The Rockwell B-1B Lancer, or “Bone” (B-One, get it?) is a multiengine, variable-sweep wing aircraft primarily flown by the United States Aircraft. First developed in the early 70’s and finally produced in the early 80’s, closest to the B-1 in service now, this four engine aircraft has been known for withstanding the test of time, most notably serving both in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of right now, Boeing, who took over Rockwell International, has great plans for the B-1B Lancer to stick around into the foreseeable future. With the ability to reach Mach 1.2 and carry 75,000 pounds, as well as hold 24 cruise missiles, why wouldn’t they want to keep it around for a while?
image via uSAF
Now, with all that engine power, it is bound to be loud and here, we see just how loud. While departing RAF Fairford in the UK, there were a few issues with car alarms thanks to the insane sound produced by those four afterburning turbofan engines. What a great reminder that even with the best thought out plans, even these big, well-loved aircraft still create a few issues!
This awesome video was taken by bobsurgranny and originally posted to YouTube.
These cadets are the star of the show and they are barely old enough to buy a beer.
The Wings of Blue is the Air Force Academy’s premiere demonstration team. They aren’t afraid of anything and they prove it in this video. The cadets have made a name for themselves by jumping out of C-17s, C-130s, and routinely performing before every Air Force Academy home football game. On average, once or twice a year they get to jump into an NFL stadium before a game.
Precision jumping requires immense preparation and study. Everything from the winds aloft to the route being flown must be practiced and ‘chair flown’. Without an engine, jumpers are reliant on their skills to avoid a host of dangerous objects as they descend towards a stadium packed with 70,000+ screaming fans.
On Sunday, November 13th, the cadet delivered the ceremonial game ball to a waiting veteran as part of the #SalutetoService activities put on by the NFL. The Cowboys beat the Steelers in a thrilling 35-30 victory. This video below is rare first person footage of Sunday’s pregame jump.
In Fairbanks, Alaska you will find a most peculiar sight. There is a statue of two WWII aviators an American and a Russian standing side-by-side. Mounted behind them is the one thing that brought them together at the top-of-the world, an aircraft propeller.
6,500 Miles Across the Wilderness
The Alaska Siberia Lend Lease Airway was a top-secret project that involved an unprecedented level of cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. Stretching 6,500 miles long, the ALSIB Airway was and operated across 12 time zones above the wilderness of North America & Siberia. The 7th Ferrying Squadron was tasked with the top-secret ferry mission. The movement of warplanes was done in stages. First the ferry pilots would accept aircraft from factories across the U.S. (Seattle, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Kansas City & Buffalo) and then deliver them to the staging point in Great Falls, Montana. The second stage was flying each delivery North on the ALSIB across Canada to Fairbanks.
Fairbanks, Alaska was the exchange location. The exchange was conducted at Ladd Field – now Fort Wainright. In Fairbanks the U.S.S.R. pilots would inspect the aircraft and continue the third stage of the journey across Siberia to Krasyonarsk. From there the aircraft were handed over to combat units and employed on the Eastern front against Hitler’s army.
Successful War Materiel Deliveries
Photo by Joe Vaeth
The ALSIB operation was very successful. ALSIB Airway pilots were responsible for delivering over 8,000 warplanes including the Bell P-39 Aircobra, Bell P-63 Kingcobra, North American B-25 Mitchell, North American AT-6 Texan, Douglas C-47 Skytrain, Douglas A-20 Havoc & Curtiss P-40 Warhawk. Due to extreme weather conditions and mechanical failures 133 aircraft were lost over North America and 44 over Siberia During the campaign.
This monument is dedicated to the aviators from both the U.S. Army Air Force and the U.S.S.R. that operated the Alaska Siberia Lend Lease Airway from 1942-1945. The operation was commissioned by President Roosevelt as authorized by Congress in the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, “To promote the defense of the United States.” The ALSIB was sustained through the cooperative efforts of American and Russian aviators from the following units:
U.S. Army Air Force Air Transport Command
U.S. Army Air Force 7th Ferrying Squadron
Women Air Force Service Pilots – WASP
U.S.S.R. Air Force
Even a light coating of dry snow can be dangerous.
Deicing is costly, time-consuming and 100% necessary. Wings are amazing pieces of engineering. A wing is built to precise specifications. The exact curvature of the wing produces a set amount of lift that is then used to calculate takeoff distances, max takeoff weight, and climb performance. Any dent or debris on the wing can cause the wing to be way less efficient.
Snow and ice on the wings disrupts the flow of the air. In many cases significantly. A wing with any snow or ice or debris is called a contaminated wing. Air Florida flight 90 crashed into the Potomac River due to a contaminated wing similar to the aircraft in this video.
Why was this takeoff so dangerous?
Snow and ice on the wings disrupts the flow of the air. A wing with any snow or ice or debris is called a contaminated wing. Even a thin coating of ice can be deadly. Air Florida flight 90 crashed into the Potomac River due to a contaminated wing similar to the aircraft in this video. 78 people died because of that mistake.
In the video, you’ll see the snow rapidly blow off the wing as it accelerates. However, it appears that ice and snow remains on the wing even as the aircraft becomes airborne. At this point, the pilots and passenger are now part of a test flight. The Airbus A320 is a different jet than spec. It has a new untested stall speed, untested climb characteristics. Even the mechanical flaps and slats have never been retracted with that exact set of ice and snow characteristics. What those pilots did was extremely dumb. Even though most of the snow blew off, you can still see significant spots of ice that remain on the wing. Airliners do have systems that allow them to fly through icing conditions (up to moderate) but they are primarily designed to prevent ice buildup, not remove the existing ice and snow seen in the video. If I was a passenger onboard, I would’ve created such a disruption that they would’ve been force to go back to the gate. Even if I ended up in jail, it is better than being dead.
Bottom line? Deice your jet before you go fly. Full stop.
The QF-4 Aerial Target is a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II fighter modified into a remotely piloted aerial target. The QF-4 provides a realistic target for live-fire air-to-air missile testing, as well other anti-aircraft weapons systems.
The last operational flight of F-4 Phantoms occurred in 1996. The following year, the QF-4 program was established. Retired F-4 Phantoms were “recalled to duty” in 1997 to serve as remotely piloted aerial target drones for live-fire missile tests.
An Example of a Heritage Flight including the P-51 Mustang, P-47 Thunderbolt, the QF-4 Phatom and the F-22 Raptor (Photo: Landmark9254)
In what sounds like an oxymoron, the QF-4 can be a reusable target. While the QF-4 can be flown remotely—takeoff to landing—it can also be operated by a pilot for non-destructive testing, such as testing radar detection systems.
Unfortunately, this American classic, even as an aerial target, is rapidly approaching its final days, at least in the US (several other countries still have active F-4 squadrons).
QF-4s are operated by Detachment 1, 82nd Aerial Target Squadron (ATRS) at Holloman AFB,New Mexico. Typically, QF-4s are simply grey with international orange on the tail and wingtips.
Over the last several years, several aircraft have been repainted using the Southeast Asia paint scheme. These aircraft have become part of the popular Heritage Flight program, that are formations of World War II aircraft (P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolts) with modern F-16s, F-22s, or F-35s). The QF-4 fills the historical gap of the Vietnam Conflict aircraft.
Unfortunately, QF-4s will be phased out of the aerial target program by the end of 2016, with the last flights anticipated in November—also ending the QF-4s role in the Heritage Flights. The aircraft will be flown in their target roles as needed before the end of the year. Any aircraft not destroyed as aerial targets will be de-weaponized and towed to the Holloman AFB target range to be used as ground targets. An ignominious operational end to one of the most iconic aircraft of its era.
The F-4s will continue to operate in the air forces of several other countries, and there are many examples of F-4s around the country in museums and on display. Also, the Collings Foundation in Texas owns and operates an airworthy F-4 Phantom in the US.
F-22 blasts off with powerful performance demonstrating agility and skill.
The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation Stealth Fighter Jet designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Development of the YF-22 began in 1986 with the aircraft entering service in 2005 and was later renamed the F-22A. The following year, the F-22 later received the prestigious Collier Trophy administered by the U.S. National Aeronautic Association (NAA).
The U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor Demo Team climbs in altitude during the Heritage Flight Course at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., March 2, 2019. The five-day course allows demo teams the opportunity to perfect their performance both on the ground and in the air. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jensen Stidham)
Powering the Raptor are two turbofan engines in conjunction with thrust vectoring. Thrust vectoring nozzles redirect the engine’s thrust by 20 degrees, which improves the pilot control over the pitch of the aircraft’s nose. According to several sources, Thrust Vectoring also increases the aircraft’s roll rate by 50%. The Raptor is the first USAF fighter with the ability to cruise at super sonic speeds without the need to use the afterburner. This quality is commonly referred to as Supercruise.
The F-22 possesses a sophisticated sensor suite allowing the pilot to track, identify, shoot and kill air-to-air threats before being detected. [Source: af.mil] To maintain a Stealth profile, the F-22 conceals all armaments inside the aircraft. At 4:37, the pilot opens the weapon bay doors as the aircraft passes show center. Thunder Over Michigan 2016 marks the First F-22 Raptor Demo display in the event’s history. This rare performance is one of only 23 appearances for the F-22 Team’s 2016 North America Tour. At the end of the video, you will witness the heritage flight featuring the F-22 Raptor and P-51 Mustang.
In Seattle on October 26th the day was filled with star-spangled fanfare and a patriotic salute. Alaska Airlines unveiled a brand new 737-900ER aircraft designed in a new livery dedicated to “Honoring Those Who Serve.” Military customs & courtesies were rendered and the national anthem was sung at the event hosted by the airline again demonstrating its timeless commitment to America’s service-members and veterans.
“All of us at Alaska greatly value the bravery and sacrifices of our servicemen and women and their families. “We are extraordinarily proud to have this symbol of appreciation that our customers will see and fly on every day.” CEO Brad Tilden
5 Star Ruffles & Flourishes
The aircraft tail #N265AK design features include, an “Alaska Airlines Salutes” medallion with five stars representing the five branches of the U.S. Armed Forces: Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. In the rear a fallen soldier crest, with the Battlefield Cross honors those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The aircraft engine inlets are surrounded by five rings in honor of the five branches of the United States military, and the plane is adorned with American flag winglets.
A quote from President Calivin Coolidge is prominently displayed near the boarding door and at the rear cargo door: “No person was ever honored for what they received. Honor has been the reward for what they gave.”
Flying to a station near you
As Veteran’s Day approaches watch the skies over Anchorage, Fairbanks, San Diego and Washington D.C. The “Honoring Those Who Serve” plane will be landing at cities near military bases on her maiden voyages.
How a design flaw and sketchy winter-time conditions put the MD-80 pilots in a bad spot.
Back in March of last year, a Delta MD-80 slid off the runway in a snow storm at LaGuardia. The aircraft was heavily damaged but there were no injuries. I wrote about that incident here.
To recap, the MD-80 landed in really lousy visibility during a snowstorm and slid off the side of the runway and almost into Flushing Bay. While the approach and landing were normal, the aircraft drifted off the left side of the runway after landing, eventually hitting the airport perimeter fence and coming to a rest on the berm that borders the airport and the water.
Since the winds were not particularly strong, my first guess was that the problem might have been a braking problem, but that was not the case. The NTSB recently concluded their investigation of the incident and have blamed the accident on an obscure directional control characteristic of aircraft with tail mounted engines known as “rudder blanking” along with the pilot’s reaction to that effect. The full accident report can be found here.
Design Flaw
Inherent in the design of turbine powered MD-80 with tail mounted engines and thrust reversers is an effect known as rudder blanking. Shortly after touchdown, pilots command the thrust reversers open using levers located on the throttles. On the MD-80, the aircraft involved, baffles actually close over the exhaust of the engines and redirect the thrust to the sides and forward of the engine. This redirected thrust helps to slow the aircraft.
The problem with this configuration is the location of the engines on the rear fuselage near the tail of the MD-80. The redirected thrust also has the effect of reducing the relative wind over the vertical stabilizer and rudder. Reducing the air over the rudder reduces its effectiveness. The reduced rudder effectiveness combined with the crosswind allowed the aircraft to depart the left side of the runway and to hit the boundary fence.
Boeing (which purchased McDonnell Douglas, the manufacturer of the MD-80) was aware of the flaw and recommended that reverse thrust was not to be used at full power during landing. Boeing recommended a further restricted use of reverse thrust when landing on a runway “contaminated by clutter” which is aviation-speak to mean a buildup of snow or slush.
Here’s an excerpt from the Flight Operations Bulletin published by Boeing:
Due to the geometry of the MD-80 thrust reversers, the exhaust gas efflux pattern will, at certain rollout speeds and EPR settings, interfere with the free-stream airflow across the rudder surfaces. This will result in partial “rudder blanking”; with a resultant reduction in directional control authority. As rudder effectiveness is more critical on wet or slippery surfaces, “rudder blanking” becomes a concern above a reverse thrust level of 1.3 EPR. Normal dry runway maximum reverse thrust power is 1.6 EPR [emphasis in original].
Will the Brakes Stop the Airplane on the Runway?
Another concern of the crew was the “braking action” on the runway. This is also aviation-speak to mean the slipperiness of the pavement. The crew had heard reports that the braking had been reported as “fair” which meant that they would not have been able to stop the aircraft on the runway and would have needed to divert. Later on in the flight, the braking action had been reported as “good” by another airliner and the crew made the decision to continue.
The problem with braking action reports by other aircraft is that they are highly subjective. Some pilots make the determination by how many times their anti-skid cycles during a landing. Others use different criteria and each aircraft can respond differently to the same conditions. One pilot’s “fair” report can easily be another’s “good”.
Weather and runway reports from the airport itself indicated that the runway was covered with 1/4 inch of wet snow. The runway had recently been swept, but by the time Delta 1086 landed, it was already white in appearance from new snowfall.
So you can see that as a minimum, this crew was concerned that they didn’t have much room for error on this landing.
The Friction Measuring Trucks Were Parked
As far as the actual condition of the pavement, airport authorities have been using friction measuring equipment for decades. So what was the actual friction measurement at the time Delta 1086 landed? No one knows. Due to bureaucratic ambiguity and confusion between FAA directives and the New York Port Authority, the Port Authority elected to not use either of the two trucks it had available to measure runway surface friction.
From a bureaucratic point of view this makes perfect sense as you can be held liable for inaccurate or missing reports if your policy was to collect them. Change your policy to keep the trucks parked and you’re off the hook. This works best for bureaucrats sitting in heated offices, but not so well for passengers landing in a snowstorm. But it’s completely legal.
On the Edge of Safe
So in essence, the story so far is that the MD-80 landed in 1/4 mile of visibility in a snowstorm on an extremely short runway bounded on three sides by water with an essentially unknown slickness of the pavement.
As a reminder, a quarter mile of visibility is 1320 feet and a touchdown speed of 140 kts is about 236 feet per second. This gave the pilot about five and a half seconds of time between seeing the runway and landing on it. And according to the flight recorder, the touchdown was well within the landing zone and on speed.
What happened next was measured in seconds. Here’s the synopsis from the NTSB report:
During a postaccident interview, the captain stated that, as he was lowering the airplane’s
nose to the ground after main gear touchdown, he moved the thrust reversers to idle and then “one knob width on the reverser handle” to obtain Delta’s target setting of 1.3 engine pressure ratio (EPR).16 FDR data showed that engine reverse thrust exceeded 1.3 EPR between 3 and 4 seconds after main gear touchdown (with the left engine exceeding 1.3 EPR before the right engine) and was advancing through 1.6 EPR immediately after the nose gear touched down. FDR data showed that the EPR value exceeded 1.6 for 5 seconds, reaching maximum EPR values of 2.07 on the left engine and 1.91 on the right engine between 6 and 7 seconds after main gear touchdown. Engine power decreased after this point, and the thrust reversers were stowed at 1102:25 (7.5 seconds after deployment, 9 seconds after main gear touchdown, and 2,500 feet from the runway threshold) at an EPR value of 1.8 on the left engine and 1.6 on the right engine. At that time, the airplane’s groundspeed was 93 knots.
In plain-speak, the pilot used reverse thrust in excess of the recommended amount for a total of five seconds and then stowed the reversers. The aircraft started to drift left at six seconds after touchdown, or three seconds before the reversers were stowed. This meant that it was in the three seconds between the time the aircraft started to drift and the time the reversers were stowed that the problem occurred.
To further complicate the landing, the aircraft by this time had slowed to 93 knots. At this speed the rudder itself loses effectiveness as there is not enough air moving over the surface to keep the aircraft on the runway. Other than the rudder, directional control of an aircraft on the ground is obtained through the use of nosewheel steering and differential braking. Both of these were used but were not effective enough to get the aircraft under control.
(Photo by NYPD)
No Win Situation
Pilots are goal oriented people. We like to get the job done. But we are also called upon to get the job done correctly and are tasked with being the final arbiters of safety. To this end, we are given the tools and the criteria to use those tools correctly. But when some of the supposedly objective information we have turns out to be highly subjective and incomplete, the process becomes a crapshoot.
In my view, these guys were set up. They were told that if the braking was “good” they could land, but if it was “fair” they’d go for a swim. So for a few seconds the pilot overcompensates with too much reverse thrust and they nearly go swimming anyway. Another MD-80 had landed minutes before and had no problem while also exceeding reverse thrust limits. These guys just got hit with an unlucky gust of wind.
The whole idea of risk management is to make sure that the operation does not become a crapshoot. Had these pilots diverted when the “system” said they could make it safely and other airplanes were landing, they’d be questioned by their chief pilot and ridiculed by their passengers. Now they’re probably wishing they had diverted. A three second and immediately corrected deviation from SOP during extreme conditions should not result in a major accident.
In the appendix to the accident report, board member Robert Sumwalt, himself a retired airline pilot, had this to say about the situation facing the captain:
As a former airline pilot for over 20 years, I’m confident saying that having to limit reverse thrust on a relatively short, slippery runway is counter-intuitive: When you need it the most, you have to use it the least.
So the next time your pilot diverts or goes around when others are landing, you will be frustrated or angry that you don’t get to your meeting or home on time. Don’t be. The guy or gal up front is trying to get you where you’re going, but also trying to keep you alive.
Addendum: A Few Words about the The NTSB
I’m going to take a moment to say a few words about the NTSB. Good words. The NTSB in my view is a national treasure. They are staffed with a group of smart and thoughtful professionals who take the time to get to the bottom of the accidents they investigate. And while they don’t have any real regulatory power to force changes, nor do they make economic cost-benefit assessments of their various proposals, their recommendations often serve as signposts to be disregarded by industry and regulators at their peril.
Editors Note: The top photo of this article was taken by Leonard J. DeFrancisci. It is used with permission according to the CC 4.0 license.
The T-38 is a beautiful machine that is nearing the end of its service life over the next 5-7 years. A T-X competition is underway to determine its replacement. Our resident aviator, shares his fascinating memories of T-38 training.
In 1970, Air Force flight training was divided into three phases, primary flight in the Cessna T-41 (Cessna 172), primary jet in the Cessna T-37, and advanced jet in the Northrop T-38 Talon. I survived—actually passed—the first two phases. With six months to graduation, we transitioned to the T-38.
The T-38: A White Rocket
The T-38 Talon is a two-seat fast-jet trainer capable of supersonic flight. (USAF Photo)
The T-38, or “White Rocket,” was an entirely new flying experience. It is a tandem two-seat, twin-jet, advanced “fast-jet” (supersonic) trainer with a top speed of 1.3 Mach (speed of sound) and maximum G-load of plus 9.0, i.e., the airframe could withstand load forces equal to nine times the force of gravity.
Our training program called for approximately 90 hours in the T-38, including initial aircraft training, two-and-four-ship formation flying, instrument flying, supersonic flight, night flying, and low-level high-speed navigation. Basic flight included all of the maneuvers that we had learned in the T-37, but the responsiveness of the T-38 and the physical sensations were entirely different.
Powered by a G-Suit
For one thing, a “G-suit” was added to our gear. The G-suit, worn over our flight suit, looked like a cross between cowboy chaps, and tight-fitting jeans with holes cut in the knees and the seat. It had an 18-inch hose sprouting from the waistband. Once in the aircraft, the hose was plugged into a port in the aircraft.
When maneuvering the aircraft at forces above 1.0 G, compressed air was pumped into the G-suit so that it squeezed on the legs and around the waist to force blood back up into the upper part of the body—i.e., head—to prevent the pilot from blacking out during high the G-forces.
In addition to the G-suit, pilots can perform an “M-1” maneuver that will provide some relief from G-forces. The M-1 maneuver requires tightening all of the muscles of the abdomen and legs—and usually involves a specific type of breathing that sounds kind of like grunting.
There is nothing like flying 600 knots while only three feet away from another aircraft. (USAF Photo)
This also requires that I explain what “blacking out” means—it does not mean becoming unconscious. The most oxygen sensitive organs of the body are the eyes. If the eyes are deprived of oxygen even briefly, color vision is the first capability lost—everything becomes black and white.
Increase the G-force, and the field of vision shrinks inward from the outer edges creating, in effect, tunnel vision. Continue increasing the forces, and vision is lost—at this point the pilot is fully conscious, just cannot see, i.e., blacked out. Further increase the G-force can lead to unconsciousness. Interestingly, if the pilot releases some of the G-force, the field of vision increases again. Therefore, it is possible to control the G-force to permit some control of vision.
In the G-meter shown above, the needle pointing to “1” (between 0 and 2) is the current G-force on the aircraft. In straight and level flight, the G-force is “1,” i.e., on time the force of gravity (zero would be weightless). The upper needle indicates the maximum positive g-force the aircraft has experienced on the current flight. The lower needle indicates highest negative G-force (imagine going over a hill fast and being “lifted” out of your seat—that is negative G)
T-38 G Envelope from Jeff’s archives.
In basic flight, the average pilot can withstand up to 3 Gs before blacking out. Performing the M-1 maneuver will increase the pilot’s tolerance to about 4 Gs. The G-suit can extend tolerance another two Gs. So, a properly trained pilot in an aircraft equipped with a G-suit system can function through six Gs.
Keep in mind that the T-38 is engineered to operationally withstand +7.33 sustained Gs. While more modern jets like the F-16 have reclined seats along with G-suits, the T-38 didn’t have that luxury. So famous 9 G turns in a T-38 weren’t possible and because of structural limits weren’t ever attempted.
Time for the Pre Check Flight
Jeff’s notes from his T-38 training flights back in 1970.
After the first 20 hours of flying the T-38, I had qualified to fly solo. That meant I could takeoff, fly around a little, and come back and land—these were the easiest skills required for the T-38. For example, to take off, you simply pulled onto the runway, pushed the throttles (two) to full forward, that is maximum thrust. The aircraft practically leaped forward, and in about 2000 feet the speed was 250 knots (about 280 mph) and the aircraft was climbing at 2000 feet per minute.
Landing was not much harder (although it took a few flights to begin to believe that). Once the jet was lined up with the runway, you simply flew the aircraft at the prescribed speed and attitude and waited for the runway. Eventually, you learned just when to raise the nose a bit and touchdown smoothly.
Instructor flights consisted of reviewing and honing our skills on all of the maneuvers we had learned, as well as demonstrating we knew the steps—by memory—to respond to any emergency that might occur. Our maneuvers included level flight, turns, steep turns, rolls, and loops, and combinations of these. These were called confidence maneuvers, i.e., instill confidence in the student pilot that he was in control!
I actually enjoyed all of the maneuvers, especially loops and rolls. In the T-38, the loop was supposed to be a 5-G maneuver. I was not really comfortable with the G-forces, and tended to fly the loop at a more relaxed 4-Gs. This makes the maneuver a big, lazy vertical circle in the sky—it is great for looking out and seeing the world from upside down at the top of the loop. Not good for dogfighting—good way to get shot down.
Once we soloed, we would fly one lesson with our instructor and one solo to practice what we had learned. At some point in this initial training we would have a proficiency check ride with one of the check pilots from the evaluation group.
Prior to our check rides, the commander or one of the senior officers in our training group would conduct a pre-check flight to ensure we were ready for the check ride.
Our class commander (we’ll call him Major Paladin to protect—me) was my pre-check flight pilot. He was a no-nonsense major, about five feet five inches tall, with a dark, rough complexion, a thin dark moustache, and a perpetually fresh crew cut.
He had been an F-100 Super Sabre (fighter) jock (fighter pilots like to be called “jocks”) in Viet Nam before coming to the flight training command. He spoke little, and expected me to conduct the flight with him as an “interested passenger.” Recall that the T-38 is tandem seating—he sat in the back—in a separate cockpit. He could see the top of my helmet; I could not see him at all.
We collected our gear and went out to the assigned aircraft. I completed the usual preflight inspection. He was already strapped in as I climbed in the front cockpit. I started the aircraft, got the needed clearances and taxied out to the runway and took off.
Occasionally, Major Paladin would ask a question—something about the aircraft such as a maximum speed, procedures, etc., all the while I cruised out to the practice area. I checked in with our command post (area confirmation) and began my routine.
A student and his instructor preparing for their next flight. (USAF Photo)
Somewhere in the routine—I think it was when I was upside down in a roll, he closed one of the throttles to idle and announced that I had a simulated engine failure. I was supposed to recite and perform the emergency procedures for an engine failure and demonstrate that I could control the aircraft on one engine (the other at idle speed was useless).
When that was completed he simply said, “Continue.” I set up for a loop, eased the throttles forward, and raised the nose powering up the firsts half of the loop. It was my typical 4-G loop. We came across the top, inverted, enjoying the view and then more back pressure on the stick, ease the throttles back, and dive down the back side of the maneuver.
As I returned to level flight, the intercom cracked open. “Lieutenant Richmond, you’re such a wimp, I don’t even plug in my G-suit when I fly with you! The loop is supposed to be a 5-G maneuver. Minimum.” There was some emphasis on the last word.
There I was…
“Yes, Sir” I responded. I could feel my face flush inside my helmet.
“You have got to make the airplane do what you want it to do!” He added. “Fly it or yourself to the limit.”
Now I was really fuming. But of course, I could not say anything but, “Yes, Sir.” I paused, thinking. “Ah, Sir, may I try that again, Sir?”
“Yeah, go ahead, we have plenty of time.” He sounded bored.
Once again I set up for the loop. Entry speed was supposed to be 500 knots minimum. I eased the speed up to 540 knots. Then I pushed the throttles forward to full military power and pulled—firmly, but steadily—back on the control stick and immediately pegged the G-meter at “5.” The airplane bolted up in a tight arc. I continue to pull back on the control stick.
The G-meter edged up toward 6 as I came across the top of the loop inverted. My G-suit was pumping away and I was squeezing my abdomen (without grunting!—I did not want to make it sound like it was any effort for me). As the nose started down the back of the loop, I pulled a little more. I lost color vision; then as I pulled a bit more, the field of view got smaller and smaller until all I could see was the big round attitude indicator in the middle of the instrument panel. I held that pressure.
By now I figured I was going to be in real trouble, but the deed was done. There was no comment from the back seat. I regained some composure and finished the rest of my routine and was getting set up to return to the base. About that time, he came on the intercom, “Okay, Lieutenant, take us back to the base.”
“Yes, Sir.”
He instructed me to make two touch-and-go landings and then a full stop. I acknowledged his instructions and heard nothing more from him. The ground crew guided me into the parking spot, I shut down the engines and we got out of the aircraft.
As we walked to the crew bus I was preparing to be told I was “out of the program.”
Finally, he spoke, “Well, Lt Richmond, you might make it after all. You blacked me out you son-of-bitch!” And he smiled.
What he wanted was to see me exercise positive, firm, aggressive control over the aircraft. He did not care about smooth, or comfort. He wanted the airplane put where it was supposed to be—now!
Also, I got over being uncomfortable with high-G maneuvers.
Editors note: The original post had incorrect G limits and loop parameters. We’re impressed that Jeff can remember most of this 45 years later. I can’t even remember what I ate for breakfast. And he still has his UPT checklists!
Beginning in 2003, the US Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command (AETC) set its sights on replacing the T-38 Advanced Jet Trainer. The T-38 first flew in 1959, and became operational in 1961. More than 1100 aircraft were built. The T-38 is still the Air Force’s advanced jet trainer for Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT). The aircraft will probably remain in service through the early 2020s, giving it an operational life span of more than 60 years.
The T-38: The Air Force’s Advanced Jet Trainer since 1961. (USAF Photo)
The combination of aging airframes, budget restrictions, and increasing demands of the JSUPT to train for 5th Generation fighters, has created delays and changing requirements for the next generation of advanced jet trainers.
The feeling within the industry is that the Air Force cannot put off developing a new trainer for much longer. Current projections suggest that the new trainer should be selected by 2019 or 2020, and operational by 2023 or 2024. The Air Force has indicated that the initial order will be for 350 aircraft, but multiple sources suggest production could reach 1,000 aircraft or more. There is also some suggestion of a fighter-attack or other variants.
In spite of the schedule uncertainty, five manufacturing teams are positioning to offer a solution to the Air Force’s requirements for its next generation advanced trainer—the T-X.
Clean-Sheet Proposals
Boeing-Saab Entry
Boeing, partnering with the Swedish manufacturer, Saab, as recently as September of this year, rolled out its candidate for the T-X. Quoted in a Defense News article (Sep 13, 2016), Darryl Davis, president of Boeing Phantom Works, “Our T-X design features: twin tails, a modern design that allows better maneuverability than a single tailed aircraft, stadium seating that provides rear visibility to the instructor … and a maintenance friendly design. What you can’t see is the advanced design and manufacturing that went into this.”
Boeing also pointed out that this aircraft was “purpose-built” to meet the demanding requirements of the T-X program. While the Air Force requirements to not mention stealth or low-observability, many observers suggested that it’s appearance mimics design features of the F-22 and F-35.
Northrup Grumman Entry
Northrop Grumman is also working on a “clean-sheet design for its T-X trainer candidate. Observers have pointed out that their next-generation trainer somewhat resembles the T-38, which Northrop built in the 1960s. While few details have been release on its design, a flight test prototype has been built by Scaled Composites and has been undergoing high-speed taxi tests at that company’s facilities in Mojave, California. Flight test are expected later this year.
Northrop Grumman’s T-X prototype seen undergoing taxi test in Mojave, California. (Northrop Grumman)
Initially, Northrop Grumman had planned to partner with BAE Systems to propose an advanced version of the Hawk Advanced Jet Training System, but this was abandoned citing performance limitations.
Textron AirLand: Scorpion
Textron AirLand secretly built a prototype Scorpion at the Cessna plant in Wichita, Kansas facility in 2012, and it was first flown in 2013. The shoulder-wing aircraft is of all composite design, powered by two Honeywell TFE731 turbofan engines. It is suggested that Textron AirLand will offer some form of this aircraft design for the T-X. While this is a newly designed aircraft, its initial performance numbers do not seem to approach those anticipated for the T-X. For example, its maximum speed is 518 mph or .68 Mach, which is well below that required for the T-X.
The Textron Scorpion could become a T-X entry. (Photo by Tim Felce)
T-X Trainers Based on Existing Aircraft
Lockheed Martin and Korea Airspace Industries: T-50
Lockheed Martin and Korea Airspace Industries (KAI) are teaming to offer a significantly advanced modified and upgraded and version of the KAI’s T-50. Lockheed Martin has already opened a training center in South Carolina for both final assembly of the T-50A and the ground based training system.
Although based on the T-50 airframe, the T-50A features a blended wing-fuselage with horizontal and vertical stabilizers. It is purpose-built to meet the training requirements of fifth-generation fighters such as F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.
The T-50A is designed to offer fighter-like performance and characteristics to expedite pilot transition to 4th and 5th generation.
The KIA T-50 that will serve as the basic design concept for the T-50 T-X offered by Lockheed Martin and KAI. (Photo Kentaro Lemoto)
The T-50A is powered by a single General Electric F404 turbofan engine equipped with full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) system.
Raytheon/Leonardo/Honeywell Aerospace: T-100
Raytheon/Leonardo/Honeywell Aerospace will propose the T-100 which they claim the twin Honeywell Aerospace F124 engines will deliver best-in-class, thrust-to-weight ratio representative of today’s 4th and 5th generation fighters. The T-100 will feature a modern heads-up display and a fully integrated helmet mounted-display designed to prepare pilots for the advanced avionics used advanced tactical fighters.
The T-100 is based on Leonardo’s (formerly Alenia Aermacchi) MB-346, an advanced trainer and light attack aircraft first flown in 2004 and introduced into service in Italy in 2015.
The Alenia Aermacchi T-346A will be the starting point for the Raytheon/Leonardo/Honeywell Aerospace proposed T-X aircraft. (Alenia Aermacchi photo G.M. Azzellotti)
Summary
The finally competition may come down to a dogfight between brand new designs and adaptations of existing aircraft. New designs can focus entirely on the requirements for the new aircraft, but new designs are also subject to more growing pains. While existing designs start out with a proven aircraft design, the adaptations that are required to meet the new advanced performance goals can be challenging to back-fit into the existing airframe.
All of these competitors will propose complete training systems with ground trainers or simulators, training programs, and support facilities, providing the Air Force with a turn-key training system.
Assuming each of these aircraft can demonstrate Air Force performance goals, the selection will likely be determined by the lowest realistic lifetime cost of ownership.
Currently the T-X trainer does not appear in the DoD budget, but funding is expected to be requested in the next year or two, to get the competition and selection underway. It is unclear what affect the results of the 2016 Presidential elections will have on military budgets. Regardless of candidate claims, budget realities will certainly affect budgets and schedules.
T-X trainer selection could turn into a real dogfight.
Author’s Note
I trained in the T-38 in 1970. It was a good airplane, and although advanced for a trainer at the time, it was still a mechanical, analog aircraft—round gauges and all. And even with upgrades to new electronic cockpits, it is still a T-38 chassis. The transition from the T-38 to an F-35 Lighting II is roughly equivalent to moving from a 1960s stock car to a modern Formula 1 racer. The T-X will provide sufficiently advanced piloting training and experience to allow pilots to transition to the F-22 or F-35 with far lower training costs.
Logo jets are unique but they aren’t new. Most of the majors have had logojets for promotions. Airlines like Southwest led the trend with Shamu. They have had additional tie-ins with the NBA and Sports Illustrated. Other airlines like WestJet, Delta, and Alaska Airlines have had tie-ins with Disney. Now Disney has added a new airline to their advertising fold.
On Saturday, Hawaiian Airlines unveiled a Disney-themed logo jet for their new movie “Moana” which will hit theaters in November. The Airbus A330 jet features the characters from the new movie. This is the first of three specially-themed logo jets.
Photos are posted on Hawaiian Airlines Facebook page.
The De Havilland Comet 4’s “First Flight” Ended Up Being Its Swan Song Too!
On 4 October 1958 British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) operated the first transatlantic jet service with the de Havilland Comet 4. BOAC was also the first airline to offer jet passenger service across Europe and into Africa operating the de Havilland Comet 1. Within two years, all Comet aircraft were grounded due to a series of four crashes, later determined to be from metal fatigue caused by pressurization/depressurization cycles. The Comet had square windows, and the corners of the window openings created an area of weakness that resulted in structural failure of the aircraft in flight.
De Havilland worked through several versions of the Comet, and by the time of the first transatlantic flight to the North America, BOAC was flying the Comet 4, that had been designed to be fail-safe. The fuselage structure was designed so that a crack in the skin was limited to a very small area, and therefore would not be a catastrophic failure.
BOAC comet 4. image via Olympis-kuva oyaa
The Fate of the Comet 4 as a Passenger Airliner was Already Determined Even Before That First Transatlantic Flight
While BOAC could claim initiating transatlantic passenger jet service, before the end of the same month, Pan American Airways (Pan Am) was flying the same route with the new Boeing 707 and later with the Douglas DC-8. The American-built planes were larger, faster, had greater range, and carried more passengers. Even before their first transatlantic flight, BOAC had made the decision to purchase the Boeing 707. With that, the fate of the Comet 4 as a transatlantic aircraft was sealed.
