UPDATE: 6:58PM CT: A press conference was held this afternoon regarding the crash. Both occupants of the two-ship F-16D are in good condition. See recap of today’s events here.
UPDATE 12:34PM CT: Here is live footage of the incident provided by WHIO.
12:20PM CT
The Dayton Daily News is reporting that a Thunderbirds aircraft ‘crashed’ today at Dayton International Airport. However, if you read their latest reporting, it sounds as if the jet landed and then was flipped over by a gust of wind. There is no word yet on injuries. Here is their latest tweet.
While the winds are reported to be light, the field has been reporting heavy rain with low visibility. A significant cold front has converged with moisture from the remnants of Tropical Storm Cindy to produce heavy rain, thunderstorms, and wind in the region.
2.) The Thunderbirds practice for the Dayton Airshow was called off today due to weather but the two-seater F-16D did take off for a media flight. There were two occupants in the F-16–one pilot and one media guest.
Peter Thiel, PayPal founder and tech evangelist, noted several years ago that “We wanted flying cars, but instead got 140 characters.” He was, of course, talking about Twitter, but his larger point was that the technological advancements that seemed to be inevitable have—when they’ve even shown up— been underwhelming.
The pilotless airliner, like the driverless car, is one of those innovations that always seems to be around the next corner, but like a mirage in the desert, keeps receding into the distance. And it certainly isn’t for lack of effort. DARPA has recently been testing a robot which occupies the space where a copilot sits on an airliner.
A recent headline proclaimed that this robot was able to fly (and land!) a 737. So that’s that right? We can finally get on with the business of halving (or eliminating) our pilot force, solving the pilot shortage, and saving a ton of money to boot.
Well, I wouldn’t be so quick to quit flight school and dust off that medical school application. We are still quite a ways away from single or no pilot airliners for a number of reasons. But first, I’d like to review where we’ve come from when it comes to cockpit automation and what we’ll ultimately be asking our machines to do.
There was a time not too far removed when it took five or more crew members—in addition to flight attendants—to operate an airliner. Besides the two pilots up front, there were navigators to navigate, flight engineers to keep the engines running, and a radio operator to communicate. Over the years, these positions have been eliminated through the use of technology and automation.
The last airplane Boeing manufactured that had an engineer’s panel in the cockpit was the 747-300 model, which ceased production in 1990. Navigators and radio operators were eliminated decades earlier, replaced by inertial navigation systems and solid state radios.
Job Functions Were Consolidated, not Eliminated
Wikipedia: Felix Stember
I think it important to note that none of the functions that those earlier crew members accomplished were actually eliminated, but rather consolidated into the job of pilot. Airplanes still needed to be navigated, engines needed to be started, monitored and kept running through fuel management, and radios still needed to be tuned and monitored.
Automation has allowed pilots to assume all those duties while still flying the airplane. And as you’ve no doubt read somewhere on the internet, pilots only actually “fly” their airliners for just a few minutes per flight during takeoff and landing. For the most part this is true. I personally like to hand fly the jet more than most, but that is because I enjoy it. There is certainly no need to do so. For many, it is gear up, flaps up, autopilot on.
The dirty truth is the autopilot can fly better for longer than any human can. Sure, some pilots can fly a better final than “George” (the autopilot), but George doesn’t get tired or rusty. This is a good thing, because it is that autopilot which frees up the two pilots to deal with things like a low oil pressure light during a diversion in bad weather.
Why Have Pilots at All?
Technology has eliminated all those other jobs on the airplane, and we have autopilots that routinely handle almost all the flying already, so what’s the problem? Just make a machine that can handle the other three minutes of flying and we’re done here.
This gets down to the fundamental reason pilots are really on the airplane, and that is decision making.The reason there are two pilots aboard? Collaboration and validation of the decision making process. Plus having two people up front has the added advantage that they help keep each other awake. (Laugh, but it will need to be addressed in a single pilot airliner.)
So no problemo, simply write some software that can handle the decisions that pilots are expected to make. This gets down to the question of things that machines do well versus the things that humans do well. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.
Pattern Recognition and Heuristics
Computers are really good at tedious detail work such as, say, doing a spell check or a word find and replace on a blog post. What they’re not so good at is deciding if you’ve buried the lede, or if your prose is somewhat leaden. That takes judgement, which is more difficult to code.
Have you ever wondered why all the fruits and vegetables in the supermarket have those little stickers on them used by the scanner? Why can’t the scanner just look at a tomato and recognize it? The reason is that when you program the computer to recognize something that is “red” and “round” it will confuse tomatoes with apples (or red bell peppers). While humans will rarely mistake an apple for a tomato, getting a machine to routinely recognize the difference is much more difficult, (and expensive) hence the stickers.
In short, humans are much better than machines at pattern recognition and heuristics, which is a fancy word for an educated guess or hunch. Humans are better decision makers in ambiguous situations. And many situations on an airliner can be ambiguous.
Canned Decision Making or AI
What is software other than prepackaged expertise and decisions? Automation is threatening whole sectors of the economy such as accounting because expertise and best practices can be distilled into code and sold to people who couldn’t otherwise afford to hire a tireless expert. Accounting software, though, is unlikely to be presented a scenario which hasn’t been preprogrammed. If it does come across such a situation, it would likely come to a halt state to await human intervention.
The software in a pilotless airplane would need to be either pre programmed with every possible scenario likely to ever be encountered, or to employ some sort of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of a machine to be able to process information which it hasn’t specifically been programmed to handle, i.e. to learn. In short, it is canned judgement.
Advances in AI are being made all the time but it does have a way to go. Imagine a piece of software which would have the judgement to tell the difference between a need to do a gate return for a woman who’d left her purse in the gate area versus one whose husband had been seriously injured (or one of several million other scenarios). I can’t imagine that either.
So it seems apparent to me that we’re going to need humans available to make decisions on or about airlines for the foreseeable future. The question arises as to how many humans are required, and if they should they actually be on the airplane.
Pilot/Dispatcher/Controller
Our current commercial airline transportation system consists of at least four people watching over your flight at any one time. Two or more pilots are up front, a dispatcher has planned your flight and keeps watch over things like destination weather and other operational concerns, while air traffic controllers keep your airplane away from all the other airplanes flying around.
All of these jobs are supposedly ripe for replacement through automation. Back in my military days the crew would come in the day before a scheduled flight and spend the entire day flight planning. Dispatchers today plan and oversee many dozens of flights per shift using sophisticated software tools. They become extremely busy, though, when many airplanes under their control have to divert in the case of bad weather in one location.
In the scenario where there is one pilot aboard coupled with say, a “copilot” assistant on the ground connected through datalink, a decision would need to be made as to how many airborne planes would be assigned to each assistant. If the ratio is one to one, there would be little cost savings as assistants would likely make about as much as dispatchers and copilots currently do. Perhaps two to one or four to one. An optimal number will need to be found. This would open a new cost versus safety frontier that does not now exist.
These assistants would be only available for voice or text consultation given the current state of deployed technology. Robust telecommunications networks allowing for remote control of airliners along with control systems aboard airliners to allow such control, while technically feasible, currently do not exist and would require a sizeable investment in hardware and infrastructure to implement. This is certainly doable, but there is little evidence of any movement towards this future other than pure research.
Similar automation and technology advancements are impacting the job of the air traffic controller as well. The FAA has proposed using advanced data tools to have a flight fully cleared and deconflicted from all other airborne traffic before it has even taken off. Controllers would only be available to intervene in the case of rapidly changing weather or other unpredictable contingencies such as aircraft emergencies.
The trend is unmistakable. Fewer humans will, over time, be involved in watching over your flight, and this may work out just fine. The advantages of automation are manifest: lower costs and higher productivity being two of the greatest. A third metric, however, safety, may be the fly in the ointment.
Is It Safe?
Wikipedia
2016 was a record year in US commercial aviation as there were no fatalities on any US commercial airline anywhere in the world. It is also the seventh straight year that this feat has been attained. In 2015 that worked out to 7.6 billion miles flown with a (non-fatal) accident rate of 0.155 per 100,000 flight hours. There are about 24,000 commercial flights per day in the US. Flying is extremely safe and this is not by accident.
The current state of safety in the airline industry has been achieved over the years through dogged research into human factors, technical standards, preventative maintenance, training, and accident investigations. Current aviation policies and procedures for operators, controllers, and maintainers have years of development and history behind them.
One of the best reasons to cheer the introduction of driverless cars is the promise of a reduction in the 35,000 annual US auto accident deaths. The promise of the pilotless airliner is mostly economic. Our commercial aviation system is already nearly as safe as can reasonably be accomplished short of parking airplanes.
The burden of proof from a safety point of view will be upon those wishing to introduce large changes into this system for marginal economic gains. Measured in defects per operations accomplished, matching the current safety record will be a challenge. Not impossible, but the bar is pretty high.
I personally find myself having to intervene multiple times a day to correct “mistakes” made by our current state of the art automation. It is not nearly as automatic as advertised. This record of course must improve before the system can be fully autonomous.
The current pilot shortage, one of the justifications for increasing automation, is a mostly self inflicted injury by the US aviation industry compounded by Congress. It will eventually work itself out through rising wages and ab initio training programs for prospective pilots.
In Conclusion
I have every confidence that the goal of pilotless airliners will eventually be achieved given enough time and money, but I also believe that it will not be nearly as cheap or easy as some acolytes of pilotless airplanes believe. If you’ll notice, I haven’t even touched on the acceptance of this idea by the flying public. I leave that for you, dear reader, to discuss in the comments. In any event, I’ll be retired long before then.
Editors note: An earlier version of this story stated that the last Boeing plane with a navigator was a 727. It was actually a Boeing 747-300.
Father and Son share special moment as they pilot the mighty Lockheed L-1011 to Europe in a classic video
Aviation Media, Inc., produced a “Wonderful World of Flying’ video and this segment has a “take your son to work” story. TWA pilot Barry Schiff is the pilot and his son Brian is the flight engineer; it’s the first time they’ve flown together as professional pilots for the airline.
This was a TWA flight from JFK to Berlin with a stop in Brussels. TWA, at one time owned by eccentric millionaire Howard Hughes, was one of the major commercial airlines before it went out of business in 2001.
The aircraft featured is the L-1011, manufactured by Lockheed. The wide-body plane was developed as an alternative for Boeing’s 747 and the L-1011 closely resembled the DC-10 developed by McDonnell Douglas. The L-1011 went into service in 1972 and was phased out by most commercial airlines by the mid-1990s.
ENJJPT Is One of the Most Successful Joint Training Programs Ever
The Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program (ENJJPT) is a multi-national training program that trains combat pilots for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air forces. The program consists of a 55 week long three-phased curriculum.
Official US Air Force Photograph
Producing Pilots for Everything With Wings
An average of 200 pilots graduate from the program each year, earning their wings and going on to fly everything from air superiority fighters to transports to tankers and helicopters for the air forces of their respective countries. In addition to the Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT), there are three other distinct training programs: Pilot Instructor Training (PIT), which produces instructor pilots, Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF), and IFF Upgrade Instructor Pilot Training.
Official US Air Force Photograph
Found on the Flightline
More than 1,300 military, civilian, and contractor personnel support the ENJJPT Program. The students fly Beechraft T-6A Texan II primary trainers, Cessna T-1A Jayhawk multi-engine trainers, and Northrop T-38C and AT-38C Talon advanced jet trainers. ENJJPT recently retired the last of their Cessna T-37 Tweet primary jet trainers. Other training aircraft are utilized for more specialized training as required.
official us air force photograph
Historic Heritage
The United States Air Force (USAF) 80th Flying Training Wing (FTW) traces its history back to World War II, when as the 80th Pursuit Group (Interceptor) they flew Curtiss P-40 Warhawks in the China-Burma-India (CBI) theatre. Deactivated soon after the war ended, the Wing was reformulated in 1972 and has been focused on training American and allied pilots ever since. The ENJJPT Program was established in 1981, with the IFF syllabus being added in 1994.
Futuristic aircraft manufacturer Boom Supersonic made waves at the Paris Air Show this week as it revealed its revolutionary aircraft prototype and design, which could hit the skies for testing as early as next year. The aircraft, which is expected to make supersonic travel affordable (though affordable is a relative term — it’s guessed that seats will be around $5,000 roundtrip), can reach speeds of Mach 2.2, or 1,451 mph.
What may have originally been seen as an overly ambitious goal is getting a fair bit of backing, with 76 aircraft ordered, some of those orders placed by international airlines. One recognizable name placing their bets with the company is Virgin, but not the Virgin you may have flown across the Atlantic or the States. Instead, Virgin Galactic has placed an order for the first 10 planes to roll out (and is also providing manufacturing services and testing support). The price tag? $200 million apiece.
The future of supersonic travel, now very within reach, is exciting to many aircraft and travel enthusiasts alike. After all, many travelers of a younger set are begrudgingly miffed they never had the chance to fly on the Concorde, which was not only expensive to maintain, but also ridiculously expensive to fly.
The interior of the Boom Supersonic passenger aircraft is anything but shabby. Photo: Boom SupersonicHowever, don’t just bet that hordes of people will be climbing onto a Boom Supersonic aircraft any time soon, though test flights of a technology demonstrator are scheduled for 2018. That first model, in fact, isn’t even for passenger travel. It’s about 68 feet long, and holds two individuals. The future passenger version is almost triple that size, at 170 feet, and makes space for six crew members and 55 passengers. This passenger version is expected to offer commercial flights around 2023.
The startup, though, is just getting started. It currently only has 35 employees and is receiving backing from investors to get its dream off the ground. Boyd Group International, an optimistic consulting firm, is projecting the sell of more than 1,000 aircraft, and maybe even 2,000 if the U.S. government relaxes its laws against over-land supersonic flights. While that seems like a ridiculously high sales estimate, the excitement level for a supersonic airliner is admittedly the highest it has been in decades.
Douglas A-4 Skyhawks have been proliferating in civilian use for some time now. One of the companies that is restoring and flying these former military jets is Sky Resources. They have taken several former United States Navy (USN) and United States Marine Corps (USMC) Skyhawks and restored them for various civilian uses including aerial photography, use by government contractors like DRAKEN International and Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC) as aggressor simulation aircraft, and airshow performers. Many of these Skyhawks are single-seat A-4L variants.
A-4E Skyhawk of VMA-124 pictured at NAS Memphis.
Transforming the A-4C Into the A-4L
A-4Ls are former Naval Air Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve A-4C model Skyhawks that were upgraded during the latter stages of the Vietnam War. Due to attrition of the fleet A-4E and A-4F models it became necessary to swap the standard A-4C Wright J65 turbojet engine with an uprated version of the same core engine, add the dorsal avionics “hump” from the A-4F model Skyhawk, and provide kits to add TA-4F leading edge slats to 100 USN and USMC A-4Cs to bring them up to ersatz A-4F standards.
The first A-4C modification to the A-4L standard was flown on August 21st 1969. A-4Ls were to equip two carrier air wings (CVWs) if force levels or attrition required additional fleet A-4 airframes aboard USN attack carriers (CVAs). A-4Ls were not equipped with the additional hardpoints under their wings for mounting underwing pylons that were present in the A-4E/A-4F models. The A-4Ls were replaced primarily by newer Skyhawk variants as they rotated from fleet to reserve squadrons.
A-4L BuNo 147761 pictured at AMARG before service with Malaysia.
Service With Malaysia and Back to the Desert
Several surplus A-4L aircraft were later reworked to A-4PTM standards for use by Malaysia. When Malaysia finally phased them out of service in 1999 several of those airframes returned to America and were placed in storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) at Tuscon in Airzona. The Skyhawk featured in the video, Bureau Number (BuNo) 147761, saw service with USMC Attack Squadron 124 (VMA-124) Checkerboards based at Naval Air Station (NAS) Memphis during the early 1970s before she was reworked to A-4PTM standards, sold to Malaysia who flew her until the late 1970s, spent some time at AMARG, and was subsequently acquired and restored to operational status by Sky Resources.
Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic Took a Look Back at 100 Years of Naval Aviation History
During 2011 the United States Navy (USN), United States Marine Corps (USMC), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) celebrated the centennial of naval aviation (CONA). Throughout the year there were special events held at Naval Air Stations (NASs), Marine Corps Air Stations (MCASs) and Coast Guard Air Stations (CGASs) to honor and respect the past and look forward to the future.
Image via US Navy
Some of the Most Colorful Colors Ever Seen on Navy and Marine Corps Aircraft
One highlight for Avgeeks all over the country was seeing current USN, USMC, and USCG aircraft painted in “heritage” colors- colors that hadn’t been used on Navy, Marine, or Coast Guard aircraft in some cases for more than 70 years. Strike fighters, electronic warfare aircraft, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft, even trainers and transports wore eye-catching paint schemes and were showcased at air shows and gatherings all around the country.
image via us navy
One other way the CONA was celebrated was by the Strike Fighter (VFA) community. Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic (SFWL or STRKFIGHTWINGLANT) produced their 2011 Strike Fighter Ball video both as a review of the year 2011 in their community but also as a look back at the past 100 years of their existence. Featured in the video are the F/A-18s and crews of VFA-11 Red Rippers, VFA-31 Tomcatters, VFA-15 Valions, VFA-103 Jolly Rogers, VFA-34 Blue Blasters, VFA-211 Checkmates, VFA-106 Gladiators, VFA-32 Swordsmen, VFA-143 Pukin’ Dogs, VFA-83 Rampagers, VFA-213 Black Lions, VFA-81 Sunliners, VFA-37 Ragin’ Bulls, VFA-87 Golden Warriors, VFA-105 Gunslingers, VFA-131 Wildcats, VFA-136 Knighthawks, and VFC-12 Fighting Omars. Like most “cruise” videos these are easy on the eyes and feature pounding soundtracks. Please enjoy these two videos (parts one and two).
Lots of blowing stuff up (it’s part of what strike fighters do) and chasing baskets but also more great air-to-air footage. Also uploaded to YouTube by MegaAerodrome.
Flybys of warbirds and contemporary Navy, Marines Corps, and Coast Guard aircraft (with some Air Force birds thrown in) shot during the Parade of Flight at the 2011 CONA Open House, NAS North Island in San Diego. Uploaded to YouTube by wittmann51.
On the opening day of the Paris Air Show, Qatar Airways stole the limelight with the reveal of the first aircraft fitted with the new business-class Qsuite. The airline’s execs are building up the expectations, with CEO Akbar Al Baker noting, “This product will transform premium travel by bringing a first-class experience to the business-class cabin. With this innovative offering — which features the first-ever double bed in business class — we have set a new standard for the industry…”
It’s true — the Qsuite does offer the first-ever double bed in business class, and the privacy panels are removable, so passengers can create a private room of their own. In addition to two passengers enjoying some alone time, a traveling group of four can do the same, with adjustable panels and entertainment screens allowing four seats to switch things up in a secluded, totally customizable suite. There’s no doubting the Qsuite will be a top player on the luxury travel market.
So what’s it take to experience it for yourself? The very first flight featuring the Qsuite will leave from Doha for London, June 24, on a Boeing 777-300ER, and it’s announced the offering will be rolled out on one new plane each month, eventually adding on service to Paris and New York. The Boeing 777-300ERs will include 42 Qsuites, and later outfitted Airbus A350-1000s will include 46.
This big reveal wasn’t the only exciting news for Qatar Airways while at the Air Show. They also received Airline of the Year at the 2017 Skytrax Awards, winning the coveted title for the fourth year in a row. This award was just one of many for the travel provider; also included were awards for best first-class lounge, best Middle Eastern airline and best business class worldwide.
And it’s no wonder they’re a winner; Qatar Airways is growing at a remarkable pace. On July 4, the airline will begin five-times weekly service to Nice; they just opened a brand-new premium lounge at Charles de Gaulle; and they also just recently extended their service to Dublin, and service to Skopje and Chang Mai is expected to follow.
All of these exciting initiatives are a welcome distraction from some of the political challenges that Qatar has faced. Qatar is in the midst of a diplomatic spat with GCC nations who have cut diplomatic ties and blocked airspace and landing rights in the Middle East region.
Not the whole bomber, mind you, but rather pieces of it. Big pieces, including the wings and the “cargo hold” otherwise known as the bomb bay structure were delivered for assembly by C-5 Galaxy airlift.
But first, a little background on the B-2 is in order. The B-2 Spirit, America’s newest manned bomber, was first rolled out of the hangar at the Northrop facility at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California on November 22, 1988. Echoing the design of Jack Northrop’s YB-49 flying wing, the B-2 features computer flight controls to maintain the stability lacking in the earlier design along with advanced stealth structures and coatings designed to evade enemy radars.
As usual, the procurement program ended up being contentious. Starting with an initial planned buy of 132 aircraft, the number was later reduced to 75 aircraft, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, further reduced to only 20 aircraft. A test aircraft retained by Northrop was eventually delivered to the Air Force as an operational bomber to bring the total to 21 airframes. Including spare parts and other support, the final cost was nearly a billion dollars per delivered bomber. Adding in development, facilities, and procurement costs resulted in an astounding final cost of over two billion dollars per aircraft.
I am of course reminded of the Calvin Coolidge quote in regards to aircraft acquisition: “Why don’t we buy just one airplane and let the pilots take turns flying it.” He was more prescient than he knew.
The B-2 was assembled by Northrop in Palmdale, Ca, as I mentioned above, but as with any large acquisition program, much of the work was actually farmed out to many subcontractors who manufactured major parts of the aircraft. One of these subcontractors was the Boeing Corporation which had responsibility for the outboard portion of the wing, the aft center fuselage section, landing gears, fuel system and weapons delivery system.
Special Delivery
This work was carried out at the Boeing Military Airplanes Company facility located at Boeing Field in Seattle, Wa. How these large aircraft structures got from Seattle to Palmdale is where your humble narrator comes in. Rather than ship them via rail, which was perhaps the most cost efficient method, they were shipped via C-5 Galaxy cargo aircraft. I don’t know the reason for this, but it was probably due to secrecy and security considerations.
I was assigned to the crew that flew one of these missions back in 1993. It encompassed two days flying from Travis AFB to Boeing Field for pickup, and then on to Palmdale for delivery before returning to Travis. We laid over in Seattle.
One of the enlisted crewmembers on the trip was particularly resourceful and had arranged to get the entire crew a tour of both the Boeing facility and the Northrop assembly plant. This was no easy feat as the program, while not officially “black” (secret), still retained many of the security safeguards and procedures from the “black” days. This meant getting background clearance and customized ID badges. It turned out to be a real treat.
Plastic Model Kit
The inside of the plant appeared as you might expect with lots of large machinery laying about along with many technicians moving here and there. Entrance from any section of the factory to another required a keycard swipe and code entry which for 1993 was new and exotic. Right away though, it was obvious that something different was being built here.
The wings of the B-2 are not made of aluminum, but rather are constructed of resin impregnated graphite fiber. This was a new material used in aircraft construction which was first used by Airbus in the A320. The difference for Boeing was that while Airbus still used aluminum for the main structure of the wings on the A320, the entire structure of the B-2 wing is constructed of composite material.
And even though the technology involved in the manufacture of large composite structures is quite complex, I got the feeling I was watching a huge plastic model airplane being glued together. A huge jig which matched the shape of the wing was used to hold the cloth which was laid down by a computer controlled spool exactly where it was needed. Resin would then be applied, and the entire structure, which probably weighed several tons, was floated on air jets into a giant autoclave, which is a fancy word for oven.
It was there that it would cook until the resin and cloth were bonded. This formed an upper or lower skin panel of the wing which was then attached to composite “stringers” or beams to make up the wing structure.
Surprise Finding at Boeing Military
As we walked around, I couldn’t help but notice a somewhat similar jig to that of the B-2 wing. It turned out to be for the tail of the new 777 project then undergoing. Like the Airbus, Boeing designed the horizontal stabilizer (or tail) of their new airplane using composites as well. Also interesting was that our guide was extremely reticent to talk about it when asked.
If you’ll recall, back in that timeframe Boeing and Airbus were conducting a war of words over government subsidies to their respective industries. Boeing claimed that Airbus was able to undercut their pricing due to subsidies they received from their government owners, while Airbus countered that Boeing had similar advantages due to military contracts and technology transfers from military programs.
It makes sense to put all your large composite manufacturing projects in one location to avoid unnecessary duplication, but no doubt our guide may have been concerned about the optics of such an arrangement or had instructions to not discuss the subject.
Oxygen and Heart Monitors
In another part of the factory we then observed the wing being assembled. After the top and bottom skins had been attached to the stringers, workers would enter the wing structure to install wiring and plumbing. These workers were outfitted with oxygen masks and monitors to ensure that if they became incapacitated, they could be rescued quickly.
Our guide explained that in years gone by, an incapacitated worker might have been extracted by actually cutting into the aluminum wing skin. That wasn’t happening on the billion dollar bomber, hence the monitors.
A Spy!
The next morning we were up early to preflight for our short flight from Seattle to Palmdale. As we got to the airplane, it was still being loaded with the B-2 wings which were tightly wrapped in tarps and attached to a travel framework. One of our contacts mentioned that in the “black” program days, the package would be augmented with extraneous pieces of styrofoam under the tarps to attempt to disguise the actual payload. The loading was also done at night. Neither of those precautions were necessary for our trip.
As we were in bright daylight and in view of the public, I asked for and received permission to take a few photos. In the process of so doing, another guard approached rapidly yelling for me to stop and wanting the film from my camera. The person who originally OK’d my reconnaissance intervened and I was allowed to remain out of custody with my camera film intact. That was just as well because there was no one else available to fly their bomber wings out that day.
Fred Soils the Boeing Ramp
As the loadmasters were busy closing up the nose of the airplane and securing our load, one of our APUs decided to blow a hydraulic line and dump some of the contents of the system onto the Boeing ramp. This got everyone quite excited. The folks at Boeing, being in a civilian organization under the auspices of the EPA and other government busybodies, were very concerned about a “hazardous fluid spill.”
Now I’ve seen my share of hydraulic spills from the C-5 over the years and this one was relatively modest and quickly handled by a few shovelfuls of oil dry onto the offending puddle. In between snide comments by the Boeing personnel questioning the parentage of Lockheed design engineers, the spill was cleaned up and the leak was secured.
Off We Go!
Other than being somewhat bulky, the wings didn’t weigh much so our airplane was rather lightly loaded. The flight from Seattle to Palmdale is only a few hours so the fuel load was light as well. The leg was mine and Fred (the C-5) was just as anxious as we were to depart and quickly leapt into the sky.
Northrop B-2 Assembly plant in Palmdale, Ca (Photo – R Graves)
After an uneventful flight to Palmdale we were ready to unload our precious cargo and enjoy another tour, this time of the Northrop assembly plant. Many of the same security protocols were in place here but we were not permitted down onto the factory floor. Instead we got to observe from a raised catwalk.
This factory did in fact look quite similar to any auto or aircraft assembly plant except that there were B-2 bombers in the line instead of 737s or cars. We did get to speak with one of the B-2 program test pilots whose name escapes me after the decades. This gentleman told us that he had also worked on the C-5 flight test program and relayed interesting factoids such as the B-2 having more wing area than that of the C-5.
One Last Story
That was the end of our B-2 adventure but I wanted to relay one more bit of B-2 lore. On that day back in 1988 when the B-2 was first rolled out of the Northrop plant for public viewing, the Air Force took extensive steps to ensure that the back of the airplane would not be publicly visible. Shielding the engine exhaust from radar was considered a difficult problem to solve and the intent was apparently to conceal the exact design.
An enterprising editor at Aviation Week magazine named Mike Dornheim noted, however, that the Air Force had neglected to close the airspace over Palmdale that day. Dornheim rented a Cessna and along with a photographer got complete photos of the entire B-2 which were featured prominently in the magazine the following week.
But one has to question the need for all the secrecy, as it was later noted that the stylized star design painted on the ramp for that occasion was actually made using silhouettes of the bomber.
Aviation has been a large part of my family’s history for nearly a century. My grandfather, Kenneth B Walton, imported a DeHavilland DH.60G Gipsy Moth biplane after spending time in England. KBW was the holder of private pilot license number 288. Known for his popular Kents restaurants in Atlantic City, KBW also worked on P-47 Thunderbolts for Republic Aviation at Farmingdale on Long Island during World War II before returning to his home on Brigantine Island in New Jersey.
Continuing Family Flights
KBW’s son John G Walton II (my father) was first introduced to aviation in a Fleetwings F-5 Sea Bird amphibian. JGW later informally learned to fly in Navy North American T-28B Trojans and Lockheed TV-2 Shooting Stars from instructor pilot friends during his service as an engineering staff officer with Navy Advanced Training Units (ATU)-200 and ATU-202 deep in South Texas at Naval Air Station (NAS) Kingsville during the late 1950s and early 1960s. JGW obtained his private pilot license in 1960 and his IFR rating in 1984.
Navy TV-2 with ATU-200 flying over deep South Texas. image via author’s father
First Flights for Generation III
Dad sometimes flew a Cessna 172 (78 Sugar) out of Atlantic City’s Bader Field while we lived in New Jersey. That’s where my first flight took place…over Atlantic City and out over the ocean and our house on Brigantine. I was thrilled but also only seven or eight at the time. My very first trip on an airliner was a TWA DC-9 to the Air Force Museum in Dayton…to see a real Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress of course. I owe my continuing interest in aviation to him and to that trip to what is still one of the top five aviation museums anywhere.
JGW and I posing as riveters. Note complete inner wing section suspended behind us.
Bitten by the Homebuilding Bug
Dad had wanted to build his own airplane for quite some time when his work took the family to Neenah in Wisconsin, just up the road from Oshkosh, in the early 1970s. JGW went to his first Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Fly-In that first year. Bitten by the bug in a serious way, he bought a set of plans for John Thorp’s T-18 design, the required sheet aluminum of various thicknesses, started forming parts, and recruited yours truly as chief rivet bucker and quality control inspector. Strange noises emanated from our basement at odd hours. Did I mention the T-18 was being built in our Wisconsin basement?
Dorky me standing next to the fuselage on gear with engine mount temporarily attached.
Options and Alternatives for Eskimo Homebuilders
When you live in Wisconsin and you want to build an airplane, you might be fortunate enough to have several options. Perhaps the easiest one is to utilize a barn, detached garage, or other outbuilding that is either already heated or can be heated. After all, it gets really bitterly unimaginably cold in Wisconsin and progress toward the first flight of an airplane would certainly be reduced during the winter months (typically from late August through early June) without available heat. It’s difficult to effectively wield tin snips or back up a bucking bar with mittens on. An attached garage might also be an option, again provided it could be heated, and that the family truckster would survive daily liberal cold-soakings in the elements while work on the airplane in the garage progresses. Engine block heaters should be standard equipment on vehicles sold in Wisconsin.
Dad standing next to the fuselage with engine mounted during November of 1977.
So the Garage is Out. Why Not Build It Underground?
One other option is available to many Wisconsinites. Many Wisconsin homes come equipped with basements. In this writer’s opinion, no house should ever be built without a basement. Providing endless options for usable space that by nature is always cooler than the rest of the house, but warmer than winter’s frozen embrace outside, basements are, in a word, perfect. But when one decides to utilize one’s basement to build an all-metal homebuilt airplane, at some point in the process (preferably early) one must consider how the airplane will inevitably and eventually emerge from the basement. This somewhat thorny problem often renders the basement a non-starter as an aircraft construction zone.
Thorp T-18 fuselage prior to basement extraction. Image via the author
You Use Math Every Day
We talked occasionally about how we would get the airplane out of the basement. Because the house was built up a bit higher than the houses on either side of us and the basement floor was closer to ground level on the north side, the plan we spoke about most often was to blow a hole in the north side basement wall, dig out / redistribute enough of the berm dirt to create a ramp, and just roll the flying machine out. To the best of my recollection we didn’t talk about the method we ended up using very often if at all, but it made more sense than the basement wall hole idea. Seriously- calculating how much dynamite would create a suitably-sized hole in the basement wall without collapsing the two story house above it required some serious head-scratching.
Not something you see every day. Looking down through the hole in the dining room floor at the T-18 fuselage in the basement. Image via the author
For the Rest of the Extraction Saga, bang NEXT PAGE below
As expected, Boeing announced the 737 MAX 10 at the Paris Air Show today. The aircraft will have the lowest seat-mile cost of any single-aisle airplane ever produced. Already, orders are being announced, and the aircraft is anticipated to appear as a part of a variety of fleets worldwide.
“Airlines wanted a larger, better option in the large single-aisle segment with the operating advantages of the 737 MAX family. Adding the 737 MAX 10 gives our customers the most flexibility in the market, providing their fleets the range capability, fuel efficiency and unsurpassed reliability that the 737 MAX family is widely known for,” said Kevin McAllister, president and CEO, Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
Overall, the MAX 10 provides a 5 percent lower seat-mile and trip cost (making it attractive to budget airlines and budget travelers alike). It will fit up to 230 passengers, and changes from other MAX models include an extra 66 inches of fuselage, modified wings and other tactical changes.
So, which airlines can you expect to boast the new aircraft?
So far, Boeing has announced commitments with 10+ customers, including Lion Air Group (50 craft for the Indonesian low-cost carrier), SpiceJet (20 craft), Tibet Financial Leasing, TUI Group, CDB Aviation, BOC Aviation and GECAS (otherwise known as GE Capital Aviation Services — yes, that GE — an Irish-American commercial aircraft leasing company). There are more than 240 promised aircraft across them all.
The 737 MAX continues to be Boeing’s fastest-selling airplane, and the MAX 10 is expected to take to the skies in about three years, following the MAX 9 and MAX 7. The MAX series as a whole offers expanded comfort and efficiency as far as single-aisle aircraft are concerned.
Want to try out the MAX series, which just recently entered commercial service?
The first 737 MAX 8 was delivered to Malindo Air, in Malaysia, in May. Southwest Airlines will take delivery this fall. A plethora of recognizable and easily bookable airlines plan to add at least one MAX series aircraft to their fleets — including Aeromexico, Air Canada, Air China, American Airlines, Air Europa, Alaska Airlines, China Southern, Icelandair, Norwegian, Southwest and United.
As we drove home to our house in Neenah after the last day of every EAA Fly-In (as it was called in those days) each year and went down into our basement to work on our homebuilt T-18 airplane, my late father would say “it’s just 51 weeks until Oshkosh.” Plenty of you Avgeeks look forward to it like he did…each week you’re one week closer to the event of the year. Well now that they call it the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh it’s a little bit more of a mouthful to say, but the sentiment is the same. The video here should help keep your gyros aligned and your GPS fixes tight for the next version of AirVenture. This compilation of “heavy iron” warbird footage was compiled at the 44th edition of EAA AirVenture at Oshkosh in 2016.
Photo Credit: Henry Kisor
Warbirds seen in action include the North American P-51 Mustang, B-25 Mitchell, and T-28 Trojan, the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Vought F4U Corsair, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, Grumman F8F Bearcat and G-21 Goose, Cessna AT-17 Bobcat, Douglas A-1 Skyraider, Yakovlev Yak-3, the Canadian Harvard Aerobatic Team flying their aerobatic routine in their North American T-6 Harvards, and a massive Martin JRM Mars flying boat. Jet-powered warbirds include the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, Aero L-39 Albatross, and the Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-15 Fagot and MiG-17 Fresco.
Current military hardware in the video are a Fort Wayne Air National Guard Station-based Indiana Air National Guard (ANG) 163rd Fighter Squadron Blacksnakes Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog, a USAF Viper Demo Team General Dynamics F-16 Viper, and a Travis Air Force Base (AFB)-based Air Force Reserve 312th Airlift Squadron Lockheed C-5M Galaxy taxying to the static display area. Many more types are captured on the ground and in still shots and the sound quality is excellent.
Remember Avgeeks…Oshkosh is right around the corner! 2017 EAA Airventure Oshkosh will be held from July 24 to July 30th this year.
