change to this became one of the aircraft’s most significant problems.

Heinkel designed the Greif to have a cockpit crew of three: pilot, co-pilot, and gunner. There was a turret on the starboard side of the nose to defend against frontal attacks and another below the nose. The design allowed the gunner to operate them remotely. There was also a tail gunner who would fire his own gun. Several years later, Heinkel added a dorsal turret with two 13-millimeter guns.

He-177 Tail Gunner. | Image: Blaschka / CC-BY-SA 3.0
He-177 Tail Gunner. | Image: Blaschka / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Major Issues with First Prototypes

Many problems quickly arose, beginning with the initial flights of the Greif prototypes. One of the first problems was that the technology had not advanced far enough for the planned remote-control guns to function. As a result, Heinkel converted the turrets to manned positions.

Another problem came when the Germans decided to add a unique capability to the Greif. Ernst Udet, Nazi Director General of Air Force Equipment, decided the new aircraft should be capable of dive bombing. Dive bombing was different from the high-altitude bombing used by the B-17 and other Allied bombers. To make this possible on the Greif, Heinkel had to reinforce the aircraft’s undercarriage. This modification was made so that it could withstand the extreme stress put on the aircraft from pulling out of a steep dive. The modifications were essential for the Greif to have powerful enough engines to manage the weight.

HE-177 Greif prototype taking off. | Image: youtube https://youtu.be/5IjY7kIShEA?si=jcWR6kH868CnNM2Y
HE-177 Greif prototype taking off. | Image: youtube

Engine Design: The Source of Most of the Greif’s Problems

The first design called for engines with 1,973 horsepower. However, these engines did not exist in 1937, so Heinkel decided to use Daimler-Benz DB 606-A engines instead. They also felt that four engines mounted on the wings would not be aerodynamically sound, interfering with the plane’s dive-bombing ability.

He-177 in flight. | Image: public domain
He-177 in flight. | Image: public domain

Heinkel then chose to install two side-by-side engines in a single nacelle on each wing instead. They felt this would reduce drag on the airframe and make dive bombing possible. Each pair produced a combined 2700 horsepower. More than anything, this led to the eventual failure of the Greif. The engine pairs would drive a single airscrew shaft gear to turn the propellers. They realized excessive heat was a potential problem with two engines so close together.

Innovative Cooling System Failed to Meet Goals

Designers developed an innovative idea for a cooling system involving the pressurization of coolant water. Once the engines heated it to its boiling point, it would move to an expansion area and become steam. The steam would then cool as it passed through pipes under the outer skin of the fuselage and wings.

He-177 Greif captured by UK forces with British markings. | Image: public domain
He-177 Greif captured by UK forces with British markings. | Image: public domain

Eventually, however, they found that this system could not cool the two engines. They resorted to installing conventional radiators behind each propeller. While this seemed to work, it also increased the aircraft’s gross weight even more.

Frequent Fires Due to Oil Leaks in Engine Nacelles

Another problem was that oil would leak into the tight space between the engines. The oil would often drip on the hot exhaust manifolds on the other engine and catch fire. Another oil-related problem occurred during early test flights. Designers discovered that the engine oil return pumps caused the oil to foam when pilots throttled the engines back at altitude. The oil then became ineffective, resulting in overheating and the failure of several bearings, which sent connecting rods through the engines.

Maintenance crew working on left engines on HE-177 Greif. | Image: Blaschka / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Maintenance crew working on left engines on HE-177 Greif. | Image: Blaschka / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Designers also tried to save weight by not installing a firewall between engines, which only worsened the heating problem. An additional problem was that the tight spaces in the nacelles made it difficult for maintainers to reach engine components. They then performed less routine maintenance, which only led to more problems.

Design Flaws Resulted in Multiple Crashes

Looking back, it is unsurprising that these design flaws led to critical problems in flight. In November 1939, during the first flight of the Greif prototype, pilots had to land after just 12 minutes when the engines overheated. During the second flight, the aircraft had severe control problems and disintegrated in the air.

He-177 Greif heavy bomber crew prior to a test flight. | Image: Lückel / CC-BY-SA 3.0
He-177 Greif heavy bomber crew prior to a test flight. | Image: Lückel / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Later, the fourth prototype failed to recover from a shallow dive and crashed in the Baltic Sea. In 1941, two more prototypes caught fire and crashed. Despite these failures, pilots had favorable opinions about the Greif, and Germany continued with the program.

Germany Ultimately Abandons Heavy Bomber Project

In 1942, the Nazi High Command ordered the Luftwaffe to destroy the British fleet, and Heinkel produced 130 of the aircraft in 1943. Eventually, Germany built almost 1200 Greifs. Although they flew some combat missions, they never achieved the success the leaders hoped for. Germany was facing shortages in components and materials due to the Allied bombing of manufacturing facilities. The Nazis also had to focus on fighter production to defend against Allied attacks. Finally, in 1944, Germany abandoned the Greif program.

Blue Sky: United, JetBlue Forge Alliance. What’s in it for Travelers?

On Thursday, United Airlines and JetBlue Airways announced a new interline agreement dubbed “Blue Sky,” which has the aviation world abuzz. 

The collaboration, announced by both airlines in a joint statement, follows months of speculation about a potential deal between the two carriers.

Blue Sky isn’t just another codeshare or a rehash of JetBlue’s ill-fated Northeast Alliance with American Airlines. It’s a strategic partnership designed to boost customer choice, supercharge loyalty programs, and mark United’s long-awaited return to New York’s JFK International Airport.

Let’s take a look at what this means for frequent flyers, the industry, and the New York market.

A Win for Loyalty Members: MileagePlus and TrueBlue Get a Boost

Chart emphasizing some of the benefits customers will experience as a result of Blue Sky
This infographic summarizes some of the benefits customers will enjoy over time*. JetBlue and United will share more details about the timing of these features later this year. | IMAGE: United/JetBlue

The heart of Blue Sky is the integration of United’s MileagePlus and JetBlue’s TrueBlue loyalty programs, a move set to make life sweeter for millions of travelers. Starting this fall—pending regulatory approval—MileagePlus members can earn and redeem miles on most JetBlue flights, while TrueBlue members can do the same on United’s vast network. This reciprocal miles and points accrual, based on revenue, opens up a treasure trove of new destinations for both sets of loyalists.

For JetBlue’s TrueBlue members, the benefits are massive. With nearly three out of five people in New York City and Boston enrolled in TrueBlue, JetBlue’s Northeast-heavy customer base now gets access to United’s global reach: 165 additional US destinations, eight in Canada, two in the Caribbean, 31 in Latin America, 27 in Europe, five in Africa, two in the Middle East, 15 in Asia, and 14 in the South Pacific. That’s a staggering 264 new markets for TrueBlue members to earn and burn points on, including global gateways like London, Tokyo, and Sydney.

United’s MileagePlus members, meanwhile, gain access to JetBlue’s leisure-focused network, including 15 destinations United doesn’t serve, like Martha’s Vineyard, Mass. (MVY); Cartagena, Colombia (CTG); Kingston, Jamaica (KIN); and Ponce, Puerto Rico (PSE). JetBlue’s 90 daily flights to the Caribbean and 180 from JFK alone make this a boon for sun-seekers and East Coast travelers. Plus, JetBlue’s focus cities—Fort Lauderdale (FLL), San Juan (SJU), Orlando (MCO), and Los Angeles (LAX)—add serious depth to United’s offerings.

Elite status perks are another highlight. When flying JetBlue, United Premier members will enjoy their usual benefits, such as priority check-in, security, boarding, and baggage. JetBlue’s Mosaic members get the same VIP treatment on United. Complimentary access to preferred and extra-legroom seats, same-day standby/switch options, and one free checked bag are also part of the deal for qualifying elites on both carriers. Details on premium cabin upgrades, like JetBlue’s Mint or United’s Polaris, are still under wraps, but both airlines promise more clarity later this year.

United’s Big Return to JFK

Blue Sky heralds the return of United Airlines to JFK Airport
A United Airlines flight departs New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) | IMAGE: Photo by Miguel Ángel Sanz on Unsplash

United’s retreat from JFK in 2015, followed by a brief return in 2021 and another exit in October 2022, was a sore spot for CEO Scott Kirby, who called it a “strategic mistake” by his predecessor, Jeff Smisek. Blue Sky changes all that. As part of the alliance, JetBlue is handing over slots for up to seven daily roundtrip flights from JFK’s new Terminal 6, with flights potentially beginning in 2027. In a “net-neutral exchange,” United and JetBlue will swap eight slots at Newark Liberty (EWR), ensuring neither airline gains an unfair edge.

This move reestablishes United’s presence at one of the world’s most iconic airports, bridging the gap between its EWR hub and JetBlue’s JFK stronghold at Terminal 5. For United, it’s a chance to reclaim a slice of the lucrative New York market while leaning on JetBlue’s infrastructure. For JetBlue, it’s a way to bolster its Newark presence without sacrificing its JFK dominance.

Streamlined Booking and Travel Services

While the news about Blue Sky focuses on loyalty points and slots, it’s also worth nothing that the alliance will help make travel easier. Customers will soon be able to book flights on either airline through their websites and respective mobile apps. This seamless ticketing experience is a big win for travelers who value convenience over brand loyalty.

United is also following JetBlue’s lead by integrating its ancillary travel services—hotels, rental cars, cruises, and travel insurance—into a single platform on united.com and its app, powered by JetBlue’s Paisly technology. Currently, United funnels customers to separate services like United Hotels and United Cruises. The new setup, leveraging Paisly’s human-first approach and advanced tech, promises leisure travelers a slicker, more cohesive booking experience.

Why This Matters for JetBlue

A JetBlue Airbus at the gate at JFK
A JetBlue flight at the gate at JFK | IMAGE: Photo by Austin Hervias on Unsplash

Blue Sky is a lifeline for JetBlue after years of searching for a stable US partner. Previous alliances with American Airlines (the Northeast Alliance, which ended in 2023) and Spirit Airlines didn’t pan out, leaving JetBlue—a 4% player in the US market—struggling to compete with giants like Delta, Southwest, and United (which holds a 16% share, per the US Department of Transportation). This alliance gives JetBlue a powerful ally without the regulatory headaches of a codeshare or merger.

JetBlue CEO Joanna Geraghty called the partnership a “bold step forward” and a “clear win” for customers and crewmembers. By tapping into United’s global network, JetBlue can offer TrueBlue members unparalleled access to international destinations while maintaining its East Coast and Caribbean strengths. The slot exchange at Newark further solidifies JetBlue’s footprint in the New York metro area, its hometown market.

A New Chapter for United

A United Boeing 787 departs LAX
A United Boeing 787 Dreamliner departs Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) | IMAGE: Photo by David Syphers on Unsplash

For United, Blue Sky is a strategic coup. The return to JFK addresses a long-standing gap in its network, and the partnership with JetBlue—a carrier with a loyal Northeast following—adds leisure destinations that complement United’s business-heavy routes. CEO Scott Kirby emphasized the alliance’s focus on “innovation and the customer experience,” noting that United employees are “really excited” about the JFK comeback. With 380 destinations across six continents and a fleet of 1,033 aircraft, United’s scale gives JetBlue’s customers a world of options while reinforcing United’s dominance in the US market.

What’s Next for Blue Sky?

United and JetBlue announce Blue Sky alliance
United and JetBlue announce Blue Sky alliance

Unlike the defunct Northeast Alliance, Blue Sky is an interline agreement, meaning both airlines will continue to operate, price, and market flights independently. This sidesteps the antitrust scrutiny that doomed JetBlue’s tie-up with American. Regulatory approval is still pending, but both carriers are optimistic, with some components—like loyalty program integration and cross-booking—slated to launch this fall. Corporate travelers may also benefit as both airlines explore extending parts of their corporate discount programs to the partner’s flights.

While details on premium cabin reciprocity and full loyalty integration are still forthcoming, the Blue Sky Alliance is poised to shake up the US airline landscape. For frequent flyers, it’s a chance to stretch their miles and points further than ever. For United, it’s a triumphant return to JFK. And for JetBlue, it’s a long-sought partnership that finally gives it the muscle to compete with the big dogs.  

Fingers crossed that blue skies are, indeed, ahead. 

Private Jet or Commercial? 6 Shark Tank Stars’ Lavish Travel Habits Revealed

Do Shark Tank stars fly commercial or private jet? Shark Tank has been a television staple since 2009, changing numerous lives and introducing America to up-and-coming businesses, goods, and services. Many deals made on this program have also made several known investors even wealthier.

Considering all the money accrued from these deals, how do all the Sharks travel? Do they have a collection of private aircraft or save money by flying coach? Here is the current flight situation of each main Shark Tank investor.

Mark Cuban

1600px N709AA Gulfstream G V GLF5 Bank of Utah 281709561273229
Image: By flybyeigenheer from Wikimedia Commons

As the wealthiest Shark on the show, Cuban owns four aircraft. Years earlier, in 1993, he also had a lifetime pass at American Airlines, for which he paid over $100,000.

The former Shark Tank star exited the show after Season 16 and set a Guinness World Record in 1999 when he purchased the Gulfstream V private jet. At $40 million, this was the largest online transaction at the time. That same year, he bought another aircraft for the Dallas Mavericks, a Boeing 757, which he customized to meet the team’s needs.

Later, the Mavericks received an upgraded commercial plane–a Boeing 767-200ER. This aircraft was scrapped and sold for parts in 2021.

Cuban also acquired a Bombardier Global Express, which he uses as his current private jet.

Robert Herjavec

Canadian CL600 Sunwest Aviation C GGWH ZRH October 2006
Image: By Rolf Wallner from Wikimedia Commons

Herjavec has purchased two private jets in his lifetime. His first jet was a Bombardier Challenger 604. While owning this jet, he also owned two Magellan Jet charter memberships.

When asked by Magellan Jet why he has a charter membership while he has his own jet, Herjavec stated that the aircraft is ‘the ultimate time machine,’ elaborating that time is a resource that can’t be replaced like money can be.

Herjavec later replaced the Bombardier with the Gulfstream IV-SP at some point in 2017. While he enjoyed the 604, he summarized the decision by stating, ‘It’s hard to beat windows on a Gulfstream.’

The Croatian-born investor says he’s in the air for around 300 hours yearly and claims he spends all those hours in the cabin working.

Daymond John

NOAA Gulfstream IV-SP
NOAA’s Gulfstream IV-SP takes off from Lakeland Linder International Airport (LAL) | IMAGE: NOAA

Aside from being a superstar investor, John was also on the Jetset Magazine editorial board until 2018. In his write-ups, he documented how owning a private jet was considered the ‘ultimate status symbol.’

While he doesn’t specify the plane he purchased, he claims he bought it in 1999 only to resell it in 2002. Finances were the primary reason he switched to chartering a jet rather than owning one.

The Shark Tank investor claims to charter a private jet around 30 times yearly. He gave this endorsement on charter jet company JetSmarter in 2016:

“Personally, I have been using JetSmarter for a while now, and I could not be happier. When I have to go shoot Shark Tank, or speak at something like the Global Entrepreneur Summit, I just fire up the app or give them a call, and I have a G4 waiting for me in no time. It is honestly as easy as booking a commercial flight on Expedia, maybe even easier.”

Kevin O’Leary

The most cautious of the Shark Tank stars, with the fewest deals made, Kevin O’Leary rides a private jet and travels in first class on commercial flights. It isn’t known at this time, however, whether he owns or charters a private jet.

In his 2013 book Cold Hard Truth About Family, Kids, and Money, O’Leary revealed that whenever he flies commercially with his son Trevor, he makes him sit in economy while O’Leary himself sits in first class. In response to his son’s complaint, O’Leary wrote:

My son is making the connection between money and personal freedom. I think that’s the greatest gift I’ve ever given him: to help him see that connection. And I constantly reinforce it by doing “Mean Dad” things like making him sit in those crappy economy seats.

Lori Greiner

Unlike her male counterparts, Greiner flies commercial. While Greiner doesn’t publicly proclaim her allegiance to a particular airline, she has been known for flying first class with United for many years. She and the airline are based in Chicago, Illinois, so there could be more to the relationship than what’s known online.

On the ABC sitcom Shifting Gears, the character Georgia, played by Barrett Margolis, claims that Greiner travels by helicopter. However, there is no confirmation that Greiner owns or charters a helicopter.

Barbara Corcoran

N568JB Airbus A320 232 JetBlue Airways
Image: By Colin Brown from Wikimedia Commons

Like Greiner, Corcoran also chooses flying commercial over owning or chartering a private jet. Corcoran, however, doesn’t even fly first class. Instead, she opts to fly coach along with other fellow travelers.

When explaining her decision, Corcoran had this to say on The Jamie Kern Lima Show:

‘Do you know what a first-class ticket costs? Listen, the way I figure it is, a coach ticket is about 25% of a first-class ticket. I get the free miles and I can give them away. I have everybody in my family flying on my free miles…What’s more important, that everybody gets free vacations or that I’m comfortable in first class? I guess I could afford to do both, but I won’t. I’ll be in coach feeling smug because I know I have three plane tickets that could take somebody somewhere. It accumulates, you know?

In a 2018 Forbes interview, Corcoran revealed she flies with JetBlue because of ‘adequate legroom and service’. She also has accumulated many miles on Delta Air Lines.

Boeing, NASA Hit Pause on X-66 Jet in Bold Move to Focus on Core Programs

On 24 April 2025, Boeing announced a pause of the X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator (SFD) program.

Boeing and NASA have collaborated since 2023 on the $1.5 billion SFD, also called the X-66. NASA reported it was planning a full-scale demonstrator flight in 2027.

Despite the stop to the program, Boeing stated it would continue working on the thin-wing technology that was to be a key component of the X-66.

Long, Thin Wings a Key Feature of X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator

The most striking feature of the X-66 was its long, thin wings supported by trusses or struts. This was essential for the wings, as they did not have the rigid structure of wings on typical commercial jets. NASA and Boeing expected the wings, combined with advanced propulsion systems and lightweight composite materials, would make the X-66 as much as 30% more fuel-efficient than current passenger designs.

Side View of X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator Showing Wing and Truss. | Image: Boeing
Side View of X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator Showing Wing and Truss. | Image: Boeing

The X-66 was NASA’s largest experimental plane. One program goal was for it to become a single-aisle test platform for Boeing to replace the 737 in the 2030s. Both organizations have made significant investments in the X-66. NASA initially agreed to provide $435 million in the program, and Boeing promised $725 million. Boeing began the program with high hopes for the X-66’s future.

“We think we’ve got a real shot at bringing that technology to bear on the next airplane,” said CEO David Calhoun.

The X-66 is a Modified McDonnell Douglas MD-90

The X-66 was not an entirely new aircraft. Instead, it was a modified McDonnell Douglas MD-90. The modifications included replacing the wings with thinner ones. The plan was to install the new wings on top of the fuselage instead of under it, as in the original MD 90 configuration. The engines are positioned under the wings, which were above them in the original design.

Scale Model of X-66 Undergoing Wind Tunnel Testing at NASA's Ames Research Center. | Image: NASA
Scale Model of X-66 Jet Undergoing Wind Tunnel Testing at NASA’s Ames Research Center. | Image: NASA

Since the program began, NASA and Boeing have been conducting experiments such as wind tunnel tests, fluid dynamics modeling, and structural design and analysis using smaller models of the X-66.

Multiple Reasons For Pausing X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator

Boeing decided to pause the development of the X-66 for several reasons. One is that the corporation decided to focus more on supporting its existing aircraft and customers, including the 737-10, 777-8, and 777-9. To accomplish this, Boeing has been pulling engineers from the X-66 program since 2024.

Another reason Boeing and NASA paused the X-66 program was an overall emphasis on cost-cutting, which may be due, in part, to President Trump’s plan to reduce NASA’s science budget by half in the upcoming fiscal year. Boeing has made it clear that it is not abandoning the technology it was developing for the X-66.

“[It] holds tremendous promise for the future of commercial aircraft, and the learnings to date have bolstered our interest,” wrote Todd Citron, Boeing CTO; Mike Sinnett, Vice President of Product Development; and David Loffing, Boeing Commercial Airlines Chief Engineer. “At the same time it is critically important to meet our commitments to customers on 737-7, 737-10, 777-9, and 777-8F and on airplane deliveries.”

Focus to Shift To Development of Thin Wing Technology

Boeing and NASA have announced they will shift their focus from the X-66 to applying thin-wing technology to multiple aircraft designs. This is clearly needed, as the efficiency benefits will become more critical than ever in the near future. Boeing estimates that the demand for single-aisle and narrow-body airliners will increase by 30,000 in the next 20 years.

NASA Image Showing Top View of X-66. | Image: NASA
NASA Image Showing Top View of X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator. | Image: NASA

While wings produce lift, they also create drag as they move through the air. Longer, thinner wings generate less drag, which results in better fuel efficiency. This seems like a good solution for aircraft designs, but longer wings like those on current passenger aircraft would face more turbulence, which would then require more weight to strengthen them, eliminating the fuel consumption benefits.

To solve this on the X-66, NASA and Boeing were examining the use of trusses, or braces, to support the thin wings and avoid making them heavy. To accomplish this, they had to overcome several design obstacles.

“The junctures between wing, strut, and fuselage are challenging for flow separation and localized shockwaves, but computational fluid dynamics has helped shape the design,” said Brent Cobleigh, NASA’s SFD Project manager.

Wings Can Morph to Function as Control Surfaces

The thin wings also apply Boeing’s active aeroelastic wing technology. With this concept, the wings warp or morph along the leading and trailing edges to function as flight control surfaces. The wings are not as stiff as traditional designs and twist to create the most favorable shape for lift and control.

Digital Image of X-66 During Design Period Clearly Showing Thin Wings. | Image: NASA
Digital Image of X-66 Sustainable Flight Demonstrator During Design Period Clearly Showing Thin Wings. | Image: NASA

Another feature of the thin wings is better aerodynamic performance in conditions that would not be favorable for wings with conventional control surfaces.

Other benefits of the thin wing technology are less noise, better stall characteristics, and improved response to gusts.

Successful Quarterhorse Mk 1 Test Flight charts Hermeus path to hypersonic flight

The Quarterhorse Mk 1 has flown a successful flight test at Edwards AFB. It promises to pave the way for routine hypersonic flight for future warfighters.

The uncrewed aircraft was developed by Hermeus, a venture capital-backed aerospace and defense tech company specializing in high-speed aircraft.

“Mk 1 has redefined the pace of developing and flying new aircraft,” said Hermeus CEO and Co-Founder, AJ Piplica. “I’m incredibly proud of what our team has accomplished. We’ve proven the viability of our iterative development approach. But this is just the start. We have much more to do as the bar rises for the next iteration.”

Operationalizing hypersonic technologies

The Quarterhorse Mk 1 test flight was just the first flight milestone in an extended program to achieve sustained hypersonic flight.

That next iteration, the Mk2, is already well into its manufacturing at the company’s HQ in Atlanta. They also have a hypersonic engine and flight test facility in Jacksonville, FL.

Quarterhorse Mk 1
Successful Quarterhorse Mk 1 Test Flight charts Hermeus path to hypersonic flight 25

The Mk2 jet is expected to soar by the end of 2025. It’s about the size of an F-16 and powered by a proprietary hypersonic Chimera engine. It will be capable of high-Mach flight, and designed to “de-risk uncrewed supersonic flight”, says Hermeus.

The Mk1 version went from pen and paper to a real flying aircraft in less than a year. Mk1’s job is to validate high-speed takeoff and landing of a large uncrewed aircraft. Data from the test campaign validates design and performance models.

Quarterhorse Mk 1 Test Flight on 25 May 2025.
Successful Quarterhorse Mk 1 Test Flight charts Hermeus path to hypersonic flight 26

Successful Quarterhorse Mk 1 test flight product of rapid development

“The real-world flight data from Mk 1 provides significant technical value that we’re rolling into our next aircraft,” said Co-Founder and President Skyler Shuford. “Moreover, the team has accomplished this milestone on a challenging timeline while operating within the overall aerospace ecosystem — all to support rebuilding America’s lost capability to quickly develop brand-new, full-scale jets.”

“Industry partnerships continue to have an important role in the development and test of disruptive and innovative capabilities for our warfighters,” commented Major General Scott Cain, Commander of Air Force Test Center. “The promise of routine hypersonic flight is an exciting capability for the joint team.”

3 Airlines, 10K Hours, and No License: The Stunning Deception of Fraud Pilot Thomas Salme

Throughout aviation history, countless impostors and scammers have forged fraudulent pilot licenses to get free flights, lounge access, and other privileges. But one man, Thomas Salme of Stockholm, Sweden, went as far as flying for nearly 15 years before getting caught.

So what happened with Salme’s tenure flying? Did he make any mistakes? Was his punishment harsh? Here’s the story of Thomas Salme, the fraud pilot who successfully flew without a license.

Salme’s Stockholm Roots

Thomas Henry Salme was born on 18 February 1969 in Jordbro, Sweden, near Stockholm. Salme pursued a career in flying because his father was an aviation enthusiast and photographer. Because of financial restrictions surrounding the family, Salme never had any formal pilot training but obtained a private pilot’s license for small planes after his mom died of cancer, and he received an inheritance.

The license he obtained later expired and would have never been good enough to fly a commercial jet. Undeterred, Salme got a job at Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) as a maintenance engineer. He built rapport with colleagues and convinced them to give him access to a Boeing 737 flight simulator at Stockholm Arlanda Airport (ARN).

Thomas Salme inexplicably became a pilot for Italian carrier Air One
Thomas Salme inexplicably became a pilot for Italian carrier Air One | Image: By Konstantin von Wedelstaedt from Wikimedia Commons

Salme used the simulator in private for over 18 months. He logged up to 60 hours on it, studied technical manuals, and practiced flight procedures.

‘I’d train there for two or three hours at a time – at least 15 to 20 times over one and a half years,’ Salme recalled.

Salme’s Shortcut

In 1997, Salme photocopied a fraudulent pilot license with his picture and logos. The license, which was made of paper and wasn’t laminated, had a fake ID number. He had also used a false resumé and other paperwork to apply as a pilot in Europe. One of the airlines on his resumé was ‘Aladdin Airlines,’ which didn’t exist.

Salme got hired as a co-pilot for Air One in Italy. As a prerequisite for the job, Salme passed a simulator test in Dublin, impressing examiners despite his nerves. His first real flight, a domestic route to Naples with 148 passengers, was his first time piloting a commercial jet outside a simulator. Salme believed flying the real Boeing was easier than the simulator.

He was later promoted to captain in 1999 and flew with the low-cost Italian carrier until 2006. Reports suggest that Salme may have been fired after the airline found out he was a fraud pilot and that his license wasn’t real, but that is unconfirmed.

After working at Air One, he joined Corendon Airlines from Turkey (now Türkiye). He worked there for a year before being offered a pilot job at low-cost British airline Jet2.

Corendon Airlines aircraft. Similar to the one flown by fraud pilot Thomas Salme.
Thomas Salme flew for Turkish carrier Corendon | Image: By Oyoyoy from Wikimedia Commons

Salme worked at Jet2 for only ten months before deciding to return to Corendon. Between the three airlines, Salme accumulated 10,000 hours in flight without valid commercial pilot credentials.

Salme appeared to be a very skillful pilot, having no accidents, and at one point, managed to land a jet with one working engine following a bird strike.

The Fun Stops for Salme

Swedish authorities later caught on to Salme’s sketchy flight past. On 2 March 2010, Salme was about to pilot a Boeing with 101 passengers out of Schiphol Airport (AMS) in Amsterdam, Netherlands, on the way to Ankara, Turkey. Authorities boarded the plane and escorted Salme right out of the cockpit. Salme then confessed that his license was forged.

The fraud pilot story made international headlines, and Salme refused to attend his hearing the following month due to the media attention he received. According to his defense attorney, his career flying was the only way forward for him financially in order to handle divorce and take care of his children and his ailing father.

Salme originally faced three months in jail and a large fine, but he ultimately served no jail time and was only hit with a penalty of $2,700 (€2,000). He would also be banned from flying for one year, but he was welcome to fly commercially again if he obtained a commercial license.

Thomas Salme, however, had no plans to fly again. He now works as a photographer in Milan, Italy. He later wrote a book called Confessions of a Fraud Pilot and was the subject of a documentary titled This is Your Captain Speaking.

The Unshakable Valor of WASP Pilot and Airborne Heroine Shirley Slade

When we talk about the heroes of World War II, we often think of the battles, the generals, the troops who stormed beaches and held the line. 

But there’s another kind of hero—one whose legacy took decades to be fully recognized. One who soared thousands of feet above the front lines, ferrying bombers, training other pilots, and doing it all without fanfare or military status.

Shirley Slade was one of them.

A Different Kind of Battlefield

Graduating WASP Pilots
A class of WASP Pilots attend graduation ceremonies at Avenger Field in Texas | IMAGE: Public Domain

Born on 4 April 1921 in Chicago, Shirley Slade (later Shirley Slade Teer) grew up in a world where girls weren’t supposed to dream of flying planes—especially not military aircraft. But she did.

And when the United States entered World War II and faced a desperate shortage of pilots, Shirley didn’t hesitate. 

Like more than 25,000 American women, she answered the call to fly. Only 1,830 were accepted into the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) program, and just 1,074 completed the intense training, which lasted anywhere between 21 and 27 weeks.

Shirley was one of them.

She joined Class 43-5, training at Dodge City Army Airfield in Kansas, Harlingen Army Airfield in Texas, and Love Field in Dallas. She learned to fly some of the most challenging aircraft of the era, including the Bell P-39 Airacobra and the Martin B-26 Marauder—a bomber so dangerous it earned the nickname “Widowmaker.” 

But Shirley wasn’t intimidated. In fact, she was one of only 25 women handpicked by WASP Director Jacqueline Cochran—at the request of General Henry “Hap” Arnold—to prove that the B-26, a plane many men refused to fly due to its safety record, could be flown safely. And prove it she did.

With grit, precision, and unwavering focus, she showed the world it could be done. After all, lives depended on it.

She proved it with grit, precision, and unwavering focus—because lives depended on it.

A Face for the Future

Shirley Slade on the cover of LIFE Magazine
Shirley Slade appeared on the cover of LIFE Magazine’s 19 July 1943 issue | IMAGE: LIFE Magazine

On 19 July 1943, Shirley’s story—and her face—reached the nation when she appeared on the cover of LIFE Magazine. In the now-iconic photo, she stands tall on the wing of a military aircraft, flight suit on, wind in her hair, eyes steady. Her expression is calm but determined. The cover headline: “Girl Pilots.” In small letters on the lower left-hand corner of the magazine cover, it said “Air Force Pilot.”

She wasn’t just representing herself. She represented every woman who had been told “no” and flew anyway.

That cover was a quiet revolution. It said: Look what women can do.

Flying with Purpose

WASPs on airfield
WASPs on flight line at Laredo AAF, Texas, 22 January 1944. (U.S. Air Force photo) 

The WASP program was as grueling as it was groundbreaking. Candidates had to be between 21 and 35 years old, over 5’4″, and high school graduates. They paid for their own training and travel. They studied meteorology, Morse code, military law, physics, navigation, and aircraft mechanics. They logged 560 hours of ground school and 210 hours of flight training. And then they went to work.

WASPs ferried more than 12,600 aircraft, often flying solo from factories to staging points across the country before the transatlantic hop. They logged over 60 million miles. They transported cargo, including parts for the atomic bomb. They towed targets for live anti-aircraft gun practice, flew simulated strafing missions, and tested brand-new aircraft.

They did everything male pilots did except fly in combat.

And they did it without rank, without benefits, and without recognition.

Invisible Sacrifice

WASPs prepare for a training flight
WASPs prepare for a training flight | IMAGE: Public Domain

When the WASP program ended on 20 December 1944, 38 women had lost their lives in service. There were no military funerals. No Gold Stars. No veterans’ benefits for the families they left behind. Families weren’t even allowed to drape a flag over the coffins.

Shirley Slade and her fellow WASPs went home quietly, their uniforms packed away, their stories largely forgotten. Their contributions were classified and hidden from public view for decades—a shameful reminder of how women’s service was often dismissed or erased.

Recognition, at Last

It took more than 30 years for that to start to change.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed legislation granting the WASPs veteran status. And in 2009—65 years after the program was shut down—Congress awarded the surviving WASPs the Congressional Gold Medal. Only about 200 were still alive to receive it.

Shirley wasn’t among them. She passed away on 26 April 2000, at age 79, in Texas. She never got to hear a nation say “thank you.”

But her legacy lives on.

More Than a Pilot

Shirley Slade wasn’t just a pilot. She was a pioneer. A patriot. A woman who saw a barrier and flew straight through it.

Her story—like so many others in the WASP program—isn’t just about planes or war. It’s about the quiet strength it takes to show up when no one expects you to. It’s about standing on the wing of a bomber and looking toward a future you’re helping shape. It’s about believing that courage has no gender.

A Tribute, and a Promise

WASP Shirley Slade
WASP Shirley Slade | IMAGE: Public Domain

Today, when we honor the Armed Forces and the sacrifices so many have made for the freedoms we hold dear, we remember women like Shirley Slade, who flew not for glory or recognition but out of a deep love for their country. They showed us that strength comes in many forms and that heroes aren’t always the ones with medals. 

Sometimes, they’re the ones whose names we’re only just beginning to learn.

We owe it to them and future generations to keep telling their stories.

Because Shirley Slade didn’t just help win a war. She helped open the skies.

The Aurora: Canada Took the Best of The S-3 Viking and P-3 Orion and Created This Unique Bird

The CP-140 is the Canadian Do-It-All Version of the Lockheed P-3 Maritime Patrol Platform

On 22 March 1979, the prototype Lockheed CP-140 Aurora took to the skies for the first time. While the Aurora is built on Lockheed’s P-3 Orion airframe, the CP-140 has an entirely different sensor suite than does the Orion.

Now operating in its 44th year, the CP-140 is Canada’s primary platform for maritime and overland intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), strike coordination, anti-surface warfare, and search and rescue (SAR) missions. The Aurora also combats illegal immigration, fishing, pollution, and drug trafficking in Canada.

CP 140 Canada 16519746661 Rob Schleiffert
Photo credit: Rob Schleiffert

A Multi-Mission Platform

As Canada’s primary anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platform, the CP-140 can also detect and destroy the latest generation of submarines with improved quieting. In combination, these capabilities allow the Aurora to detect, deter, and control illegal or hostile activity anywhere in Canada’s maritime approaches or remote regions. The CP-140 can also perform rescue work using its air-droppable survival pods.

CP 140A Arcturus Ken Mist
Photo Credit: Ken Mist

Replacing a Local Legend

The Aurora became necessary when Canada needed a replacement for their aging fleet of Canadair CP-107 Argus anti-submarine warfare aircraft. Developed from the Bristol Britannia transport, the Argus was powered by Wright R-3350 radial engines. While a fine and immensely capable aircraft in its day, by the late 1970s, it was showing its age, and parts for the older aircraft systems were becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.

CP 140 Aurora RIAT 2016 28348231570 Airwolfhound
Photo Credit: Airwolfhound

Better Than the Sum of Its Black Boxes

The Canadians examined the Lockheed products of the day and selected the best assets from each. The obvious external resemblance to the P-3 Orion belies the important differences inside the Aurora. CP-140s utilize two of the sensor suites and processing systems used in the then cutting-edge, but now retired, carrier-based Lockheed S-3 Viking, also an ASW aircraft of some note.

CAFDay 1 14809323430 Korona Lacasse
Photo Credit: Korona Lacasse

Combining Sensors With a New Gadget

At the heart of the Aurora sensor suite is the digital processor. Essentially, it is an airborne computer capable of simultaneously processing and displaying inputs from the sea-search radar, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imager, electronic support measures (ESM) emitter location system, and the tail-mounted magnetic anomaly detector (MAD), as well as other mission equipment. By comparison, each system on board the P-3 Orion is individually operated, and its data is separately displayed.

CP 140 Canada 16494048216 Rob Schleiffert
Photo Credit: Rob Schleiffert

Inter-Service Cooperation Up North

Canadian CP-140s not only perform ASW missions but also conduct long-range search and rescue and strategic intelligence and surveillance work for various Canadian government agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CSOFC), Canada Command, and Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC).

Aurora in flight.
Photo Credit: Korona Lacasse

Those Globe-Trotting Canadians

Auroras have deployed to Naval Air Station (NAS) Adak in Alaska and NAS Kaneohe Bay in Hawaii. Foreign deployments have taken Auroras to Andoya Air Base in Norway, NAS Keflavik in Iceland, RAF Saint Mawgan in England, and RAF Kinloss in Scotland, as well as other even more exotic and out-of-the-way locales.

Aurora on the tarmac.
Photo Credit: Filterkaffe

Differing Kinds of Combat

Specific missions assigned to CP-140s have included counter-narcotic patrols in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific, maritime surveillance during Operation Sharp Guard (the blockade of Yugoslavia), Operation Sirius and Operation Active Endeavour (anti-terrorism patrols in the Mediterranean), Operation Apollo (the Canadian component of the war in Afghanistan), and maritime patrol missions in Libyan waters to assist with enforcement of the no-fly zones during Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector.

Aurora with a fighter escort.
Photo Credit: Antoine Letart

Keeping The Cutting Edge Sharp

For decades, Canada’s CP-140 Auroras have soldiered on—modernized repeatedly with new avionics, flight controls, and mission systems to keep pace with the times. But even the most steadfast sentinels must eventually stand down. After years of near-replacements and program delays, the Aurora’s long watch is finally ending. Canada has committed to Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon, with the first aircraft slated to arrive in 2026 and full operational rollout by 2033.

[youtube id=”kmIl5FON6TI” width=”800″ height=”454″ position=”left”]

F7U Cutlass: The Fighter Jet Crippled by Its Gutless Engine

Vought’s F7U Cutlass Was an Advanced Design But Was Stuck With the Underwhelming Powerplants of Its Day

The Vought F7U Cutlass carrier-based jet fighter was one of the most unusual designs ever produced for the United States Navy (USN). Designed as the company’s entry in a 1945 carrier-based jet fighter design competition, the aircraft required the capability to fly at 600 miles per hour at 40,000 feet. It featured broad-chord, low aspect ratio, swept wings, with a wing-mounted tail fin on either side of a short fuselage, resulting in a semi-tailless twin-engine jet. The cockpit was positioned as far forward as possible to maximize pilot visibility.

Image of the F7U Cutlass.
Official US Navy photograph

Experience Should Have Helped

How did Vought arrive at such a novel design? German engineering. That’s right. Although at the time Vought denied any influence or even access to German aerodynamic engineers or their data, Messerschmitt and Arado engineers provided design inputs based on their experience with tailless German aircraft during the waning days of World War II.

The F7U Cutlass was the last design overseen by Vought’s Rex Beisel, who designed the first Navy-specific fighter aircraft (the Curtiss/Naval Aircraft Factory TS-1 in 1922) as well as the Vought F4U Corsair.

Cutlass taking off from an aircraft carrier.
Official US Navy photograph

Nosebleed Section

High-pressure hydraulically actuated elevons (Vought dubbed them “ailevators”) were utilized for pitch and roll control. The wings had full span leading edge slats. The nose landing gear strut, easily the longest ever used on a Navy carrier-based aircraft, was both required for high angle of attack takeoffs and recoveries and sufficiently sturdy to accomplish its job.

However, support structures such as down-locks were not up to the task, and the high stresses of carrier operations caused nose gear failures, which also often caused spinal injuries to the pilots who were 14 feet up in the air when sitting on the deck.

Cutlass flying with a Banshee.
Vought F7U Cutlass flying with a McDonnell F2H Banshee. Official US Navy photograph

Early Power Deficiencies For F7U Cutlass

The Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) ordered three XF7U prototypes in 1946. The first one flew for the first time from Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland on 29 September 1948 with Vought’s chief test pilot, J. Robert Baker, at the controls.

The specifications for the production F7U-1s were similar to those of the prototypes. However, further testing and development of the 19 Westinghouse J34-WE-32 turbojet-powered F7U-1s built by Vought resulted in the revised F7U-2 and the F7U-3 variants. Both would be equipped with more powerful engines.

F7U cutlass 1954
Official US Navy photograph

A Better Airframe But Still Lacking Thrust

At least that was the plan. At the end of the day, the F7U-2 never got off the drafting board because of engine development problems. However, the F7U-3 would incorporate as many improvements identified during the F7U-1’s flight hours as possible, resulting in a longer and stronger airframe. The first 16 F7U-3s built by Vought had non-afterburning Allison J35-A-29 engines.

The remaining -3s, powered by Westinghouse J46-WE-8B afterburning turbojets, became the production standard. But that didn’t necessarily mean thrust the Cutlass pilots could trust.

Cutlass on the flightdeck.
Official US Navy photograph

Wicked Shimmies and Other Challenges

The F7U-3 Cutlass entered operational service with the US Navy with VA-66 Waldos (soon to become VF-81) in April of 1954. Eventually, 13 squadrons would be equipped with Cutlasses. But operational problems were many and varied. The F7Us were all underpowered. The high-pressure hydraulic system constantly leaked. Landing gear doors had a tendency to fall off the jet.

Takeoff and carrier approach performance were poor, and to make matters worse, the J35 engines had a tendency to flame out when flying in rain. There were “wicked shimmies”- unpredictable, crash-causing post-stall gyrations. The aircraft quickly picked up unflattering sobriquets such as “Gutless Cutlass”, “Ensign Eliminator”, and “Praying Mantis.”

F7U 3Ms of VA 86 on USS Forrestal CVA 59 1956
Official US Navy photograph

For the rest of the Gutless F7U Cutlass saga, bang NEXT PAGE below

Fan’s reaction to A final F-14 flyover was fantastic

Shortly before the Navy retired the F-14 Tomcat in 2006, the venerable fighter jet made a final appearance in a final F-14 flyover of PNC Park in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Flyovers are always a tremendously unique event. The crowd is already amped up for the start of a game. The Star Spangled Banner plays and then it happens. Aircraft buzz the crowd as part of a grand finale. It’s about as American as it gets.

Flyovers at airshows and sporting events always wow the crowds

In the past, there were some very low and aggressive flybys at sporting events. The Blue Angels routinely wow crowds with their sneak passes in the F/A-18. We’ve even chronicled some of them. While impressive, they led to some disciplinary action and even ended some flying careers.

F-18 Flyover.  This article highlights the final F-14 flyover that took place at PNC Park.
Image via US Navy

Today, there are many more rules about flyovers though. Most occur at least 1,000 feet AGL (above ground level). While every flyover is impressive, the ones today are noticeably more muted and less heart pounding as they are well above the crowds.

The Reaction To This F-14 Flyover Makes This Video Totally Worth It

The video took place back in 2006 at the Major League Baseball Home Run Derby, before many of these rules were in place and/or in force. In the video, you’ll see two F-14s roar past overhead at less than 500 feet.

The fan videoing the impromptu air show yells, “Those are -14s, dude! Tomcats! Swept-back!” He and the rest of the crowd saw something we will never again see in our lifetime. The F-14 Tomcat was retired shortly after the flyby.

Today, the only place to see an F-14 flyover is in Iran

In 2025, only Iran operates a small fleet of aging Tomcats. They keep the fleet flying by cannibalizing jets from their fleet purchased before the Iranian revolution in the late 1970s.

Groundbreaking Flying Submarine Ideas that Defy Imagination

0

The concept of a flying submarine or a submersible aircraft sounds like something from science fiction or a James Bond Film. Regardless of its name, people have been thinking about this and working on designs for just such a vehicle for over 100 years.

First Designs Appeared More Than 100 Years Ago

Perhaps the first mention of a flying submarine came in 1918 when inventor Felix Longobardi applied for and received a patent for his “Combination Vehicle.” The text of his application stated, “This invention relates more particularly to a vehicle or apparatus which may be described generally as a submersible or submarine boat which is provided with means whereby it may run on the land and may also fly. The objects of this invention are to provide a vehicle or apparatus of the character indicated which is adapted to operate underwater, on land, or in the air and which will be comparatively simple in construction as well as durable and efficient in operation.”

Image from patent application for Combination Vehicle. | Image: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/
Image from patent application for Combination Vehicle. | Image: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/

This plan included specific details for components that would permit travel underwater, on the surface, and in the air. The design showed how the wings would extend out horizontally for flight and fold up when it would submerge. The concept was also a military design with portholes for guns on the sides of and on the deck for “anti-aircraft purposes.” There is no evidence that Longobardi ever built his vehicle, but more plans for something similar in concept came in 1920.

Plans for a Submersible Biplane

On 24 January 1920, the “Illustrated London News” published concept art for a submersible biplane. It may have come from the Royal Navy, although the newspaper only claimed it was  “designed by a leading aircraft company.” The vehicle had the name “Tessaurian.” There were no written details, but drawings show telescopic wings that would retract when underwater, a periscope, and an inlet for water tanks for submerging. As with the Longobardi design, there were no reports of anyone building an actual vehicle based on the design. It wasn’t long before there were more designs for a similar craft.

Artist drawing of Tessaurian submersible biplane. | Image: Public Domain
Artist’s drawing of Tessaurian submersible biplane. | Image: Public Domain

Flying Underwater Boat

In 1934, Boris Petrovich Ushakov, a student at the Naval Engineering Institute in Russia, drew up a design for a flying underwater boat. It featured three engines, the ability to flood its fuselage, submerge it, and wait underwater for enemy ships, and torpedoes. Ushakov submitted his design to senior officials, but after showing some initial interest, they felt the vehicle would be too heavy and did not proceed with it.

Drawing of Ushakov flying underwater boat. | Image: https://www.flitetest.com/
Drawing of Ushakov flying underwater boat. | Image: https://www.flitetest.com/

During the following decades, nations tried ways to combine aircraft with submarines. Before the Second World War, the U.K. tried adding a small hangar to a class 2 submarine. This only caused the sub to sink. The French then considered carrying foldable planes inside submarines. Then, in the 1950s, the United States studied building an AN1 Submarine that could carry eight fighters inside its hull. While none of these ideas was for a true submersible aircraft, they showed continued interest in combining aircraft and submarines.

Cold War Designs Appear

The Cold War created a need for new, more effective military vehicles and weapons. In 1962, Donald Reid, an engineer at aircraft manufacturer North American Aviation, produced a design for a flying submarine. He built his Reid Flying Submarine (RFS-1) from parts salvaged from other aircraft in his spare time.

Reid Flying Submarine (RFS-1) | Image: Public Domain
Reid Flying Submarine (RFS-1) | Image: Public Domain

It worked as a float plane and was submersible to ten to twelve feet during testing. It did get into the air, but due to its weight, it could only make short hops of about 75 feet. The RFS-1 had a 65-horsepower engine for flying and a one-horsepower electric motor when underwater.

It was also no simple matter to transition from aircraft to submarine. The pilot had to remove the propeller and install a rubber cover over the engine to keep it dry. The submarine was also not pressurized or sealed underwater; the pilot had to use a scuba tank to breathe. While the RFS-1 proved that such a design was feasible, it did not perform very well underwater or in the air. Eventually, the Navy decided not to fund it after 1965.

First Truly Feasible Design

This was not the only US Navy interest in developing a flying submarine, and in 1964, it awarded a development contract to the Convair aircraft company. The Navy’s criteria for the design were that it have a two-man crew, a single turbojet engine for takeoffs, and twin turbofans for cruising. It also had to be sealable for undersea operations. The Convair submersible seaplane was also to have a Cold War mission of attacking Soviet shipping.

Drawing with details on Convair Sub-Plane. | Image: British boys' Eagle magazine
Drawing with details on Convair Sub-Plane. | Image: British boys’ Eagle magazine

Convair built several scale models, and the Navy began water and wind tunnel testing. Convair reported that their design worked. In the end, however, the project did not make it past the testing stage when Congress decided not to fund it any longer and canceled it.

DARPA Expresses Interest in Flying Submarine

The most recent attempt to develop a submersible aircraft came in 2008 when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) requested a vehicle that could fly and travel underwater. DARPA’s requirements were that it have an in-flight range of at least 400 miles and an underwater range of at least 12 miles.

Its basic purpose would be to carry SEALS or other special operations troops to a location where they would perform a mission. The SEALS would leave the vehicle and go ashore to conduct their mission. While the SEALS would be gone, the vehicle would have to remain submerged for up to 72 hours without refueling. After bringing the SEALS back on board, the vehicle could exit the area underwater and then through the air.

U.S. Navy design diagram for both design variants for submersible aircraft. | Image: Sandboxx
U.S. Navy design diagram for both design variants for submersible aircraft. | Image: Sandboxx

In 2010, the Navy began its own study for a flying submarine, and the Navy Special Warfare Center and Office of Naval Research began it with DARPA’s original requirements. The study initially determined that a blended wing would be the best design for the vehicle.

U.S. Navy Produces Two Design Variants for Carrying SEALs

The Navy produced two design variants for it. Both had two pilots and carried six SEALS and their gear. In both designs, the cockpit would be sealed and pressurized, and the special operators would be exposed to the water and breathe from the vehicle’s air system. The two variants were similar in size and weight. The first one had a 92-foot wingspan and weighed 37,000 pounds. The second variant had a 109-foot wingspan and weighed 39,000 pounds.

Variant 1 flying submarine with blended wing design. | Image: Sandboxx
Variant 1 flying submarine with blended wing design. | Image: Sandboxx

After testing scale models of both versions, the Navy concluded that both were feasible and could be produced using existing technology and materials. As far as the public knows, the program ended with these two variants because the Navy has not mentioned anything further about them. However, the Navy has never officially canceled the project either, so the flying submarines or submersible aircraft may still be undergoing testing or even in use today.