Cessna’s 150/152 Series Was the First Airplane Many of Us Ever Flew
Cessna’s impact upon general aviation is impossible to ignore. Hundreds of thousands of student pilots took the controls of an aircraft for the first time in a Cessna single-engine high-winged tricycle-gear aircraft. Many of those first-time yoke-turners were flying 150s or 152s. You could, and still can, find them in hangars and on parking aprons at just about any air patch you care to visit. The 152 is the most produced two-place aircraft on the planet and the third most produced general aviation aircraft ever. So if you haven’t already done so, go for a ride in a 152 Aerobat via the film ‘Flying Fun’ uploaded to YouTube by Periscope Film.
The differences between the original 150 and the 152 were minimal. 152s had a higher useful load thanks to a gross weight increase to 1,670 pounds. The basic design characteristics of both aircraft were the same, but the 152 benefited from a slightly more powerful engine. All Cessna 152s were powered by a Lycoming O-235 horizontally-opposed four-cylinder engine- essentially the same powerplant found in general aviation aircraft since 1942. The O-235 had a few more available horsepower and ran better while burning that newfangled 100 octane low-lead (100LL) fuel.
image via cessna
Powerplant Comparison
From 1977 until 1982, 152s rolled out of Cessna’s Wichita, Kansas, plant equipped with Lycoming O-235-L2C engines capable of 110 horsepower at 2,550 RPM. Beginning in 1983, Cessna switched to the O-235-N2C engine to avoid lead-fouling problems experienced with the -L2C engine. The -N2C was slightly less spritely, putting out 108 horsepower at 2,550 RPM. Piston design differences, along with redesigned cylinder heads, resulted in the engine Cessna would bolt on 152 firewalls until production of the airplane ceased in 1985.
image via western australian aviation college
The Aerobat
The 152 Aerobat’s airframe was beefed up to accommodate a +6g/-3g flight maneuvering envelope. Cessna built 315 of them beginning in the second year of production (1978), offering four-point harnesses, skylights, and jettisonable doors as standard equipment, along with a checkerboard paint scheme and removable seat cushions to allow parachutes to be worn by the crew. Approved maneuvers included barrel rolls, snap rolls, loops, lazy eights, spins, aileron rolls, Immelmann turns, Cuban eights, and stalls (except whip stalls).
Trump Administration Renames NOTAMs Back To Original Name
Over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has released a flurry of executive orders. Most of these changes have rolled back changes made by the Biden Administration while some additional EOs have introduced new policy for the nation.
The order also mandates the “FAA Administrator to review the past performance and performance standards of all FAA employees in critical safety positions and make clear that any individual who fails to demonstrate adequate capability is replaced by someone who will ensure Americans’ flight safety and efficiency.”
An Air Canada Airbus A220-300 and an American Airlines Airbus A319 rest at the new international terminal at BNA | IMAGE: Nashville International Airport on Facebook
Back To The Original NOTAMs
During the Biden administration, Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigeig changed the NOTAM acronym from Notices to Airmen to Notices to Air Missions. At the time, the decision was said to make the term more “inclusive of all aviators and missions.” That change was made in 2022 as part of a larger effort to make the aviation term more gender neutral.
NOTAMs: Notices to AIRMEN Are Back 6
Now just three years later, the FAA has reverted back to the original term, Notices to Airmen. While some mocked the change back in 2021, the term was never really a pressing issue for many others in the industry. From the Air Force to FAA pilot certificates, the term airman was seen as defining a human aviator, not necessarily a male or female aviator.
In line with my commitment to restoring sanity to @USDOT, the FAA will resume using the term “Notice to Airmen” instead of “Notice to Air Missions.”
Also, pilot charts will now reference the Gulf of America and Mt. McKinley. Thanks to President Trump, we are taking back our… pic.twitter.com/kUXcszogg3
The NOTAM system itself went down in 2023, grounding all flights for part of a day. A recent outage affected the primary NOTAM system. Only a backup system kept NOTAMs from causing additional delays.
Companies Pursue Space Advertising While Scientists Object
The idea of billboards in space may seem like a logical step forward from planes dragging banners along beaches, skywriting, and lighted signs on the sides of blimps. Several companies are working on technologies to display huge messages across the sky and reach more people than ever before. This, however, may be a rare example of a technological innovation that scientists and politicians almost universally reject.
Avant Space promises to reach one billion people
Several companies are developing ways to display messages from space that people can see with the naked eye. One of these is the Russian company Avant Space. Their plan is to launch constellations of small satellites, CubeSats, that will move in orbit and shine lasers to make logos or other images for advertisers.
Avant Space launched a single CubeSat in April 2024 to test their technology and reported that it was successful. The company website describes how it will provide customizable personal constellations to its customers. Company advertisements claim its images will be able to reach one billion people.
CubeSats moving into position to display space advertising message. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
StartRocket to launch hundreds of CubeSats
Another Russian company, StartRocket, says it will deploy its own fleets of hundreds of CubeSats. The satellites will reflect sunlight from Mylar sails to form logos and other images visible from the ground. The company plans to launch the satellites to a low-earth orbit at an altitude of about 310 miles. It also plans to charge about $200,000 for every eight hours of advertising.
This hasn’t been only a Russian effort. In 2019, StartRocket announced it was working with PepsiCo on an “orbital advertising campaign” to market a new energy drink called Adrenaline Rush.
Artist image of space advertising message in orbit. | Image: Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
Space advertising illegal in the United States
There may be a simple reason why Americans are not pursuing space advertising; it’s illegal in the United States. 51 U.S. Code 50911 – Space Advertising clearly states, “No holder of a license under this chapter may launch a payload containing any material to be used for purposes of obtrusive space advertising.”
The law went into effect in 2000. It includes a note stating that the US president should negotiate with foreign countries to create agreements supporting US law.
The definition of “obtrusive space advertising” is “advertising in outer space that is capable of being recognized by a human being on the surface of the Earth without the aid of a telescope or other technological device.”
Artist image of message over San Francisco. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
Scientific community firmly against space advertising
This idea of obstruction leads to the reason why the scientific community appears united against space advertising. In fact, many are pushing for a global ban on it. Their primary objection is that they believe constellations of satellites will interfere with ground-based astronomy.
In October 2024, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) issued a statement against space advertising. It includes the following lines concerning its position: “Increasing humanity’s scientific understanding of the universe depends on clear and unobstructed views of the cosmos,” and, “That enterprise is currently under threat from activities in space, including the proliferation of large satellite constellations,” and, “This kind of use of outer space represents a presently unknown, but potentially serious, threat to the pursuit of astronomical discovery using ground-based facilities.”
They released this message: “We can confirm StartRocket performed an exploratory test for stratosphere advertisements using the Adrenaline GameChangers logo. This was a one-time event; we have no further plans to test or commercially use this technology at this time.”
It will be interesting to see if other companies and countries continue developing space advertising technology.
“The lure of it is so great that I can’t imagine that no one will try,” said John Barentine of Dark Sky Consulting, and a member of AAS’s Committee for the Protection of Astronomy and the Space Environment. “I think the commercial value will prompt somebody to do it.”
Artist image of space advertising over a European city. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
China Airlines is bringing the love with a special sale for North American markets. Those looking for a romantic getaway can take advantage of a Valentine’s Day promotion happening now until 23 February.
Love is in the Air
China Airlines issued a press release on Monday kicking off a special Valentine’s Day sale for North American travelers. The airline is offering a 12% discount on fares from North America to Asian destinations.
The promotion lasts until Sunday 23 February. The list of eligible departure cities include New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, and Vancouver.
China Airlines’ statement indicates ‘all online destinations’ are applicable in the promotion. Though a few romantic destinations the airline gives include Kyoto, Japan, Hanoi, Vietnam, Bangkok, Thailand, Penghu County, Taiwan, and Seoul, South Korea.
The furthest flight date one can book to claim the promotion is 15 May, 2025. This gives couples and families three months to book a relaxing spring getaway.
For those uncertain about what to expect when flying with China Airlines, here’s a rundown of the in-flight experience.
Aboard many flights from China Airlines, in-flight entertainment is available. Travelers can stream content, play games, or listen to music from their screens. The airline also introduces the ‘Fantasy Sky’ Wi-Fi, allowing you to stream and play from your own mobile devices.
For premium economy travelers, China Airlines has collaborated with MOSCHINO and Roots to present in-flight travel kits featuring one of many collectable colors.
Business and premium business class travelers will also receive a complimentary set of noise-canceling headphones that are lightweight and can be worn for hours at a time.
In terms of delectables, travelers can enjoy a taste of some of the best food and drink Taiwan has to offer.
“Passengers departing from Taiwan to North America can savor Michelin three-star cuisine curated by Le Palais, Taiwan’s most acclaimed restaurant. The airline has also partnered with Wu-Tong Hao, a renowned Taiwanese tea brand, to offer exclusive drinks and desserts onboard,“ stated by a recent press release.
Airplanes and ice have always had an adversarial relationship. Ice can prevent airplanes from getting airborne and should they be airborne, ice will do its best to facilitate an airplane’s hasty return to Earth, willingly or not.
From the earliest days of aviation, airframe icing has been recognized as a significant threat to flight safety. Icing will cause problems for aircraft in two ways. The first is the simple weight that icing can add to an aircraft. Adding thousands of pounds of weight from icing on an airframe can increase stall speeds and prevent an airplane from climbing out of icing conditions.
U.S. Air Force photo by Alejandro Peña
The second pernicious effect of airframe icing is the addition of drag and the destruction of a wing’s ability to create lift. As you’ll recall, lift is generated due to the Bernoulli effect with regards to the flow of air over the wing. Faster moving airflow over the wing has lower dynamic pressure than the air passing beneath. This pressure differential generates the lift that keeps airplanes in the sky.
One requirement though is that this airflow must be laminar, or smooth, to work its magic. A coating of ice will destroy the smooth flow of air and result in what is known as boundary layer separation. When this happens, the wing stops producing lift and the airplane drops. As ice progressively coats a wing in icing conditions, the wing’s lifting ability decreases and its drag increases to the point where flight is no longer possible.
Even a layer of frost over the top of a wing can have devastating effects on lift. Roughness approximating a piece of #40 grit sandpaper will reportedly reduce lift by 30 to 40%. This loss of lift can produce disastrous results, especially during takeoff, which is why icing must be taken seriously.
Ice Can Kill On the Ground
Over the years, numerous accidents and incidents have been attributed to airframe icing. One of the most famous ones was Air Florida 90, which crashed into the Potomac River moments after takeoff in a snowstorm in 1982. While the ultimate cause was determined to be pilot error, the series of errors that led to the crash was caused by the pilots’ lack of understanding of the effects of ice on their aircraft.
Specifically, the crew inexplicably failed to use engine anti-icing and also allowed a dangerous buildup of snow to accumulate on the aircraft prior to takeoff. The failure to use engine anti-icing, which heats sensors that determine thrust settings, allowed a false reading from clogged sensors to show that the engines were at full thrust while they were actually set much lower.
The lower thrust, combined with the added weight and increased drag from accumulated snow, prevented the aircraft from remaining airborne. It hit the 14th St bridge 30 seconds after takeoff, killing 69 of the 74 passengers and crew.
And is Also Deadly in the Air
Ice accumulation while airborne has been a well-documented hazard to aviation over the years and also a staple of aviation film drama. Should an airplane fly into what is known as “icing conditions”, supercooled rain droplets will freeze on the surface of an aircraft, leaving a coating of ice. This coating starts at the leading edge of the wing and slowly travels back over the wing, destroying the wing’s ability to create lift as it progresses.
A simpler word for “icing conditions” would be cloud. Any time visible moisture is present and the temperature is below freezing, icing conditions are present, and airframe icing is possible. Airframe icing is categorized as either “rime” or “clear”. Rime icing is opaque in color and easily visible on the aircraft, while clear ice is much harder to see and therefore more difficult to detect.
One of the more recent casualties of airborne ice accumulation was American Eagle 4184, which crashed due to icing-induced loss of control in 1994. The aircraft, an ATR 72 en route from Indianapolis to Chicago, had held in freezing rain conditions while awaiting further clearance to O’Hare. While descending to enter a second holding pattern, the pilots retracted the flaps, which had been extended for the first holding pattern.
Upon flap retraction, the aircraft became uncontrollable, rolling completely at least twice before crashing in a field near Roselawn, Indiana, killing all 64 passengers and four crew. The cause of the accident was attributed to a buildup of ice on the wing, which only became critical after the flaps were retracted.
Many aircraft now have restrictions against holding in icing conditions with flaps extended as a result.
Clean Aircraft Concept
The mitigation of dangers posed by icing before takeoff and while airborne are two very different problems requiring different solutions, but the end objective is the same: to keep ice off the aircraft. And short of keeping an airplane safely in a warm hangar, solutions to icing have become ever more exotic as the dangers of icing have become better understood.
By Nicholas Hartmann (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
After many years of trying to come up with a regulatory framework which could be universally and simply applied, the FAA came up with the Clean Aircraft Concept. This formulation left no wiggle room as to how much freezing precipitation could be adhering to an aircraft readying for takeoff:
The “clean-airplane” concept is derived from U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.629, which states, “No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section. Takeoffs with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks may be authorized by the Administrator.”
The FAR also prohibits dispatch or takeoff any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected to adhere to the airplane, unless the certificate holder has an approved ground deicing/anti-icing program in its operations specifications that includes holdover time (HOT) tables.
The aim of this simple regulation was to put an end to the guessing game of how much snow and ice can safely be on the aircraft for a takeoff. The short answer is none (with occasional frost, but only on the underside of the wing). No one would be able to say “oh, it’ll blow off during takeoff”, or ” the exhaust from the plane taxiing ahead of us will melt the snow”. The airplane had to be clean. Period.
Don’t Drink the Deicing Fluid
Dating to the 1950s and earlier, deicing fluid for use on aircraft was based on ethylene glycol, commonly used as an automotive antifreeze solution, or sometimes even ethyl alcohol (the drinking kind). Due to its toxicity to animals, ethylene glycol was mostly replaced by propylene glycol in the 1980s. Ethyl alcohol fell out of favor as a deicer after World War II due to its popularity as a jaw lubricant with ground crews in Russia and other places. New fluids have been introduced over the years that not only remove ice but also inhibit further accumulation.
It is important to make the distinction between the terms “deice” and “anti-ice” because they mean different things, and the fluids used in each application are also different. The term deicing refers to removing existing snow and ice from an aircraft, while anti-icing means applying a fluid that inhibits continuing frozen precipitation from adhering to aircraft surfaces.
Specialty fluids have been developed over the years for these two separate functions. For most applications, fluids used to deice aircraft are known as “Type I” fluids, while anti-ice fluids are “Types II, III, and IV”. They function differently.
While Type I fluids are used mainly for deicing, Types II, III, and IV have thickeners included and are designed to adhere to the wing and absorb moisture from additional snowfall or ice accumulations and then shear off the wing during takeoff. This gives extra time between the application and taking off.
This extra time is known as “holdover time” and differs depending on the type of fluid used, its concentration, the type and intensity of the snow or ice coming down, and the outside temperature. We have lots of very complicated charts to figure it all out. If holdover time is exceeded, we go back to the gate and get sprayed again.
A typical Type I fluid will be based on propylene glycol (PG) and will include other ingredients such as corrosion inhibitors, surfactants, wetting agents, and dye. It will usually be diluted with water and heated in the truck to be sprayed on the aircraft.
So, as you sit in your window seat, you might see the trucks make two passes during deicing. The first pass will be with Type I fluid to deice, while the second pass will be to spray Type IV fluid as an anti-icer. Type IV fluid is green in color and sticks to the wing but is designed to shear off.
Deicing Ain’t Cheap
With a quick web search, I found a vendor selling DOW UCAR PG Type 1 fluid in a handy 230-gallon pack for $4250. This will typically be diluted 70/30 with water, making the solution about $13 per gallon. Keep in mind that it may take up to 500 gallons to properly deice a 737 or A320, two common airliners, so you can see that the process is expensive.
Another facet to consider is what happens to all that deice fluid after it hits the ground. Many environmental jurisdictions are starting to require capture and recycling systems for used fluid, which further drives up the costs. Given the thin profit margins of most airlines, it’s likely that flights that have been deiced are marginally profitable or unprofitable.
This begs the question of why airlines even fly in snow. Well, for one, the airline has no sure way to tell when snow will fall, but the more likely answer is that canceling flights prematurely is expensive and kills customer loyalty if the competition is still flying. Plus, aircraft and crews may also be needed elsewhere.
The tarmac delay law, with its substantial penalties for long delays, also contributes to the cancellation equation.
Clean or “Cell Phone Clean”
After many years of ambiguity regarding the question of when and how to deice, everyone from the FAA, the airlines, unions, safety administrators, and aircraft manufacturers is really on the same page concerning pre-takeoff deicing. The airplane has to be clean to take off. On this, everyone agrees.
Photo by: Newkai~commonswiki (CC 2.0)
But in tearing a page from medicine, a new phenomenon of “defensive deicing” is making itself slowly apparent. Airlines managements, while fully onboard with the need to properly deice an aircraft, also don’t want pilots to be spraying thousands of dollars worth of fluids unnecessarily. Thus pilots are routinely bombarded with memos to this effect.
Here is where a pilot’s and the airlines’ incentives may be somewhat misaligned. There are plenty of instances say where flurries may be coming down in windy conditions, where no snow may be sticking to the aircraft. In this case, it is perfectly appropriate, safe, and legal to depart without deicing.
Pilots also know, however, that in the back of the airplane are several hundred cell phone cameras with some owners only too eager to snap a picture of a snow flurry for forwarding to the FAA (believe me, I’ve seen it happen). And the FAA, being the ever loyal guardians of aviation safety, will dutifully send a letter of investigation to a pilot who thought he was doing the right thing, advising him to retain a lawyer and to explain his actions.
Having one’s livelihood potentially threatened does wonders to concentrate the mind and has resulted in a type of bunker mentality. If one airplane is getting sprayed, they all seem to end up getting sprayed if there’s even a flurry still in the air.
And should the hourly weather observation list frozen precipitation at an airport, deicing seems to always continue regardless of whether snow is actually still coming down 45 minutes later or not. And so it goes.
But there’s no doubt that a certain measure of over-caution, while an inconvenience, never ended with an airplane in the Potomac.
The XF-12 Rainbow Crushed Every Requirement Except Timing
This is the story of an aircraft unique in form and function. No other four-engine aircraft driven by reciprocating engines could touch its performance. Boeing’s prototype XB-39, a one-off experimental B-29 driven by Allison V-3420-11 liquid-cooled W24 (double-V) engines putting out 2,100 horsepower each, barely topped 400 miles per hour.
Still, it was only meant to prove that other power plants could power the B-29 should the R-3350 engines standard on the B-29 encounter problems. They did, but that’s another story. Even the RB-50, powered by the same engines as the object of this story, could only reach 385 miles per hour. In fact, not until the Lockheed P-3C Orion came along was an American four-engine propeller-driven aircraft capable of (barely) superior performance.
XB-39 image via Bill larkins
The President’s Ear
The year is 1943. America is in its third year of war. In the Pacific, seemingly endless expanses of deep blue water between island fortresses were the order of the day. Long-range aircraft were desperately needed and in short supply. Consolidated B-24s were doing the best they could with what they had. The Boeing B-29 was nearing service entry, but it was desperately needed as a bomber first.
However, a need was identified by Colonel Elliott Roosevelt (son of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt), commander of the 12th Air Force’s 90th Photographic Wing in the MTO, for a high-altitude long-range reconnaissance aircraft. The original proposal for the aircraft was made at the end of 1943 by the Air Technical Service Command of the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC).
F-6D Mustang image via Bill Larkins
The Impossible Dream Machine
This new aircraft would be required to fly at an altitude of 40,000 feet and at a speed of 400 miles per hour for 4,000 miles- a tall order indeed. The aircraft was intended primarily for high-altitude photographic reconnaissance of the Japanese homeland and those island fortresses- most of which would have to be amphibiously assaulted.
Other existing aircraft had been adapted to the role of photographic reconnaissance. USAAF reconnaissance aircraft designations began with F. P-38 Lightnings with cameras were designated F-4 or F-5. P-51 Mustangs with cameras mounted were F-6s. The photo recon versions of the B-24 were designated F-7A and F-7B. B-17 recon ships were F-9As or F-9Cs. B-25s adapted for camera work were designated F-10. The photo recon version of the B-29 would be designated F-13. Later reconnaissance aircraft designations switched to an R prefix when the US Air Force was born in 1947.
Hughes XF-11 image via National Archives
The (Lack of) Competition
Republic Aviation envisioned a large but aerodynamically smooth airframe powered by four of the most powerful radial piston engines available- the 28-cylinder 3,250-horsepower Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major. Legendary Republic designer Alexander Kartveli and his team began drawing what is still considered one of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever built. Still, the no-compromise design was more than just shapely.
Hughes Aircraft came up with the XF-11- essentially a larger version of the P-38 Lightning and also powered by R-4360s, but two of them. Howard Hughes crashed the first prototype on its first flight, and the Hughes entry went downhill from there. No other companies were designing to the requirements, though the B-29/XB-39 was considered a potential option. Foreshadowing.
Rollout of XR-12 prototype image via National Archives
First Fast Flight
Though ordered by the Army Air Force in March of 1944, when the war ended in 1945, Republic’s design, designated XF-12 and named Rainbow, was not yet complete. Work continued anyway on the two prototypes, assigned Air Force serial numbers 44-91002 and 44-91003. Rolled out in December of 1945, XF-12 002 flew for the first time on 4 February 1946 with Lowery L. Brabham, who had taken the P-47 up on its first flight five years earlier, at the controls.
The aircraft was said to be as pleasing to fly as it was to behold. But the proof was in the performance, and the Rainbow did not disappoint. The aircraft exceeded every design requirement by a healthy margin- flying at an altitude of 45,000 feet, at a speed of 470 miles per hour, for 4,500 miles. Republic had pulled it off- exceedingly well.
But, as with so many late-war designs, timing (and the advent of the jet engine) doomed the hottest prop job on the planet to notoriety only as a footnote or curiosity.
XF-12 image via National Archives
Film at 11
Republic continued to fly the Rainbows, and it seemed there was some interest from the Air Force, but it was short-lived. The XR-12’s performance and capability were showcased during Operation Birds Eye on 1 September 1948. XR-12 003, first flown on 12 August 1947, departed Muroc AFB in California, climbed to 40,000 feet over the Pacific, and then turned eastward.
The aircraft shot one continuous roll of 10-inch film as it passed over the country, photographing a 490-mile-wide swath of the earth below. Three hundred twenty-five feet of film and six hours and 55 minutes later, 003 landed at Mitchel AFB on Long Island in New York.
When later fitted with more powerful engines and additional sensors providing improved all-weather capabilities, the XR-12 was still seen as a potentially important intelligence platform. Day or night, good visibility or bad, the Rainbow could get the job done. This was the ultimate high-speed low-drag Foto-mat.
XF-12 in flight image via National Archives
Flying Foto Mat
Aerial reconnaissance pioneer Brigadier General George W. Goddard was involved in the design of the mission equipment for the Rainbow. The XR-12 was equipped with three six-inch Fairchild K-17 aerial cameras oriented for vertical, split vertical, and trimetrogon (simultaneous vertical and side-looking) photography located in compartments aft of the wing.
The Republic engineers designed heaters for the camera lenses and aerodynamically efficient inward-retracting doors for the cameras. Also carried aboard the aircraft were high-intensity photo-flash “bombs” dropped to provide target lighting at night. The aircraft even had a fully-equipped darkroom for film development and printing of the “take” from the cameras while in flight.
There was additional capacity for additional photo or other reconnaissance equipment as well. The combination of performance and capability was unprecedented.
XF-12 posing with a P-47N Thunderbolt and an SC-3 Seabee image via Republic Aviation/KB Walton
High-Tech and Looking Every Bit of It
The Rainbow displayed advanced engineering everywhere one looked. The wings were high-aspect laminar-flow shapes for efficiency without added drag. The elliptical vertical stabilizer and straight horizontal stabilizers were also efficient and low-drag. Later, the aircraft received revised, rounded wingtips and stabilizer tips.
The engines were tightly cowled and equipped with two-stage impeller fans located behind the 16-foot four-blade Curtiss propellers and large bullet spinners for increased engine cooling. High-pressure engine intake, intercooler, and oil cooler air were provided by leading-edge intakes, which were then routed to the rear of the engine nacelles, providing additional thrust. Each engine was equipped with twin General Electric turbochargers located at the trailing end of each nacelle.
XR-12 003 image via National Archives
Click NEXT PAGE below for the rest of the Rainbow story
For nearly half a century, the staff and volunteers at Agape Flights have been operating their aviation ministry out of a small hangar at the Venice Municipal Airport (VNC), along southwest Florida’s Gulf Coast. They have made a very positive impact on people throughout the Caribbean by delivering critical humanitarian aid and relief supplies and sharing a message of faith.
In the Fall 2024 issue of the Agape “Flightline” newsletter, CEO Alan Speers commented on their annual project of flying Thanksgiving meals to their affiliate partners in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, and Cuba: “I challenge you to join me in this process of looking up, looking around, and looking within, and I think you will soon discover an attitude of gratitude rising up within you!”
Map showing location where Agape Flights conducts its aviation ministry in the Caribbean.
Agape Flights Aircraft
The Agape hangar is stuffed with thousands of boxes and containers that the organization will deliver with its two aircraft. The organization has an Embraer 110, which can carry up to 3000 pounds of cargo, and a Cessna F406, which can carry 2000 pounds. While some nonprofits transport passengers, Agape aircraft are configured to carry cargo.
An Embraer 110 is one of the aircraft used in Agape Flights’ aviation ministry | Image: Agape Flights
Both aircraft have open cargo bays behind their cockpits, which the crews fill with boxes, packages, envelopes, and anything else their missionary partners need. On a typical flight, Agape aircraft carry a wide variety of items, from packages from Amazon and other businesses to medications, fresh food, and more. Flights have even carried equipment such as baby warmers. They really do their best to carry and deliver as much as they can.
Cargo bay of Embraer 110 | IMAGE: Bill Lindner
Jacques May, Agape’s Communications Director, demonstrated their determination to help others when he said, “We want to be able to say yes.”
Missionary Aviation Focused on Faith
When talking with the people at Agape, one quickly gets the sense that they genuinely care about their mission and want to help their missionary partners. They smile when they talk about their work. Although they are not attached to a specific church, they frequently mention Jesus as inspiration for their efforts.
“It’s about the Big C, or Christianity,” said Speer.
Challenges of Missionary Aviation
Inside Agape Flights: An Aviation Ministry Bringing Hope to the Caribbean 30
Greg Haman, Director of Flight Operations and Maintenance, has been the Agape Staff Pilot since 2015. He also holds an Aircraft & Powerplant (A&P) license and is responsible for ensuring the aircraft are ready to fly. Aircraft readiness, however, is not always just basic maintenance and inspections.
In April 2024, the Cessna 406 (reg. N17CK) suffered damage after a failure in flight forced it to make a gear-up landing in Haiti. Thankfully, neither of the two pilots on board was injured. The aircraft is back in the air as of August 2025.
Cessna F406 undergoing repairs in Agape Flights hangar | image: Bill Lindner
Haman said getting parts for the Embraer 110 and Cessna 406 is often difficult. The Embraer is a 1980 model, and the Cessna is a 1985 model. Haman added that neither aircraft has been in production for some time, so their manufacturers no longer supply parts for them. It is challenging to find spares, and they are expensive when they do find them. One of Agape’s goals for the future is to acquire a new aircraft, although there are no immediate plans right now.
Some of their flights are direct routes to the Caribbean, while others require fuel stops en route. For example, it takes the Embraer about 4.5 hours to fly the 800 miles from Venice, Florida, to Haiti, including a refueling stop in the Bahamas.
Volunteers Central to Agape’s Aviation Ministry
Volunteering is a big part of Agape’s operation. Along with its 13 paid staff members, Agape has 150 volunteers, including four pilots. One of the volunteers’ most important tasks is to help process, weigh, and inspect the many packages arriving at the hangar daily.
Containers, boxes, and pallets waiting for flights to Agape mission partners | image: Bill Lindner
Agape, a nonprofit aviation ministry organization, works with affiliate missionary partners who pay $125 annually to receive supplies and bulk mail from the United States. Affiliates also pay fifty percent of the five-dollar-per-pound shipping charge for the packages, and Agape pays the other half. They currently support about 300 missionaries, their families, and their missions. Agape mission partners arrange to send mail and packages to Venice with their suppliers.
Another view of the Agape Flights hangar | IMAGE: Bill Lindner
According to Shelly Watkins, Director of Donor Engagement for Agape, companies and other organizations often pay the shipping charge to help the missionaries receiving the supplies.
This is more than a business arrangement to deliver packages, as faith and service are central to everything Agape does with its aviation ministry. In addition to their regular deliveries, they also provide support following natural disasters. Following the 2021 earthquake in Haiti, they delivered tarps, tents, and other essential items.
Agape Begins Its Aviation Ministry in 1980
Keith and Clara Starkey founded Agape Flights in 1980. Following mission trips to help people in Haiti, Spain, Guatemala, and Africa, they wanted to serve even more and decided to do so through aviation ministry. They purchased a Cessna 411 and initially used their home as the organization’s shipping center and mailing address. Agape began operations on 24 October 1980 and flew its first mission on 15 November from Sarasota, Florida, to Cap Haitien, Haiti.
The word “Agape” is Greek and means God’s unconditional love, so Agape flights, or “God’s Love Flights”, seems especially fitting for the good work they have been doing for nearly 45 years.
Last night’s tragic crash in DC really disturbed me and undoubtedly so many others around the country and the world. My thoughts are with the families of those affected as well as the entire industry who is in shock over this accident.
It’s upsetting to see people start shooting blame so soon, particularly knowing how many issues and factors aligned to cause such horrific tragedy. At this point, we don’t yet know why two aircraft collided on a perfectly clear but busy winter night in DC.
A few people today have asked me about the challenges of flying into and out of DCA so I figured I would share some thoughts, possibly as a way to process the events of last night myself.
DCA Is A Complex Airport For Many Reasons
Over the past few years, I’ve flown into DCA a number of times. I’ve flown in and out of the busy DC airspace hundreds of times over my career. Captains who I’ve flown with have operated at the airport for even longer.
Everyone in the profession understands the ins and outs and the complexity of operating at DCA. The pilots and the controllers are utmost professionals who take their jobs very seriously and would do anything and everything in their power to avoid what occurred yesterday.
DCA is a very complex airport both due to its design, its busy airspace, location, operating requirements, restricted airspace, and government restrictions.
Originally built for a much different era of aviation
DCA was an airport originally built for much slower prop aircraft in the 1940s. The airport features three runways, most still long enough for today’s jet traffic but relatively short by today’s standards. The design of the airport forces a complex choreographed ballet of operations between the intersecting runways. Multiple runways are used for takeoffs and landings at alternating times, typically in rapid fire succession.
Limited space on the ground for a large operation
The limited footprint of the airport requires precise attention to detail both in the air and the ground. On the ground, aircraft must often cross other active runways to the tarmac. This requires precise language and timing by both the pilots and the controllers.
The airspace is very busy. DCA is located in the heart of DC with multiple other airports in the region. This means that radio traffic in the region is bustling everyday, made even busier during bad weather or prominent national events that increase traffic even further.
Nation’s Capitol to the north of the field
The airspace immediately to the north of DCA is prohibited due to its close proximity to both the capitol, National Mall, and the White House. Unlike a normal airport where low altitude turns are avoided, DCA departures to the north require an immediate left turn at around 300 feet to stay south of the prohibited Capitol airspace.
Quirky Approaches due to airspace requirements
Aircraft on arrival in a south flow have to follow the Potomac river for arrival forcing an impressive low altitude final turn to align with runway 15 or 19. This has been made easier by RNP approaches that guide every turn.
Even when landing to the north though, aircraft are requested to overfly the river for noise abatement forcing gentle but otherwise unnecessary turns on short final.
Traffic volume that requires constant optimization
Many times, regional aircraft and sometimes larger aircraft are requested by tower to circle to runway 33 as what occurred last night. This maneuver allows for more efficient aircraft utilization of the runways. Once again, this maneuver is safe and common but the low altitude maneuver requires mental sharpness and focus to safely accomplish.
Significant traffic transiting the airspace
Military helicopters routinely transition the Potomac river at low altitudes very close to DCA, making last night’s events both startling in the result but not unusual at all that the operations were occurring in the area simultaneously. While (once again) not inherently unsafe, the complex operations so close to the field require additional attention to detail to keep operations safe.
Convenience makes DCA popularity ever growing
Lured by the close proximity to the city, DCA has continued to grow in popularity over the years. While the airport is slot restricted, congress just recently approved 5 additional flights into DCA beginning this year.
…And add in security and weather
Beyond just the airspace and the airport environment, you have additional factors that make operations into DCA more complex. It’s proximity to the Nation’s Capitol require additional security measures. The weather in the area is very dynamic too adding an additional layer of complexity. All of these factors come together to make DCA one of the more challenging airports to operate in the United States.
Changes won’t be easy and might not be popular
While operations will undoubtedly resume shortly, the longer path forward for DCA is not yet clear. In an ideal world, you would build a new airport nearby with 9,000 foot runways and wider margins from the prohibited airspace and VFR helicopter routes. With the density of the DC area though, the cost of a new airport, and the lack of available land that is highly unlikely to occur.
Congress could mandate less flights into the airport but that would be unpopular and have significant economic impact to the region, airlines, and the efficiency of government.
A crash like yesterday could force a more radical shift in the thinking of DCA operations. A pie in the sky idea I’ve always thought about would be closing DCA to airline traffic, building high speed rail between DCA and Dulles (much faster than the current silver line Metro service) that shift all operations to the larger international airport. DCA would then remain open only for military and government traffic or closed all together.
At this point though, the truth is that no one knows what will happen net. There will be plenty of time to debate and figure out next steps.
For Now, Let’s Pause To Remember And Honor Their Memory
The bottom line is that this tragedy is an inflection point for DCA. For today though, it is most appropriate to reflect and mourn. May we learn from this tragedy and honor the dead and their families by finding ways never to let it happen again.
Remembering and reflecting on flights PSA 5243 and PAT25.
American Airlines Flight 5342, a PSA Airlines CRJ-700 (N709PS), collided midair with a U.S. Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter near Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) while on approach to Runway 33 at approximately 9 p.m. local time on January 29, 2025.
The FAA and NTSB have confirmed the crash and will lead the investigation. Flight 5342, which had 60 passengers and four crew members, was operating from Wichita, Kansas, and that rescuers have found at least four survivors so far. The UH-60 belonged to the Army’s Fort Belvoir unit.
Latest updates are below. Refresh this link for the latest update.
Current as of 30 Jan 2025, 1:42am
Update 1:42am ET: Reagan National Airport Closed Until 11am
FAA NOTAMs for Reagan National Airport show that DCA will be closed through at least 11am today. NOTAM excerpt below.
American Eagle Flight And Helicopter Collide Near Reagan National Airport 35
Update 12:43am ET: President Trump posts two comments on crash on Truth Social.
Two Posts on Truth Social in the last few minutes by U.S. President Donald J. Trump. pic.twitter.com/gOdB7nSNO5
Update 12:41am ET: Statement by American Airlines CEO on crash
A Statement from the CEO of American Airlines, Robert Isom following the Crash tonight of a Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-700 operated by PSA Airlines at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport near Washington D.C. pic.twitter.com/r998i5HmP2
FAA Notams do show the airport is closed until 5am local time.
American Eagle Flight And Helicopter Collide Near Reagan National Airport 36
Update 12:00am ET: CNN Confirms No Survivors Thus Far
A recent X post by political commentator Charlie Kirk shared that CNN has confirmed with rescue officials that no survivors have been found thus far. A link to his post is below.
CNN has confirmed with law enforcement that no survivors have been pulled from the water. The rescue efforts remain underway. pic.twitter.com/hJ0QUOMNxu
Newly confirmed US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy also posted on X about the accident.
I have spoken with Washington D.C. Mayor Bowser, Virginia Governor Youngkin, Kansas Governor Kelly, and NTSB Chair Homendy to offer our agency’s complete assistance. Thank you to all first responders who are on the scene and conducting the search and rescue operations.
Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem also posted a response to the crash.
We are deploying every available US Coast Guard resource for search and rescue efforts in this horrific incident at DCA. We are actively monitoring the situation & stand ready to support local responders.
Update 11:45pm ET: American Airlines posts link to updates
American Airlines has posted on X with link to their website with the latest crash news. Their latest post confirms 60 passengers and 4 crew members on board.
#AA5342 en route from Wichita, Kansas (ICT), to Washington, D.C. (DCA) was involved in an accident at DCA. Get the latest updates on our Newsroom https://t.co/vb4fAAUENX
While we do not have any information on the Blackhawk, but according to NBC News the Army has confirmed that it was an Army UH-60 Blackhawk out of Fort Belvoir involved in tonight’s crash. The PSA CRJ-700 jet involved in the crash was tail N709PS.
Airfleets, a website that tracks aircraft history shows that the aircraft was first flown in September of 2004. The aircraft originally flew with Midatlantic Airways under the US Airways Express banner. The aircraft joined the PSA fleet just two months later. Airfleets website shows that the aircraft was stored from September of 2022 until earlier this month. The aircraft was 20.4 years old at the time of the accident.
Update 11:17pm ET: Contact information for families affected
Congressman Don Beyer has posted on BlueSky with information for anyone who may have had friends or relatives on the flight.
A tweet from Kansas Rep. Don Beyer, relaying info for families: … “If you believe you may have loved ones on board Flight 5342, call American Airlines toll-free at 800-679-8215."
Liveatc.com records live audio of many ATC conversations worldwide. The audio from DCA tower is available on their website. If you click on the link here, the audio involving the accident starts at 17:15 of the clip.
A PSA CRJ-700 (similar to the one pictured above) crashed near DCA airport after it collided with a helicopter. The CRJ-700 is a regional jet that can carry between 70 and 78 passengers. Image: Flikr, motox810 CC 2.0
The PSA aircraft involved in the accident is a Mitsubishi CRJ-700. The CRJ-700 is a regional jet that first flew in 1999. It entered service in 2001 as stretch and modernized CRJ-200. The aircraft features a larger cabin, modernized avionics, and upgraded engines. The -700 typically holds between 70 to 78 passengers. Some aircraft have been reconfigured with first class seats and storage closets to seat just 50. In 2020, Bombardier sold the CRJ program to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
A PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 regional jet collided in midair with a Sikorsky H-60 helicopter while on approach to Runway 33 at Reagan Washington National Airport around 9 p.m. local time. PSA was operating as Flight 5342 for American Airlines. It departed from Wichita, Kansas. The FAA and NTSB will investigate. The NTSB will lead the investigation.
Update 9:52pm ET: Initial Crash Information and Video
From initial information appears PSA Airlines 5342, a CRJ 700 collided with PAT25, an Army transport helicopter on the approach end of runway 33 at DCA, Reagan National Airport
iirc the PAT helos are gold top UH-60s used for VIP transport
— Ian Servin || @airplaneian.com on Bluesky (@airplaneian) January 30, 2025
.@flightradar24 recording as #AA5342 approached. Looks like another American flight was just ahead of them on final to runway 1. Possible 5342 sidestepped to runway 13, got low, and collided with a helicopter flying low on the east bank of the Potomac. The helicopter is not on… pic.twitter.com/MWo5UEOV7i
A video posted from the Kennedy Center camera shows what appears to be a helicopter flying from left to right in front of a landing aircraft. Seconds later, they appear to collide, resulting in an explosion.
Additional posts indicate that rescue helicopters are searching for the aircraft at this time.
WASHINGTON: BREAKING REPORT: An American Airlines regional passenger plane reportedly collided with a helicopter and fell into the Potomac River upon landing at Reagan Nat'l Airport near DC. Reports suggest the flight is AA5342 from Wichita, Kansas with 60 on board. pic.twitter.com/qeeaoJkhXo
WATCH 🚨: A PAT25 Military helicopter and a CRJ 700 jet collided mid-air while approaching Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport from Wichita, Kansas.
There are reports that 60 people were on board.#AA5342 operated by PSA Airlines for American Airlines is the flight that… pic.twitter.com/tvTVZmDI0f
This would be a significant design difference from current tankers.
In August 2023, the Air Force selected JetZero to partner with Northrup Grumman to develop a prototype to test the BWB design. This may also play a role in the Air Force’s long-term plans for its Next-Generation Aerial-refueling System (NGAS).
Artist depiction of JetZero blended wing air refueling aircraft. | Image: JetZero
Strong need for more efficient, less vulnerable tankers
In planning for future operations, the Air Force has determined a growing need for new tankers with better fuel efficiency, longer range, and increased payload capacity. A major concern for this is to support fighters and ground attack aircraft just hundreds of miles from combat zones. With current tanker models, this close-up support would leave the tankers vulnerable to attack from enemy aircraft.
The Air Force KC-135 and KC-46 Pegasus tankers flying today are modified versions of commercial passenger jets. One of the Air Force’s primary goals for a new tanker design is for it to have greater range while being more efficient and cost effective. This has led to research in blended wing body designs.
U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft. | Image: USAF
JetZero and Northrup Grumman leading blended wing design research
JetZero is leading this effort with its “Pathfinder” prototype or demonstration model. It has a wingspan of 23 feet, approximately one-eighth of the 184 feet they plan for a full-scale aircraft. The blended wing design combines the wings and fuselage into a single unit. This produces several aerodynamic advantages over traditional tube and wing aircraft.
The Pathfinder’s combined wing and wide central body make a large surface area and allows the entire aircraft to produce lift. One advantage from this is a 9.4% lift to drag ratio better than conventional models.
Blended wing aircraft more efficient than older designs
A recent study showed that this configuration will lead to a 27% reduction in fuel burn per passenger mile or a 50% reduction in fuel consumption. Another benefit of the BWB that would be effective for tankers is a lighter maximum takeoff Weight (MTOW). This partly comes from it having less surface area than conventional designs. This lighter weight produces another advantage of having the aircraft lighter weight requiring small engines, which only adds to the overall efficiency, which then increases range. Yet another advantage is that BWB aircraft are quieter.
“Blended wing body aircraft have the potential to significantly reduce fuel demand and increase global reach,” said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. “Moving forces and cargo quickly, efficiently, and over long distance is a critical capability to enable national security strategy.”
Need for new tanker designs to have low observable features
Blended wing body design features may also impact plans for the Air Force’s plans for its Next-Generation Aerial-refueling System (NGAS). However, the purpose of this program is not just to deploy more cost-effective tankers with more range. One of the most important goals for the NGAS is to be able to refuel low-observable or stealthy aircraft like the B-21 bomber and the F-35 fighter. Air Force planners want tankers to get closer to where the bombers and fighters are flying.
Artist image of JetZero Pathfinder blended wing tanker. | Image: JetZero
“To have tactical fighters that can operate effectively, you’ve got to tank them within a few hundred miles of where they’re going to operate,” said former Secretary of the US Air Force Frank Kendall. “So, we need tankers that can get into ranges where they are now threatened. Current tankers are not very effective at that. And the commercial derivative tanker, which is a traditional route to getting one, is probably not going to be effective either, although that’s not off the table yet.”
Flying refueling missions close to the forward battle area leaves tankers vulnerable to enemy aircraft. This emphasizes the need for tankers to have stealthy features.
Changes required to make blended wing aircraft less vulnerable
Some have suggested that BWB tankers, with their flying wing designs that look similar to the B-2 and B-21, might also have stealthy qualities. However, research has not proven this yet. To make the design a true low-observable aircraft, one change would be to incorporate the engines more into the interior of the airframe than on the Pathfinder.
There is widespread interest in developing BWB aircraft for commercial and military purposes. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, and Bombardier are also working on developing BWB tanker designs for NGAS.
Image of Lockheed Martin design idea for “optionally” manned low observable tanker. | Image: Lockheed Martin
New fuel potential for blended wing design
Looking ahead, manufacturers are also working on different fuels systems for aircraft. One of these is to use hydrogen as a zero-carbon option. JetZero has determined that its BWB design will be able to accommodate hydrogen fuels. It expects this technology to be ready by 2030, which only makes blended wing body aircraft more promising.
The new year started with a bang for one Inglewood, California couple. A block of ice allegedly dropped from a JetBlue aircraft and crashed through the roof of their home and onto their bed.
The couple is now suing the airline for a seven-figure lump sum. JetBlue has denied any wrongdoing and has declined to comment on ongoing litigation.
JetBlue New Year’s Ice Drop
Around 8pm local time on New Year’s Day 2024, a large block of ice crashed through the bedroom of Michael Reese and Leah Ferrarini in Inglewood, California. After a thorough investigation, it was later discovered that the ice came from a JetBlue aircraft that was on its way to Los Angeles International Airport.
Tail 989JT, and Airbus A321 was the jet involved in the lav icing incident.
Reese and Ferrarini are suing the airlines for negligence and trespassing. The latter offense is due to the couple ‘not granting JetBlue permission’ to allow the block of ice to enter the home or damage it.
According to the lawsuit, the ice severely damaged the couple’s roof and landed near the pillows in their bedroom.
The couple has also reportedly suffered insomnia and anxiety from the block of ice. Due to the home being located very close to the airport, at least one plane flies over the home every five minutes. The couple have allegedly been incapable of sleeping since the incident over the fear of other falling debris harming them and their home.
Three A-321s will be configured for JetBlue’s premium Mint program in 2018. Photo Tomás Del Coro from Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (CC BY 2.0)
The lawsuit states that the couple had also experienced financial losses as the result of the damage. The effects of insomnia had forced Reese to decline film and television projects as a commercial driver.
Aircraft Involved in a Similar Incident?
In the lawsuit, the couple’s attorneys argue this isn’t the first time the JetBlue aircraft damaged a roof with ice. Another ice block that came from the aircraft reportedly damaged the roof of a home in Shirley, Massachusetts. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discovered the same aircraft had ‘potable water issues’ as early as July 2023.
“JetBlue had been on notice for months prior to January 1, 2024, yet failed to conduct an investigation as to the problems with the potable water system valve and drain. Had JETBLUE done so after being on notice that there was a problem as early as July 2023, the discharge of the large block of ice on Plaintiffs’ home would not have occurred.” the report reads.
The couple is seeking $1 million from JetBlue as a result of the damage and ongoing emotional trauma. JetBlue responded by stating the airline’s conduct complied with industry regulations.
We’ve all been there. You’re in the airport or boarding a flight and someone has obscene tattoos or clothes (or barely any clothes at all), while the other 99% dress like they have some common sense in public. Spirit Airlines has had enough, and is now banning visibly trashy tattoos and clothes on their flights.
Decisions on what’s considered a violation will be at the discretion of the airline employees. The company has updated their passengers’ dress code policy and contract of carriage, which passengers agree to when making a reservation.
Passengers have already been kicked off flights
Two women were kicked off a flight last fall for wearing questionable crop tops. In the video above, a man was also kicked off a flight recently for an obscene hoodie.
Spirit is specifically targeting lewd clothing and tattoos that they consider obscene, offensive or too revealing. Specific examples include see-through clothing and exposed private parts.
Other airlines also have a passenger dress code
Passengers who violate Spirit’s updated dress code will be denied boarding or be removed from flights.
Such a rule however is not out of the ordinary. Other airlines, who don’t cater to low budget individuals, have similar dress codes.
American Airlines almost kicked a former Miss Universe off a flight to Cabo back in 2022, for thinking coming onboard with a black sports bra and biking shorts was ok. They asked her to cover up, which she did, but the incident sparked a lot of controversy.
In 2021, police escorted a female rapper off an Alaska Airlines flights after it landed, for wearing black shorts and a crop top on the flight.
Hawaiian Airlines clearly states what’s not allowed: bikini bottoms, Speedos and bare feet, along with clothing that is “lewd, obscene, or patently offensive to others.” They also specify clothing must “cover the upper part of the torso”. Hawaiian also clarifies that tank tops, tube tops, and halter tops are allowed, along with shorts, but with no specifications about length.
Of course, what is considered “appropriate,” “lewd,” and “offensive” is vague. Airline employees have plenty of leeway in determining what is or is not allowed.
We raise a toast to the Fighting Falcon. Also known as the Viper, it’s one of the most lethal and maneuverable aircraft ever made. Below, watch as the first pilot recalls the first flight of the F-16.
The multi-role iconic jet first took to the skies on 20 January 1974. Developed by General Dynamics, the prototype YF-16 was piloted by Phil Oestricher.
ABOVE: Watch pilot Phil Oestricher recall flying the first YF-16
The jet wasn’t supposed to fly that day
On the day of the test at Edwards AFB, Oestricher didn’t expect to fly at all. It wasn’t even in the plans. It was supposed to be a high speed taxi test to better evaluate handling in the takeoff regime. The jet itself, however, had other ideas.
The F-16 was the first aircraft to have a fixed stick. The stick used to control the aircraft interpreted forces to move the fly-by-wire control surfaces but did not actually move at all. The test that day was just supposed to be a high speed ground test. Oestricher never got a “feel” for the jet until that day.
Photo: USAF
As he raced down the runway, Oestricher raised the nose and applied aileron control to check lateral response. The jet, however, went into a dangerous roll oscillation. The left wing and right stabilator scraped against the ground.
Think of it like trying to control an angry Stallion that wants to do what it wants.
Fly or Crash–A Decision To Be Made
As the jet started veering off into the desert, he decided that, instead of crashing and possibly killing himself and the program, he would hit the throttle to get it in the air to try and save it.
Lockheed Martin photo YF-16
Oestricher struggled to control the jet, waiting for his airspeed to reach a point that would provide enough lift to really get flying. It worked. He recovered and flew the jet on an unscheduled first flight for six minutes before returning safely to Edwards.
Another, almost identical, No. 2 prototype YF-16 was also made. It first flew in spring 1974 but skidded across the grass next to the runway while landing at a flight demonstration for General Dynamics employees and friends in Texas in May 1975.
The pilot couldn’t get the landing gear to deploy, but brought the jet down safely with expert execution. The aircraft came out in decent shape, and the pilot was fine, but he was quite unhappy about what happened. Nevertheless, the F-16 had arrived, and it was here to stay. The original YF-16 No. 1 made the first transatlantic flight to Europe soon after, to secure potential NATO sales and perform a flight demonstration in Paris.
F-16 Enters Service
The F-16 was built under an agreement between the United States and NATO countries Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. Together, they jointly produced an initial 348 F-16s for their air forces.
USAF F-16 Viper demo (Mark Streit Photography, check out his amazing work here)
The first single-seat F-16A first flew in December 1976. Two years later, on 17 August 1978, the first operational USAF F-16A was delivered to the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
The rest, as they say, is history. Half a century after first being unleashed into the air, the jet is still in production. Though the USAF no longer buys new F-16s, the Fighting Falcon’s story is far from over. Modernized variants continue to find eager customers overseas, and in 2025, this iconic jet still wears the crown as the world’s most widely flown combat aircraft, with more than 2,000 in active service around the globe. Over 25 nations continue to operate the F-16 for their various air forces.
The USAF Flight Demonstration Squadron Thunderbirds also fly the F-16 for millions of spectators across America every year, with occasional visits to other countries. A single-ship F-16 Viper Demo team also flies for air shows where the Thunderbirds do not appear.
USAF Vipers have also seen plenty of action, deploying for combat numerous times. In the Persian Gulf in 1991, for Operation Desert Storm, they flew more sorties than any other aircraft.
They also served in Operation Allied Force, and have played a major role in the war on terrorism, flying thousands of sorties in support of operations Noble Eagle (Homeland Defense), Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and Iraqi Freedom.
You can read more about the F-16s history operating with the USAF here.
Ohio Air National Guard taking off into sunset (Mike Killian Photo / avgeekery)
For the sixth year in a row, Boeing trailed behind Airbus in aircraft deliveries, closing out 2024 with 348 deliveries—a stark contrast to Airbus’s 766.
Despite booming demand for new jets, Boeing’s delivery numbers were the lowest since the pandemic, and net orders came in at just 377, less than half of Airbus’s 826.
Boeing reported year-end numbers on 14 January, while Airbus reported its numbers on 09 January.
With production challenges, labor strikes, and ongoing financial struggles, 2024 proved to be yet another turbulent year for the aerospace giant.
But with a new CEO, fresh strategies, and some encouraging late-year orders, could 2025 finally be the year Boeing turns things around?
Another Tough Year for Boeing in 2024
Image from the NTSB investigation of the accident involving Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on a Boeing 737-9 MAX | IMAGE: National Transportation Safety Board, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Boeing’s string of difficult years extended into 2024, marked by production disruptions, financial losses, leadership changes, and lingering reputational challenges. The year began on a troubling note with the infamous Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 incident. On 5 January, a mid-flight door panel failure on a 737-9 MAX shocked the world.
The near-tragedy underscored ongoing quality control issues within Boeing’s manufacturing processes. In response, the FAA imposed a cap of 38 units per month on 737 MAX production. While this limit reflected the regulator’s concerns over Boeing’s safety standards, the company remained unable to reach even this reduced production rate for most of the year.
Strikes and Workforce Challenges
Boeing facilities in Everett, Washington in October 2011 | IMAGE: Jeremy Elson, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Labor unrest added to Boeing’s challenges. In mid-September, 33,000 machinists represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) went on strike—the first such action in 16 years.
The strike lasted 53 days and brought production of the 737 MAX, 767, and 777 programs to a grinding halt. The work stoppage, coupled with pre-existing supply chain issues, delayed deliveries and deepened Boeing’s financial woes. Production of the 737 MAX did not resume until early December, and widebody production restarted just before Christmas.
Compounding these difficulties, Boeing announced in October that it would lay off 10% of its workforce. This was in addition to the nearly 5,000 layoffs announced earlier in the year. These reductions were a stark reminder of the financial and operational strain the company faced as it grappled with declining revenue and escalating losses.
Leadership Transition Amid Turmoil
The Boeing lineup of aircraft | IMAGE: Boeing
In March, Boeing’s long-time CEO Dave Calhoun announced plans to step down by year-end. On August 7, he handed over the reins to Kelly Ortberg, a seasoned executive tasked with steering Boeing out of its crisis.
Ortberg’s leadership style marked a departure from Calhoun’s, with a greater emphasis on direct engagement with factory workers. By requiring company executives to spend time on the production floor, Ortberg sought to address morale issues and improve communication across the organization.
While Ortberg’s tenure began with bold promises of change, he inherited a company in turmoil. Boeing’s losses totaled $8 billion by Q3 2024, a staggering 260% increase year-over-year. With Q4 results yet to be announced, the financial outlook for the year remained grim.
Program Delays and Certification Challenges
The new Boeing is 777-9 is the largest of the new 777x family. Seen here at the rollout ceremony back in early 2019. Photo: Dan Nevill from Seattle, WA, United States [CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]
Further setbacks in Boeing’s key programs added to the company’s woes. The 777X program, once heralded as a game-changer in the widebody market, faced additional delays. These delays have pushed its entry into service to late 2026.
Certification flights for the 777-9 resumed on 16 January after a months-long grounding due to thrust link issues, but the program’s delays have already cost Boeing significant market share.
The 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10, intended to bolster Boeing’s narrowbody lineup, also faced continued certification delays. These setbacks have limited Boeing’s ability to compete with Airbus’s highly popular A320neo family, further eroding the company’s position in the narrowbody market.
Lingering Repercussions of the MAX Crashes
Grounded Boeing 737 MAX aircraft at Boeing Field in Seattle in 2019 | IMAGE: SounderBruce, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Boeing’s struggles cannot be divorced from the legacy of the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019. Together, these two tragedies claimed 346 lives. These tragedies led to a 20-month global grounding of the 737 MAX, severely tarnishing Boeing’s reputation. While the aircraft has since returned to service, lingering distrust among airlines and regulators has hampered its recovery.
The fallout from the crashes continues to weigh on Boeing’s finances. Outstanding criminal cases related to the incidents total nearly half a billion dollars. These cases reflect the long shadow cast by these events. Meanwhile, the Airbus A320neo has cemented its position as the best-selling narrowbody jet. As a result, the 737 MAX is struggling to regain its pre-crisis dominance.
A Global Supply Chain Squeeze
Rebuilding the Giant: Boeing’s Fight to Regain Its Wings 59
The pandemic-era disruptions to global manufacturing and logistics continue to echo across the industry. Suppliers, still recovering from workforce shortages and financial pressures, are struggling to meet the growing demand for components, particularly for engines, avionics, and advanced materials. For Boeing, which sources parts from a vast network of global suppliers, even small delays can cascade into significant production bottlenecks.
However, supply chain challenges are not unique to Boeing, as its European rival has also grappled with similar disruptions. Delays in securing parts for the A320 family and A350 widebodies slowed Airbus’s production capabilities in 2024, even as demand for its aircraft surged. Without these obstacles, Airbus would likely have widened its lead over Boeing even further.
A Dual Strategy for Recovery
The fuselage of a 737-800 on its way from Spirit AeroSystems in Witchita, Kansas to the Boeing factory in Renton, Wash. | IMAGE:
Dan Bennett from Seattle, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
To address these challenges, Boeing has begun implementing a dual strategy of internal consolidation and supplier collaboration. In 2024, the company acquired the majority of Spirit AeroSystems, a move aimed at regaining control over critical components like fuselages and flight decks for its flagship programs, including the 737 MAX and 787. This acquisition marks a return to a more vertically integrated production model, which Boeing hopes will reduce its reliance on external suppliers and improve quality control.
Additionally, Boeing is working closely with its remaining suppliers to streamline production and secure a steadier flow of parts. Investments in digital tracking systems and predictive analytics are helping the company identify potential disruptions earlier and mitigate their impact. While these measures are promising, their full effect may not be felt until 2025 or beyond.
For now, Boeing’s supply chain remains a fragile link in its recovery strategy. As the company seeks to rebuild its reputation and ramp up production, addressing these bottlenecks will be critical to meeting its ambitious goals and regaining its competitive edge.
Bright Spots Amid the Clouds
Turkish carrier Pegasus Airlines has ordered up to 200 Boeing 737-10 aircraft | IMAGE: Boeing
Despite a rocky year, Boeing did experience several high-profile wins. Turkey-based Pegasus Airlines placed a blockbuster $36 billion order for 100 737 MAX 10 aircraft, with an option for 100 more. Flydubai added 30 787-9s to its fleet, while American Airlines committed to 85 737 MAX 10s.
On the production front, the company plans to ramp up 787 Dreamliner production from five per month to ten by early 2026, signaling confidence in the long-term outlook.
Facing Airbus Head-On
Airbus A350-900 OH-LWC NRT
Author: Masakatsu Ukon (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Airbus continues to dominate, delivering 602 A320-family jets in 2024, including over 300 A321neos—a model for which Boeing has no direct competitor. In widebodies, Airbus’s A350 secured 57 deliveries and 138 net orders, while Boeing’s 777-9 program remains stuck in delays until at least 2026
Airbus is also aiming to make headway in the American cargo market, historically Boeing’s stronghold. With production of the 767 freighter winding down by 2027 and the 777-9 freighter delayed until at least 2028, Airbus sees an opening with its A350F, which already has 60 orders.
The Stakes Are High for 2025
IMAGE: Boeing
Boeing’s challenges in 2024 underscore the depth of its operational and financial struggles. From declining deliveries, high-profile incidents, labor unrest, and leadership changes, the company has faced a near-perfect storm of adversity.
However, with new leadership, a commitment to quality, and some promising late-year orders, Boeing is positioning itself for a comeback. Key priorities include overcoming production challenges, accelerating deliveries, and restoring customer confidence.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Airlines and the flying public have little patience left after years of delays, scandals, and safety concerns. For Boeing, 2025 must be a year of action and results.
As Ortberg leads the charge, the aviation world is watching closely. Can Boeing reclaim its place at the top? The answer lies in the months ahead. For now, all eyes are on 28 January, when Boeing will release its Q4 financial results—and perhaps, a clearer picture of its flight path forward.
Researchers have used a variety of aircraft and technologies to perform cloud seeding operations in the 78 years since scientists first began developing it. Cloud seeding is an approach to modify weather, most often for increasing precipitation. The usefulness and safety of this technology has mixed reviews with people and organizations both in favor of it and against it.
B-17, aircrew, and support personnel. The bomber flew the first cloud seeding mission in 1947. | Image: NOAA
The first bomber flew at cloud level above the hurricane and dropped crushed dry ice from its belly. The second B-17 followed a half mile behind to monitor cloud changes, and the B-26 trailed behind, directing the first two. The first B-17 made a half-hour run over 100 miles and dumped 80 pounds of the dry ice. The idea was for the dry ice to make drops of water vapor and ice crystals in clouds stick together, forming large, heavy droplets that would fall as rain or snow. The B-17 made two more passes, dropping another 100 pounds of dry ice.
They circled back and noticed the cloud deck below beginning to break up and the cloud top starting to grow larger. This convinced the crews and scientists that the seeding had an effect, but it did not turn out the way they expected. The next day, the storm made a sudden 135 degree turn to the west and strengthened. It struck Savannah, Georgia on 15 October, killing one and causing $2 million, or about $28 million in today’s dollars, in damage in Georgia and South Carolina.
First arguments appear against cloud seeding
This caused a public outcry that the experiment had caused the storm to turn, and people threatened lawsuits. Eventually, scientists proved that other storms had made similar turns without human influence, and the lawsuits did not move forward.
In the years since 1947, researchers have continued developing cloud seeding methods to be able to increase precipitation. Today they are performing cloud seeding operations with more modern platforms including fixed wing aircraft, turboprop aircraft, helicopters, and drones.
Modern aircraft used for cloud seeding
The Beechcraft King Air C90/200 is one such design. Weather Modification International (WMI) in Fargo, North Dakota has installed cloud-seeding equipment on over 100 aircraft including 5 Beechcraft King Air 350s in the past 24 months. These modifications include installing weather research, atmospheric measurement, and cloud-seeding equipment such as ejectable flare racks, burn in-place flare racks, and firing-control boxes. Some of the other aircraft WMI has modified for cloud seeding and atmospheric research include the Hawker 400, Piper Seneca II, and Cessna 340A.
Beechcraft King Air with flare racks on trailing edge of wing. | Image: Weather Modification International
Aircraft deploy flares into clouds to spread particles
The aircraft deploy pyrotechnic flares to scatter cloud seeding agents or particles into clouds. The flares burn as they drop through clouds, releasing particles that promote ice crystal formation. Along with dry ice, silver iodide is also often used for cloud seeding. Its structure is similar to ice crystals, and it can cause water vapor to freeze and grow and then fall as precipitation.
Particle flare rack on wing of aircraft. | Image: NMI
A newer technology for cloud seeding is an electric charge producing device. It uses an electrode to create a strong electric field around the device to release ions from air molecules. These ions attach to water droplets in clouds, making larger droplets
“Charge can influence how a droplet population evolves into larger drops, sometimes reaching raindrop sizes,” said author Giles Harrison.
Electronic charge device developed to increase size of water droplets and increase precipitation. | Image: Fargojet.com
Obstacles and arguments against cloud seeding
Despite the research and advancement in cloud-seeding operations, it faces some obstacles. Some scientists claim it is not really effective in producing precipitation or cost effective. There is also some debate on whether the silver iodide could be harmful to the environment.
Worldwide interest remains strong
These questions do not seem to be impacting interest in cloud seeding. Currently, more than 50 countries around the world are experimenting with and using the technology. These include China, India, Dubai, Russia, Australia, and South Africa.
Cloud Seeding Is Real. Here's How It's Done 65
Another view of equipment mounted on aircraft for cloud seeding. | Image: Fargojet.com
Japan Airlines is featuring a commercial jet with Super Mario, the Minions, and other popular characters for a limited time. The occasion? The airline and Universal Studios are commemorating the opening of a brand new themed area.
A Colorful Medley of Mascots
Japan Airlines has unveiled a special livery with Mario and other pop culture characters for one of its Embraer 190 aircraft. The aircraft is named ‘Donkey Kong Country Opening Commemorative JAL x Universal Studios Japan Jet 2’.
The livery is to commemorate the opening of the Donkey Kong Country area at Universal Studios Japan. The design features a picture of Donkey Kong on the tail, but also sports Super Mario, the Minions, Harry Potter, Elmo and Cookie Monster, and Woody Woodpecker. Each image represents a different area found at the theme park.
The new Donkey Kong area opened on 11 December, 2024. The special jet entered service with the limited-time design on 14 January, 2025. Its last flight with the design will take place some time in June 2026.
Japan Airlines revealed the livery at a special ceremony featuring mascots of Sesame Street and Woody Woodpecker characters. A video later shows the jet taking off from Osaka to Fukuoka, Japan.
The jet will make seven flights during the month of February, flying from Osaka to seven other Japanese prefectures.
Universal Goodies on Japan Airlines Flights
Aside from the Donkey Kong Jet, travelers on board one of the airline’s Boeing 737-800 or Boeing 767-300ER will receive several freebies. These souvenirs include a boarding pass sticker sheet, a headrest cover, and a collectable paper cup. Unfortunately, these items are while supplies last.
Japan Airlines Senior Vice President of Marketing Ryo Kanazawa had this to say during the unveiling ceremony:
“As the official airline of Universal Studios Japan, JAL plays an important role in transporting customers from all over the country to Kansai and then to the park, and we are conducting joint marketing…Through this specially painted aircraft, we hope to deliver super excitement and thrills to people in various regions of the country, and make them feel super energetic. We hope to further strengthen our partnership with JAL and make many people happy.”
A C-10 Could Have Replaced The VC-137 (707) for Air Force One
Air Force One is the descriptor for any aircraft carrying the President of the United States, but to avgeeks, it generally refers to the highly customized Boeing 747-200 (VC-25A) with the unique Raymond Loewy-designed paint livery. It is a powerful symbol of the United States of America and commands a presence wherever it travels.
When the president travels, the White House serves as a mobile command center. It features over 4,000 square feet of space that accommodates the President, his staff, and a small traveling press pool. Many wonderful and detailed books have been written on the history of aircraft that have transported the President.
It Was Time For A Replacement Air Force One Aircraft
The Special Air Mission (SAM) VC-137 was a specially outfitted Boeing 707. It has been replaced by a 747. SAM 26000 is on display at the NMUSAF (NMUSAF Photo)
In 1985, the VC-137C was reaching nearly twenty-five years in service. As a result, the United States Air Force (USAF) began to plan for a replacement aircraft. After internal requirements had been set, the USAF began to send out requests for proposals (RFP) to Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas.
General John Michael Loh was appointed to Air Force Director of Operational Requirements in 1985, and Loh’s job was to find a replacement aircraft and suitable proposals for the aging VC-137Cs. There were really only two choices at the time of this new RFP from the USAF: The Boeing 747 and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Lockheed’s L-1011 had ceased production, not to mention it barely met the endurance requirement the Air Force had set, and Lockheed wasn’t about to build an all-new aircraft for the VC-137C replacement, nor restart the L-1011 production line.
Boeing, of course, offered the Boeing 747-200 aircraft, even though the Boeing 747-300 had entered service two years prior. The 747-200 had more in common with the current fleet of E-4B aircraft, the Advanced Airborne Command Post, which were flying for the USAF.
Boeing knew that with the E-4Bs flying, the current Presidential aircraft being a Boeing with four engines, and that the 747 easily met or exceeded all the operational requirements, it had the advantage to walk away with the contract award. Boeing was also keenly aware that both Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas had no interest in competing for what they viewed as a sole-sourced competition that had already been decided in their view.
Smart Maneuvering by Gen Loh
What happened next was chronicled in Air and Space Weekly in a fascinating article by Lara Seligman back in 2016. Seligman interviewed Gen Loh for an article that discussed the latest acquisition of the Boeing 747-8i to fulfill the role as the next Air Force One.
According to the article, Boeing met with Loh and presented its proposal: two Boeing 747-200 aircraft retrofitted with all the custom fitment, countermeasures, and other operational requirements that the USAF requested at just under $1 billion USD in 1985 ($2.4 billion adjusted for inflation in 2020). Boeing was in for a rude awakening.
The list price of the Boeing 747-200 in 1985 was $112 million for green aircraft (new), or $224 million for two aircraft, and this was the list price before discounting (which generally occurs).
Boeing was then adding nearly four times the cost of the aircraft for customization and fitment to meet the USAF’s requirements. Loh was reportedly furious at the estimate and knew that unless he had a viable and alternative proposal, he’d have very little leverage against Boeing’s proposal.
McDonnell Douglas was already 100% focused on its struggling C-17 airlifter. However, facing delays, cost overruns, and the threat of cancellation, Loh convinced McDonnell Douglas to compete for the Air Force One replacement.
Seligman reported that Loh already knew the DC-10 was a viable alternative to the 747, and with McDonnell Douglas struggling, Loh told McDonnell Douglas, “Look, if you are interested in keeping your C-17 and building a strategic airlifter, I think you ought to be interested in bidding on Air Force One.” What Loh knew that wasn’t quite clear to McDonnell Douglas was that Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was considering cancellation of the C-17 project and would instead go with Boeing’s proposal for a new C-X alternative based on the 747.
McDonnell Douglas Made a Real Effort With the C-10
Model of C-10. Jim Keeshan Model collection
McDonnell Douglas submitted a proposal based on the DC-10. They produced a book in 1985 called “C-10 – The Presidential Aircraft” with details about their proposal. The C-10 was centered around the DC-10-30 as the baseline aircraft because of its longer endurance range, time in service, and in-service reliability.
The offering had integrated air stairs at the center-main passenger and rear doors on the port side, and numerous options, including inflight refueling. For comparison purposes, McDonnell Douglas compared the C-10 to an ‘equivalent’ competitive aircraft: the Boeing 747SP, not the proposed 747-200. The C-10 was also presented as an aircraft that can operate from many more airports than the 747SP could. Comfort, performance, and reliability were based on the commercial DC-10 counterpart.
McDonnell Douglas showed the C-10 as 17% less expensive per flight vs. the 747SP, with an estimated operating cost of $30,000 for a 2,000 nautical mile trip (using $1 a gallon fuel cost from 1983), and that the maintenance and fuel costs were 37% more efficient vs. the Boeing aircraft (using a Boeing performance report #D6-33819).
McDonnell Douglas took another dig at the Boeing 747 by noting that it couldn’t utilize the existing hangars at Andrews AFB. The USAF had already estimated that new hangar facilities would add another $40 million to the cost of operating any 747. The C-10 could use the existing hangar facilities.
C-10 Had A Unique Floorplan
The C-10 even included a proposed floor plan that featured a stateroom in the front of the aircraft and a radio operating station in place of the forward galley (which had been moved to in front of the main door entrance).
Medical and conference facilities were mapped out, as well as sections identified for traveling staff, executives, and areas for media. The rear featured a full galley as well as stairs to the lower deck, while the front galley had a lift to the lower deck.
McDonnell Douglas Once Proposed A DC-10 For Air Force One 70
The 747 Proposal Was The More Robust Solution In The End
The Current Air Force One, SAM 28000, is a specially equipped Boeing 747, designated VC-25. Note: the call sign applies only when the President is on board. When the President is not aboard, the aircraft is identified by its tail number, 28000. (USAF Photo)
The McDonnell Douglas proposal was substantially lower than Boeing’s and had the desired effect that Loh had wanted: Boeing dropped the price in their proposal from nearly $1 billion for two modified aircraft to just $249 million in a fixed-price contract, according to Loh.
In the end, Loh’s pressure on McDonnell Douglas to submit a proposal for a VC-137C replacement was a win-win for both the USAF and McDonnell Douglas.
The USAF saved nearly $700 million ($2.1 billion adjusted for inflation in 2025), and it won brownie points for McDonnell Douglas at the USAF, negating a sole-source bid from Boeing. Boeing was awarded the newly designated VC-25 contract to build the replacement aircraft for the VC-137s, and the rest is history.
The C-10 Made Boeing’s Air Force One Cheaper
In the end, however, Seligman notes in her article that Boeing had to absorb nearly $600 million in unforeseen costs before the first VC-25 was delivered and entered service, bringing the actual cost of each aircraft to approximately $425 million each ($1.3B in 2025 dollars).
This figure doesn’t include the upgrades to the VC-25 fleet over the years after delivery. Loh maintained in the article that every Presidential aircraft, every single part from the airframe to the rivets, should have competitive bids to ensure the USAF (and the taxpayer) receives value for their money.
The C-10 Wasn’t Meant to Be Air Force One
The C-10 never became Air Force One. It was a long shot from the beginning. With less space, just three engines, and a mixed public perception of the jet, the odds were not in McDonnell Douglas’ favor. It remains a unique footnote in aviation history, leaving many avgeeks to wonder what could have been after all these years.
There is the right way to deice a plane and many wrong ways.
Correctly deicing a plane is a critical preflight procedure. It’s not a tough concept.
The professional way is to spray a heated deicing solution onto the aircraft before departure. If frozen precipitation is still occurring, first deice the aircraft to remove accumulated ice and snow, then apply anti-icing fluid to prevent further buildup. Anti-ice provides the pilot just enough time to get airborne (and presumably above the frozen precipitation) without additional ice buildup on the aircraft’s critical surfaces.
For reference, this is what a proper deicing procedure looks like (courtesy of Southwest Airlines):
Why is Deicing Important?
An American Airlines jet is deiced at Jackson Hole Airport (JAC) | IMAGE: American Airlines
Regulations require every aircraft to depart in a “clean” condition, meaning no snow, ice, frost, or other contamination can be adhering to the airframe at takeoff.
When there is no active icing, meeting that standard is straightforward, and any existing contamination is simply removed. In active icing conditions, however, the aircraft must first be deiced and then protected from new accumulation.
Airplanes fly because the wings produce lift. Every take-off and landing calculation is based on the airplane’s wings being free of any debris and ice. Ice inhibits flight in two ways. Wings cannot produce the required amount of lift when the airflow is disturbed by ice buildup on the wings. Even a thin layer of frost with the thickness of sandpaper can produce so much drag that takeoff at typical speeds and runway lengths might be impossible. Additionally, ice is heavy. Ice can add thousands of pounds to an airliner’s weight.
Deicing and anti-icing are typically completed as a two-step process: heated Type I fluid, usually orange, is applied to remove existing contamination, followed by a cold, green Type IV anti-ice fluid that forms a thick coating, captures falling precipitation, and then shears off during the takeoff roll, carrying the contamination with it.
Both fluids have defined holdover times based on temperature and precipitation, but Type I protection is so short that a Type IV application is usually required to allow enough time to taxi and depart. Before takeoff, crews perform a cockpit “nose check” for visible contamination and, if the holdover time has expired, a more detailed “wing check” is required within five minutes of departure, either by trained ground staff or by a pilot from the cabin; if contamination is found, the aircraft must return for another deice.
In some conditions, such as freezing rain or very heavy snow, it may be impossible to keep the aircraft clean long enough to safely depart. During active icing, engines also require periodic runups because bleed air used to heat the inlets and pressure probes is insufficient at idle, and this requirement is separate from the fluid application itself. Much of the overall delay comes from waiting for deice crews during peak departure periods, as deicing becomes a bottleneck, although the actual spray process typically takes around ten minutes when a crew is immediately available.
Airports that regularly deal with winter weather tend to operate more efficiently, while those that deice only a few times a year often take longer due to limited real-world experience.
Top 3 non-standard ways to deice:
3.) Using a water cooler of water
We get it. There are probably rare situations in typically warm locations where ice on the wings might catch the ground crew and pilots by surprise. In these rare cases, you might see crews brushing the snow off of the wings or delaying departure until the sun melts the ice. What you don’t expect to see though is a ground crew haphazardly rolling a water cooler on the wing of a $50M passenger airliner. It’s not only minimally effective, it’s dumb.
2.) Standing on the tail with a garden sprinkler can
While it might be excusable to lack deicing gear at an airport in a tropical climate, it is super odd not to have it in Siberia. Isn’t Siberia the definition of cold? I guess they technically do have deicing gear there. They are called humans who are strapped to a crane with sprinkler cans and brooms.
While the means of deicing is super unusual. The aircraft was deiced this way because it was flown from a little used field for restoration. Video and title screenshot were posted by Linelinnn on YouTube.
1.) Just skip it altogether and pray you don’t die
If you really want to say “deuces” to established safety procedures (that have been written with blood), just skip deicing altogether. That’s what this Pegasus Airlines 737-800 decided to do after a snowfall. While the aircraft was able to take off safely in this case, it ranks among the dumbest things a pilot can do.
The pilot effectively became a test pilot, with a hundred-plus other test dummies on board his/her impromptu test. Death is a big risk to take for an on-time takeoff. If you ever see the wings on your jet look like this as you take the active runway, we recommend ringing your call button repeatedly.
SpaceX’s Starship was lost today over the Caribbean on the company’s 7th flight test. The rocket itself performed great, and even landed successfully back at its launch site in south Texas. However, the prototype spacecraft itself suffered an unknown fatal anamoly shortly after separation from the booster.
Photos and videos circulating on social media show dramatic scenes of fireball debris raining down Turks and Caicos.
Spacecraft had numerous upgrades over previous versions
Today’s incident is what flight tests are for. The vehicle incorporated numerous upgrades over the previous 6 vehicles. Its forward flaps were reduced in size and shifted towards the vehicle tip and away from the heat shield. Doing so significantly reduces their exposure to reentry heating while simplifying the underlying mechanisms and protective tiling, according to SpaceX.
“Redesigns to the propulsion system, including a 25% increase in propellant volume, the vacuum jacketing of feedlines, a new fuel feedline system for the vehicle’s Raptor vacuum engines, and an improved propulsion avionics module controlling vehicle valves and reading sensors, all add additional vehicle performance and the ability to fly longer missions,” says SpaceX.
2025 will be a transformational year for Starship development
Elon Musk’s company is developing Starship to be a fully reusable rocket and crewed spacecraft to send crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond. The booster is the most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, capable of carrying up to 150 metric tonnes fully reusable and 250 metric tonnes expendable.
“This new year will be transformational for Starship,” added SpaceX. “Our goal is bringing reuse of the entire system online and flying increasingly ambitious missions as we iterate towards being able to send humans and cargo to Earth orbit, the moon and Mars.”
When companies and government organizations want to deploy satellites and other objects into space, they usually go to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and they have only a few options. That is about to change. Impulse Space is developing a space transport vehicle that promises to reduce the time to take objects to orbits above LEO from months to just hours.
Helios Space Transport vehicle deploying from a Space X Rocket | Image: Impulse Space
Impulse Space CEO Designed Space X Engine
Impulse Space, based in Redondo Beach, California, is focused on providing space transport, or space-tug capabilities, for satellites and other payloads. With its Helios spacecraft, Impulse plans to develop a fleet of transportation vehicles. The CEO and founder of Impulse is Tom Mueller, a founding member of Space X and chief designer of the Merlin engine. New versions of the Merlin now power Space X’s Falcon 9 Rocket and Falcon Heavy launcher.
Outline of rocket carrying a Helios Space Transport Vehicle. | Image: Spacevoyaging.com
Helios to Launch on Space X Falcon 9 Rocket
A typical mission profile could be for a Falcon 9 to first launch a Helios space transport vehicle into LEO. From there, the Helios would take its payload up to Geostationary Orbit (GEO) or higher. For comparison, LEO is anything below 1240 miles and GEO is much higher, at about 22,000 miles above Earth.
Helios will be able to transport objects weighing as much as 11000 pounds. Its engine, the “Deneb”, will produce 5,000 pounds thrust and use up to 14 tons of liquid oxygen and methane for fuel. Helios will be almost like a third stage for the Falcon-9.
Impulse Space designed the Deneb engine for its Helios space transport vehicle. Image: Impulse Space
The goal is for the Helios to “max out the lift capability of a single stick Falcon 9,” said Mueller.
Impulse is also developing the Helios to be able to launch on other platforms besides the Space X rockets.
Helios to Reach Orbits Above LEO in Hours Instead of Months
One of the main advantages Helios will provide is time savings. It might currently take several months for a space transport, using electrical propulsion, to deliver a payload above LEO. Impulse has designed Helios to do it in less than 24 hours.
“This changes the mission value proposition significantly in several ways, including decreasing the time to reach operational status, limiting potential radiation exposure, and reducing the overall payload mass by decreasing the size of thrusters and amount of fuel required,” said Martin Halliwell, former CTO of SES Satellites.
Helios carrying multiple small satellites. | Image: Impulse Space
There are not many opportunities for companies to launch these smaller satellites alongside larger payloads, and Impulse wants to fill this need for potential customers. The company plans to buy its own launch vehicle, most likely a Falcon 9, and sell slots for transport to orbits above LEO.
Impulse plans to continue testing Helios this year and begin regular service in 2026. They have contracted with Space X for three Falcon 9 rocket launches for their first missions.
Hot fire test of an Impulse Space engine. | Image: Impulse Space
Helios First Missions Will Support DoD
Impulse is already attracting customers, and its first payload will be a DoD spacecraft. The U.S. Space Force is interested because it wants to be able to deploy satellites tactically, or quickly, and Helios will give it that capability. The first flight will be to support the DoD VICTUS SURGO mission, deploying an optical payload.
For this mission, Helios will carry the Impulse Mira spacecraft. This smaller transport vehicle can maneuver and deliver objects within an orbit. Helios will carry Mira from LEO to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO). The Mira then will carry and deploy the DoD spacecraft.
“Helios’ ability to open access to high-energy orbits like GEO, with availability when needed or requested, is not only a valuable commercial service but can also help enable a strong national defense posture in space,” said Mueller.
Impulse is also hoping to serve customers involved in communications, imaging, and scientific research.
Helios carrying satellite into orbit. Image: Impulse Space
