Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg is slated to testify before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in April, in a moment that could mark a turning point for the aerospace manufacturer.
The stakes are high, no doubt, but there’s room for cautious optimism as Boeing works to address its challenges. For those of us who follow aviation closely, this isn’t just a grilling–it’s an opportunity for Boeing to show it’s on the mend.
Washington Opens the Door for Progress
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy speaks to students at the FAA Air Traffic Controller Academy in Oklahoma City, Okla. on 27 Feb 2025 | IMAGE: Secretary Sean Duffy on X
With the new administration has come a renewed sense of urgency to get Boeing back on its feet again. The April hearing was set in motion earlier this month when U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called Ortberg to Washington, seeking a detailed update on Boeing’s efforts to bolster safety and quality.
I've requested that the Boeing CEO come to D.C. as soon as possible to provide a full accounting of the steps the company is taking to address its quality and safety issues. Following that, I will visit Boeing myself to evaluate firsthand the measures being implemented to ensure…
“I’ve requested that the Boeing CEO come to D.C. as soon as possible to provide a full accounting of the steps the company is taking to address its quality and safety issues,” Duffy announced on X on 13 February. “Following that, I will visit Boeing myself to evaluate firsthand the measures being implemented to ensure its planes meet the highest safety standards.”
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg visits the 737 MAX production facility | IMAGE: Boeing
The push follows the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 incident on 5 January 2024, when a 737 MAX 9’s door plug blew out mid-flight–a stark reminder of Boeing’s vulnerabilities. Paired with an FAA safety review, it’s clear why Duffy wants answers.
But there’s more to this than just oversight. Duffy will visit Boeing’s Seattle facilities in mid-March to see the company’s safety measures in action. Accompanying him on the visit will be acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau. The FAA’s cap of 38 737 MAX jets per month, imposed after Flight 1282, remains in place. However, these engagements signal a willingness to work with Boeing toward solutions. If the company can demonstrate real progress, this could be the start of a thaw in regulatory tensions.
Showing Boeing Some ‘Tough Love’
Undelivered Boeing 737 MAX aircraft that were grounded by aviation agencies, seen parked at Boeing Field in Seattle in 2019 | IMAGE: SounderBruce, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Since taking office, Duffy has made his stance on Boeing crystal clear. During his confirmation hearing, he emphasized that safety isn’t negotiable, stating, “I’ll work with Congress and the FAA to restore global confidence in Boeing and to ensure that our skies are safe.”
“I’ll work with Congress and the FAA to restore global confidence in Boeing and to ensure that our skies are safe.”
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy
That perspective shapes his upcoming Seattle visit and the Senate hearing. Duffy has said, “There’s a lot more work to do” when it comes to Boeing. This suggests he believes the company has the potential to turn things around if it prioritizes accountability over excuses. His hands-on involvement–coupled with a readiness to lift restrictions when warranted–offers Boeing a pragmatic partner in Washington, not just a critic. This “tough love” approach, as Duffy described it, could pave the way for progress if Boeing delivers.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, framed it with a balanced tone.
“Boeing has been a great American manufacturer, and all of us should want to see it thrive,” Sen. Cruz said in a press release. “Given Boeing’s past missteps and problems, the flying public deserves to hear what changes are being made to rehabilitate the company’s tarnished reputation.”
Boeing’s got a shot here to prove it’s listening–and acting.
The 737 MAX: Signs of Resilience
Delta Air Lines to Modernize Single-Aisle Fleet with Up to 130 Boeing 737 MAX Jets | IMAGE: Boeing
It’s no secret that the 737 MAX program has taken a beating. From the 2018 and 2019 crashes that grounded the type globally to the Flight 1282 wake-up call, the MAX continues to battle a negative image.
Duffy, during his confirmation hearing, stood firm: the production cap stays until Boeing proves it’s safe to lift. Fair enough–it’s a high bar, but not an impossible one. Boeing’s January 2025 delivery of 45 aircraft–the most in a month since 2023 and up from December’s 30–hints at momentum. It’s not a full rebound, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Against Airbus, Boeing’s still playing catch-up, though supply chain woes have kept the gap from getting too out of control. The MAX’s gradual return to form could steady Boeing’s footing, especially if the company leverages the scrutiny to refine its processes. There’s cautious hope here: Boeing knows the playbook. It just needs to execute.
Leadership Adjustments and Financial Flickers
IMAGE: Boeing
Leadership shifts offer a mixed but promising signal. Stephanie Pope stepped down as Chief Operating Officer on 19 February, per a 25 February regulatory filing. However, she will remain executive vice president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA).
Once a contender for Ortberg’s job, Pope’s streamlined role–and Boeing’s decision not to replace the COO–suggests a tighter focus on core priorities. It’s a leaner setup that could sharpen BCA’s edge.
CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) Stephanie Pope at the 2023 Paris Air Show | IMAGE: Boeing
Financially, BCA has been battered. The division posted $36 billion in losses since 2019 across six tough years, thanks to the MAX grounding, the pandemic, and the Flight 1282 incident. In 2024 alone, the financial hit was $11.8 billion.
This period saw just over 2,200 planes delivered. Contrast that to 2013-2019, when BCA raked in $50 billion in profit from nearly 4,500 deliveries. Yet 2025 offers a glimmer: 550 projected deliveries and a $100 million operating profit. It’s modest, but it’s a pivot toward black ink–a sign Boeing’s digging out of the hole.
Certification as a Catalyst
A Boeing 737-10 with its gear extended | IMAGE: Boeing
Boeing’s certification efforts could be what finally lifts the aerospace titan out of this tough stretch. Issues with the stall-management yaw damper (SMYD) delay the 737-7 and 737-10. Meanwhile, the 777X still awaits approval (although it has finally resumed test flights after a five-month grounding). These three aircraft anchor Boeing’s 2025 strategy.
Clearing these hurdles would expand the fleet and ease pressure, showcasing technical prowess at a critical time. Delays would sting, no question, but Boeing’s track record suggests it can pull this off with the right focus.
Ortberg’s upcoming testimony is Boeing’s platform to outline a credible recovery plan, backed by Secretary Duffy’s Seattle visit as a real-work checkpoint. Washington’s tone isn’t just punitive–it’s pragmatic, offering Boeing a chance to prove itself.
In an industry defined by precision and trust, Boeing is doubling down on its strengths–engineering excellence, operational rigor, and a legacy worth fighting for.
The aviation world isn’t just watching; it’s rooting for Boeing to soar again.
For John Morgan, the sky has never just been a career—it’s been a lifelong journey. A journey that has taken him from the left seat of a Cherokee 140 at age 17 to the controls of the world’s last Douglas DC-8 flying humanitarian missions around the world.
As recently as two years ago, there were five operational Douglas DC-8s around the world. Sadly, with the retirement of NASA’s DC-8 last April, N782SP became the sole operational DC-8 after more than five decades of service. Between 1958 and 1972, 556 DC-8s were built at Douglas’ (later McDonnell Douglas) Long Beach, Calif. factory.
That makes John a member of a very elite club in aviation today.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
A Calling of Helping Others
As the senior DC-8 pilot for Samaritan’s Purse, a North Carolina-based Christian humanitarian organization that provides aid to people in need around the world, Morgan’s job is about more than just flying; it’s about delivering hope.
His path to this mission was anything but ordinary. After earning a degree in aviation management from Embry-Riddle, he took an entrepreneurial route, launching an FBO and a Part 135 charter operation in Mississippi.
For 18 years, he ran the business before selling and moving into the airline world. He started on the iconic DC-8 as a flight engineer, then worked his way up to crew. He eventually became a captain for Emery Worldwide. Along the way, he also flew for Fine Air and Rich International out of Miami. But just as his airline career was gaining momentum, the industry hit turbulence. Emery Worldwide shut down just a month before 9/11, and when the attacks happened, furloughs swept through the entire industry, leaving little opportunity in Part 121 flying.
So, Morgan pivoted back to corporate aviation, spending another 18 years flying business jets. He even launched another charter operation, Mid-South Jets, out of Memphis. But in 2020, he felt a new calling—one that led him to Samaritan’s Purse. Now, instead of transporting cargo for airlines or executives, he’s flying critical supplies into disaster zones, using decades of experience to navigate challenges that go far beyond the cockpit.
I recently had the privilege of chatting with John to talk about his incredible career, his love for the DC-8, and what it’s like to fly the last remaining airworthy example of this legendary aircraft.
The Journey to Samaritan’s Purse
Samaritan’s Purse Captain John Morgan pilots the last DC-8 in the US | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: How did you land at Samaritan’s Purse?
John: I was at a point where I was looking for a place to retire from civilian aviation, but I also wanted to see if I could use all the experience God had given me in a way that served a greater purpose. Then, out of the blue, I got a notification that Samaritan’s Purse was looking for someone. It felt like the perfect fit.
This organization has given me an incredible opportunity to take everything I’ve learned in my career and use it for something bigger. It’s been an honor to be here during this time—to be part of incredible missions, to work with an amazing team, and to do this work with faith at the center of it all. I couldn’t have asked for a better way to close out my flying career.
The Douglas DC-8 is a Piece of Aviation History
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: With the retirement of NASA’s DC-8 last April, N782SP became the last remaining operational DC-8 flying in the world. Tell us about the background of this iconic aircraft.
John: Sure! Samaritan’s Purse started what we call the Heavy Lift program in 2016, but we actually identified this particular DC-8 back in 2015. One of the biggest advantages of N782SP is that it’s a combi aircraft—it can carry both cargo and passengers at the same time, which makes it a perfect fit for our mission profile.
Configuration of N782SP | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Up front, we have space for ten cargo pallet positions, and in the back, we can seat 32 people—what we call our “disaster team relief members.” That setup allows us to bring both critical supplies and the personnel needed to respond to an emergency all in one trip. For example, we can load a fully equipped field hospital in the front and have doctors and nurses in the back, so when we land, we’re ready to go right away. Everything arrives at the same time, at the same place, without having to coordinate separate flights. That’s a huge advantage in disaster response.
Now, as for the aircraft itself, it’s technically a DC-8-72. Originally, it was built as a -62, which means it’s one of the shorter variants of the DC-8. But it was upgraded with larger CFM engines, which converted it into a -72. If you look at early DC-8s, they had much smaller, narrower engines. Then, in the 1970s, Douglas upgraded some of them with the bigger fan engines, and those aircraft were reclassified as -70 series models.
Douglas upgraded some of its -60 series DC-8s to -70 series by installing larger CFM engines during the 1970s | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Remember, the DC-8 and the Boeing 707 actually came onto the market around the same time, both designed for transatlantic and transcontinental routes. Back in the late ’50s and early ’60s, engineers were figuring out the best way to pressurize the cabin. Boeing went with a system that used engine air to generate pneumatic pressure, but Douglas wasn’t convinced that was the safest option yet. So, on the DC-8, they installed inlets on the lower nose that fed air into four turbocompressors, which then pressurized the cabin. It was a different approach to solving the same problem.
Once the -70 series upgrade came along with the new engines, the DC-8 switched over to the more modern pneumatic system like the 707 had, but those inlets are still there. They’re a bit of a visual throwback to an earlier era of jetliner engineering. That’s what I love about this airplane—it’s a piece of aviation history that’s still out there doing important work.
56 Years Old and Still Going Strong
AvGeekery: Historic, indeed. N782SP just turned 56 years old and is still going strong. That’s impressive!
John: It really is. This aircraft was actually built on Christmas Eve in 1968, so that’s its “birthday,” so to speak. And for us, as a faith-based organization, the timing of that feels meaningful—this airplane has had quite the journey, and now it’s being used as a tool to serve people in crisis.
It’s got 98,000 hours on it, which is a lot for any aircraft, but it also speaks to the longevity of the DC-8. These jets were built to last. When I left the industry in 2001 after flying for Emery, DC-8s were everywhere in the cargo world. The passenger airlines had moved on to widebodies and more computerized aircraft, but in cargo, the DC-8 was still king. Almost every major cargo carrier—both in the U.S. and internationally—had them in their fleet.
Fast-forward to 2020, when I got back into the DC-8, and things had changed dramatically. At that point, only two DC-8s were still flying in the U.S.—ours at Samaritan’s Purse and NASA’s airborne science lab. The last major operator was UPS, but they retired their DC-8s in 2009. So, while the fleet as a whole has been inactive for quite a while, N782SP is still out here working hard.
This particular aircraft started its life with Finnair before being sold to the French military, who converted it from its original -60 series to a -70 series with the larger CFM engines.
The final commercial operator of what would become N782SP was Air Transport International, which operated the aircraft from 2005 through 2013 (REG: N721CX) | IMAGE: planespotters.net
After that, it ended up with ATI (Air Transport International) in Wilmington, Ohio, where it was modified into the combi configuration. Once ATI was done with it, it was stored in Roswell, New Mexico. That’s where a private individual purchased it, but before he could take possession or put it to use, Samaritan’s Purse stepped in.
In 2015, we were looking for an aircraft like this, and when we found it in Roswell, we reached out to the owner. A deal was made, and by 2016, it was officially part of the Samaritan’s Purse fleet. And it didn’t sit around collecting dust—within 24 hours of becoming operational, it was dispatched to Ecuador for earthquake relief. It flew five missions there right away, proving immediately why having a heavy-lift aircraft like this was such a game-changer for our international relief work. That was really the beginning of Samaritan’s Purse using large aircraft for global disaster response, and it’s been an invaluable asset ever since.
More than the DC-8: Samaritan’s Purse Utilizes a Fleet of 24 Aircraft
AvGeekery: Before acquiring the DC-8, what did Samaritan’s Purse use for its missions?
John: Before the DC-8, we already had a strong aviation program in place. Samaritan’s Purse has aviation assets in Alaska, North Carolina, Liberia, Uganda, and Kenya, with operations extending into South Sudan. A lot of our work there involves supporting refugee camps along the Sudanese border, so aviation plays a critical role in getting supplies and personnel where they need to be.
We also have a unique operation in Alaska called Operation Heal Our Patriots. It’s a program that provides marriage retreats for military personnel, law enforcement officers, and their spouses. They spend a week up there working on relationship restoration, and every week, a new group comes in. Since many of these retreats take place in remote locations, we operate Caravans, seaplanes, Otters, and two CASA C-212s to move people and supplies.
A Samaritan’s Purse CASA C-212 (REG: N499SP) in Alaska | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Our corporate aviation hub, which includes King Airs and other corporate aircraft, is located at Wilkes County Airport (UKF) in Wilkesboro, North Carolina. That’s home base for many of our domestic operations.
When it comes to heavy lift, our base of operations is out of Piedmont Triad International Airport (GSO) in Greensboro, North Carolina. Our ministry headquarters is actually in Boone, North Carolina, and we base our heavy lift at GSO because it is the closest airport of size to headquarters. We started with the DC-8 in 2016, but last year we added a 1985-built 757-200 to the fleet. That move was part of our effort to modernize and expand our capabilities. Over in East Africa, we have two Caravans, a turbine DC-3, and a helicopter supporting our operations.
Samaritan’s Purse Boeing 757-200 (REG: N783SP) offloading relief supplies in Mexico after Hurricane Otis in 2023 | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
All told we have about 24 aircraft in the fleet, each playing a different role in the various programs we run. Aviation is a huge part of what makes Samaritan’s Purse effective in disaster response and humanitarian aid—it allows us to reach remote areas quickly and bring help where it’s needed most.
Preparing for a Relief Mission
Loading relief supplies into N782SP at GSO | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is the process of preparing for a relief mission?
John: Here in Greensboro, we’re dedicated to heavy-lift operations, so when a disaster strikes—whether it’s an earthquake in Haiti or Ecuador, or a hurricane hitting a Caribbean nation—we’re ready to jump into action. As soon as the call comes in, everything shifts into high gear.
The logistics team decides what needs to be sent, and we start getting the aircraft prepped immediately. Everyone falls into their specialized roles—flight crews begin planning routes and fuel loads, loadmasters calculate weight and balance, and mechanics ensure the aircraft is ready to go. It’s a well-oiled machine that ensures that, by the time the freight is delivered to us, we’re able to dispatch immediately.
Most of our relief supplies are staged at our warehouse in Wilkesboro, about 90 minutes from Greensboro. That facility holds all kinds of life-saving equipment—roof tarps, water filtration systems, blankets, food kits—you name it. Over the years, we’ve refined the process so that by the time the cargo reaches us, it’s already netted, blanketed, and palletized, ready to be loaded onto the aircraft.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
For example, we were able to get a planeload of relief supplies—tarps and desalination units to provide fresh water for entire communities—into Grenada less than 24 hours after Hurricane Beryl made landfall last July.
We ended up flying three missions to Grenada after Beryl. On the second flight, it became clear they needed an emergency field hospital, so we flew that down along with the medical personnel to staff it. The third flight was a resupply mission.
Samaritan’s Purse DC-8 (N782SP) cargo hold | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
The DC-8 plays a key role in these efforts. It’s usually the “tip of the spear”—the first response aircraft delivering that crucial initial payload of freight, personnel, or both. Then, as more information comes in from the ground, we adjust our response accordingly. By the second or third flight, Samaritan’s Purse is often able to shift to working with local vendors and other logistical support, allowing us to stand down and prepare for the next mission. It’s all about getting in quickly, delivering immediate relief, and then transitioning to long-term recovery efforts.
Every Role on the Team is Essential
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is the typical makeup of personnel on board the aircraft?
John: On the DC-8, we carry three main crew members: a pilot, a first officer, and a flight engineer. In addition, we always have at least one flight attendant—sometimes two, depending on the mission.
A flight mechanic also travels with us everywhere we go. That’s critical because when we’re flying into disaster zones or remote areas, we can’t always rely on local maintenance support. If something needs fixed while we’re on the ground, our mechanic is there to handle it.
And then there’s our loadmaster. They’re responsible for making sure everything is properly loaded, secured, and balanced. They also handle any hazardous materials, weight distribution, and offloading procedures when we arrive.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
That’s our normal crew setup, but depending on the mission, we may adjust as needed. Every role is essential, and we all work together to make sure the operation runs smoothly from takeoff to touchdown.
AvGeekery: Are you a part of every heavy lift mission?
John: We have a rotation of pilots, so you’re not usually tasked with every one of them. We have pilots that can fly the 757, the DC-8, or both.
A Relic of a Bygone Era
DC-8 Captain John Morgan works a flight on the Samaritan’s Purse DC-8, the last DC-8 in the USA | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is it like to fly the DC-8?
John:(laughing) Well, it’s old like me, so she and I get along real well. We feel like we came from the same era.
The DC-8 is a big, cable-driven airplane with some hydraulics, but it’s sluggish compared to modern jets. It’s not tight and responsive like the newer, computer-controlled aircraft. It’s more of a lumbering bird. You feel every bit of its size and weight in the controls.
One of the biggest differences from newer aircraft is that the DC-8 doesn’t have an APU (auxiliary power unit). So, anywhere we go, we need ground support—an external power unit, an external start cart, and an air unit strong enough to spin the engines. That’s one of the drawbacks.
Another unique thing about the DC-8 is that it doesn’t have flight spoilers. Modern aircraft use spoilers to increase drag, allowing for rapid descents to meet ATC requirements. The DC-8 doesn’t have that, so you have to plan descents well in advance. You can’t just drop out of the sky and make a quick altitude change.
And then there’s the flight engineer. On today’s airliners, automation reigns supreme. But on the DC-8, you need a third crew member to monitor all the systems and manually transfer fuel between tanks. The cockpit has a lot of old-school “switchology.” Everything is mechanical, and there is no automation like in modern jets.
The DC-8 also lacks leading-edge devices like slats or leading-edge flaps, so it can’t generate extra lift for takeoff. That means it needs a long runway to get off the ground. Landing, though, is a different story—it can stop fairly short.
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
It’s a great airplane once you’re familiar with it, but you have to think ahead. You can’t throw it into a tight turn like a fighter jet—it takes time to maneuver. And crosswind landings? That’s another challenge. Unlike most aircraft where you dip a wing into the wind, the DC-8’s engine pods sit low to the ground, so you can’t bank more than five degrees, or you risk striking an engine. Instead, you have to crab into the wind all the way down and straighten out just before touchdown. If you get it right, the correction and the landing happen simultaneously.
It’s an old-school aircraft, for sure, but that’s what makes flying it so rewarding.
Being Mindful of the DC-8’s Operational Limitations
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Would you say that leads to more go-arounds?
John Morgan: I didn’t notice that to be the case a lot in my career, but it really depends on where you’re flying. For instance, one of our regular stops in Europe is Prestwick, Scotland (PIK). Typically, we’re too heavy to fly nonstop from GSO to our final destination, so we have to stop in Prestwick to refuel or sometimes even overnight, depending on the mission. It’s a great airport, but like any airport in the North Atlantic, high winds and wild North Atlantic storms can hit at any time. The runway layout there can sometimes lead to crosswind issues that exceed our aircraft’s limits. So we have to monitor those conditions closely.
There are times when we might have to reroute to Shannon, Ireland (SNN), where the runways are more aligned with the prevailing winds and we don’t have as much of a crosswind issue. It’s about being aware of your surroundings and planning for the weather, especially in places with challenging conditions.
When it comes to density altitude, this DC-8 is certified to operate up to an elevation of 8,500 feet. For example, we’ve done several missions into Mekelle, Ethiopia (MQX), which is at 7,700 feet. That’s already getting close to the high end of its certification range for takeoffs and landings.
You see similar challenges in places like Mexico City (MEX), which is at 7,350 feet, or Quito, Ecuador (UIO), at almost 7,900 feet. Kathmandu, Nepal (KTM), is at 7,400 feet. You have to recognize how these elevated airports impact the performance of the aircraft. At higher elevations, the air is thinner, so you don’t get as much thrust or lift as you would at sea level. This means you have to be especially mindful of the aircraft’s limitations when operating in these conditions. It’s all about adapting to the environment and ensuring safe operations.
Only One DC-8 Simulator Exists–and it’s in Ohio
The last DC-8 simulator in the world is in Wilmington, Ohio | IMAGE: 240sxdrifter via Imgur.com
AvGeekery: Kathmandu is a notoriously unique airport to fly in and out of. Is there special training required for crews to fly into KTM?
John: Yes, there is special training involved, especially when it comes to the approach into Kathmandu. The DC-8 is a bit of a challenge in those conditions because, as I mentioned earlier, we don’t have flight spoilers, which means our descent planning has to be a lot more precise. Kathmandu is particularly tricky because the approach involves some pretty steep terrain, and getting down to the airport’s altitude requires careful management of the aircraft’s descent rate. You really need to use the flaps, the gear, and keep the nose pointed down to maintain the descent rate necessary to complete the approach.
As for training, there’s only one simulator in the world for the DC-8, and that’s in Wilmington, Ohio. The simulator is owned by Airborne Training Services and entered service with what was formerly Airborne Express in 1990. It’s a Category B simulator, which is limited in some ways compared to today’s Category D simulators. A Cat B sim can help with some of the training, but it’s not aligned perfectly with the aircraft’s characteristics, so you can’t complete a full type rating in it. For specific situations like flying into Kathmandu, the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) requires that you have experience or practice with the approach.
We recreated the Kathmandu approach as closely as we could in Wilmington, but it wasn’t an approved format. So, we had to go to FlightSafety in Savannah, which has a simulator that is programmed with the specific Kathmandu approach. There, we could complete the necessary training and certification to be approved by the CAAN to fly that route. It’s a lot of work, but it’s necessary to ensure we’re completely familiar with such a challenging approach.
Relying on Outdated Technology
The cockpit of N782SP | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Would you say the biggest challenge of the DC-8 is not having modern-day technology?
John Morgan: Yeah, those are real key issues. While we’ve updated the avionics and have worldwide GPS now, as well as CPDLC (Controller Pilot Data Link Communications), which allows for texting with air traffic control rather than using radio, there are still a lot of limitations compared to modern aircraft. CPDLC is especially useful when we’re flying over the ocean, as it reduces radio congestion and makes communication clearer than high-frequency radios. It’s a huge help in those long oceanic flights. We also have sat phones, so we can literally pick up a phone if needed, but that’s a backup.
However, we don’t have some of the newer technologies that would make flying a lot easier. For example, our 1985 757 has autoland, which can actually land the plane and brake it perfectly on the runway. The DC-8 doesn’t have that, and navigation is much less precise.
The autopilot in the DC-8 is much like an old version you’d find in a small plane—it works, but it’s not as smooth or responsive as modern systems. And in today’s aircraft, automation is everything. They’ll calculate everything for you, tell you what to do if something goes wrong, and make it all as seamless as possible. On the DC-8, we have to rely on physical charts and manuals to look things up or figure out what to do in an emergency. You just adapt your thinking and planning around that.
So, yeah, the lack of modern features like those leading-edge devices, autopilot, and automated systems definitely makes it more challenging. But it’s something you learn to manage. The systems are older, slower, and not as precise, but you adjust your speed, planning, and approach accordingly.
Samaritan’s Purse Has No Plans to Retire N782SP Anytime Soon
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What is the future of N782SP?
John: As long as the ministry has a need for it, N782SP will stay in service. There’s always a need, and it’s hard to replace something that fits the mission so perfectly. There may come a time down the road when it will be grounded due to things like parts becoming unavailable, the simulator no longer being accessible, or not being able to find qualified pilots. I don’t know when that will happen, but right now, our intent is to keep it going.
The DC-8’s combi layout is ideal for the ministry’s needs, and finding a comparable replacement is tough. Very few 757 combis still exist, and those are pretty much all in operation with other air carriers. While a 757 or 767 could offer similar range and payload, they don’t have the combi conversion. This meant that we’d lose the ability to carry both passengers and cargo on the same flight. If we replaced the DC-8 with one of those, we’d have to rethink how we do the mission. Passengers would need to travel via other means, like on an airline, which changes everything. So, for now, we plan to keep flying it.
Eventually, though, the DC-8 will reach the end of her run. That is a reality we will have to face at some point.
AvGeekery: So, for now, it’s full speed ahead?
John Morgan: For now, yes. You know, I can’t say enough about the maintenance team here. They are superb. I’ve flown DC-8s all my life and have worked with a lot of maintenance teams, but these guys are extraordinary. They keep the aircraft in top-notch condition, and they don’t allow anything to deteriorate. They address issues immediately.
I think their dedication to the mission is a huge part of what makes this work. We’re all driven by the same heart for God, and everyone understands how important it is to get these planes where they need to go. We’re all trying to be the hands and feet of Jesus, and the team’s commitment to keeping the DC-8 flying is a testament to that.
Even with the limitations of an older aircraft, we’ve established protocols that keep us safe and on track. The fact that we’ve done 42 missions to Poland—sometimes one or two times a week—for an aircraft that’s almost 60 years old is a testament to God’s blessings and the incredible team we have.
Trust Your Training, Your Team, and Your Purpose
IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Have you experienced any scares or emergencies in your time as a DC-8 pilot?
John: I’ve had my fair share of heart-stopping moments. One that comes to mind is a false fire warning. Now, when that fire warning light goes off, you don’t know if it’s false. You just see this big red light flashing, alarms blaring, and you go straight into emergency mode. Everyone’s running through the checklist, and in that moment, you’re assuming the worst. Turns out, it wasn’t a fire—it was just an overheat situation. But you don’t get the luxury of assuming that in the moment. You treat it like the real deal until you’re absolutely sure.
And then, of course, there are those times when the weather keeps things interesting. You run into terrible conditions on approach, and suddenly, it’s not just about flying—it’s about making sure you can get the aircraft stable before touchdown. Sometimes, that final approach is rough enough that you feel your heart jump into your throat, and you have to decide if you can land or if it’s time to go around. Those moments test your skills, but they also remind you why good training and experience matter.
I also had a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) warning when I was flying with Miami. We were on approach to Guatemala City, Guatemala (GUA) completely in the clouds, and the captain had gone slightly off course because of a bad vector. Suddenly, the CFIT alarm goes off—meaning either the terrain is coming up fast, or we are coming down too fast toward it.
And let me tell you, when you’re in the soup with no visibility and that thing starts screaming at you, you react immediately. We made the necessary corrections and climbed out of it, but for a few seconds, we had no idea what the threat actually was—we just had to trust the warning and act. Obviously, we didn’t hit the mountains, but it’s one of those moments that stays with you.
Flying into high-risk areas presents its own set of challenges. We go to high-risk areas, but we haven’t had a high-risk outcome in the places that we go. One mission to Nepal had us flying over a small sliver of Afghanistan. We had clearance, but you always keep in mind that the State Department advises staying above 33,000 feet—high enough to avoid shoulder-launched missiles. It’s a stark reminder that while we’re up there doing our job, things on the ground can be unpredictable.
Then you have the geopolitical side of things, which can complicate a mission. When I was flying to Armenia, Turkey—because of its support for Azerbaijan—wouldn’t let us take the most direct route through their airspace. That forced us to go over the Black Sea. Normally, this might sound fine, except that’s where the Russian Black Sea fleet is. With the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia has been jamming GPS signals to protect their fleet from satellite-guided munitions. Problem is, we need those satellites to navigate.
So now you’re crossing the Black Sea, navigating without reliable GPS, and relying on your own situational awareness and Turkish air traffic control to make sure you stay exactly where you’re supposed to be. You don’t want to accidentally drift into a war zone or an intercept situation. Everyone in the cockpit is locked in—it’s not fear, but a heightened level of awareness. You stay on your A-game until you clear the area and the GPS comes back online. It’s a reminder of just how connected aviation is to global events.
You’re constantly adapting to whatever’s thrown at you. But we’re a faith-based organization, and we’re bold in what we do. We believe in our mission, and we operate with absolute professionalism. Risk management is a big part of it. We take every precaution to make sure we’re handling things the right way. At the end of the day, you trust your training, your team, and your purpose. That’s how you get the job done.
Memories Made Along the Way
John Morgan and his team in Poland, preparing to evacuate Ukrainian refugees to Canada | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: What are some of your most memorable missions?
Ukraine
John: Definitely the Ukrainian mission. That one was special because we got to really see and interact with the people who had lost so much. A lot of times, we’re just the connection—the ones flying the supplies in or transporting people to a safer place—but in Ukraine, we were right there, bringing people into the open arms of Samaritan’s Purse. They were stepping off our aircraft after escaping unimaginable circumstances, and Samaritan’s Purse was there to help them through it.
As a flight crew, we don’t always get to see that side of the mission. In places like Mekelle (Ethiopia) or Chad, we see the locals, but we don’t always meet the people receiving the life-saving aid. Sometimes, they’re incredibly appreciative. Other times, they’re just trying to figure out who we are and why we’re there. And those are the moments when we get to talk to them, to explain that we’re with Samaritan’s Purse, here to help in Jesus’ name. That we’re an international relief organization. It’s meaningful to be part of that conversation.
The Afghanistan Withdrawal
We were also flying into an air base outside of Doha in 2021 when the Afghanistan withdrawal was happening, and the suicide bombing at the Kabul airport took place. That base was where all the Afghanistan operations were being directed from during wartime and, of course, during the withdrawal. We had people on board who were originally headed into Afghanistan to assist with the situation on the ground.
But while we were in the air, everything changed. Suddenly, the entire military operation was shifting, and by the time we landed, their mission had completely changed. A lot of Afghan refugees had already been brought to the air base. Our people ended up being redirected to assist with the encampments there instead. That’s just how it goes in these kinds of operations—one moment, you have a clear plan, and the next, you’re adapting in real-time to whatever is happening on the ground.
A Coup in Niger
Geopolitical issues impact our flights all the time. One example that sticks out is when we had an aircraft departing the Canary Islands for Chad. The crew was literally at the end of the runway, ready to take off. Suddenly, they were told they couldn’t go because a coup was unfolding in Niger. The airspace was shut down while we were on the ground, and that meant we couldn’t take the planned route. We had to delay for a day, figure out a completely new routing that avoided Niger’s airspace, and make sure we weren’t flying through an active conflict zone.
That’s the kind of thing people don’t always realize about what we do. These flights aren’t like going from Memphis to New York, where you have radar coverage, air traffic controllers guiding you the whole way, and perfect communications. When we operate, there’s always an element of unpredictability. Airspace restrictions, geopolitical tensions, even just the basic infrastructure—everything is tenuous. You always have to be ready to adapt.
The Ukraine Missions: “A Reminder of Why We Do What We Do”
A mother and her child board N782SP in Poland | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
AvGeekery: Take us back to the Ukraine mission. Samaritan’s Purse played a crucial role in humanitarian relief in the opening days of the Ukraine-Russia war. Tell us more about why that was such a special mission for you.
John: When the war broke out, we were there within a week. Our initial missions were to Poland. Like any disaster response, we never know how many flights we’ll end up making. It just evolves based on the need. At first, we were flying twice a week for several months, then we scaled back to once a week. In total, we completed 42 missions to Poland—it was a significant effort over an extended period of time.
One thing that made this mission especially meaningful was that, as pilots, we don’t usually get to see the final impact of what we’re carrying. Most of the time, we land, offload, and take off again without witnessing where the supplies go. But in this case, we were able to be part of something even bigger.
We all saw on the news how, in those early days, Ukrainian men had to stay behind and fight while women, children, and the elderly fled. Canada, which has one of the largest Ukrainian populations outside of Ukraine, launched a special program to accept as many refugees as possible, provided they met the requirements. Samaritan’s Purse Canada worked through our teams already on the ground in Poland and Ukraine to organize return flights for displaced Ukrainians. Instead of flying back empty, we transported families. We relocated women, children, grandmothers, and grandfathers to Toronto, where Samaritan’s Purse Canada helped them start fresh.
Boarding the long flight to Toronto | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
For the first time, our flight crews had direct contact with the people we were helping. These were families who had lost everything. They had a single suitcase, a coat, maybe a hat. Many had walked for miles from their homes in Ukraine to reach the Polish border. Then they made their way to Krakow or Warsaw, where they were gathered for evacuation. Seeing their resilience and being part of their journey was incredibly moving.
There were moments on those long flights that really stood out. Sometimes, a passenger with musical talent would help lift spirits. I remember one flight where a woman played Ukrainian songs on her fiddle, and her children sang along. It was beautiful—such a powerful moment of nationalism, hope, and emotion. For all of us onboard, it was a reminder of why we do what we do.
In total, we completed ten of those refugee flights, relocating about 300 people to safety. It was an honor to be part of that mission, to be the nexus between everything they had known and the start of something new.
Preparing to evacuate Ukrainian refugees from Poland to Canada in 2022 | IMAGE: Courtesy of Samaritan’s Purse
Heeding the Call: Exploring Humanitarian Aviation
AvGeekery: What advice do you have for folks who have an interest in humanitarian aviation?
John Morgan: There are some really good organizations out there to look into. If you’re already a trained pilot, I’d recommend exploring faith-based aviation programs. Many of these organizations operate in different parts of the world.
If you’re looking to start training—whether as a mechanic or a pilot—there are some great schools out there that focus specifically on missionary and humanitarian aviation. Liberty University in Virginia, LeTourneau University in Texas, Moody Aviation in Washington, and the School of Missionary Technology in Michigan are all excellent options. I’m sure there are others, but these are some of the well-known programs that prepare people for this kind of work. They don’t just train you to fly. They teach you how faith-based aviation missions operate and how to be effective in the field.
Typically, when you start out, you’d begin flying something like a Cessna 182 or a Cessna 206. These are examples of aircraft that are great for short fields and can carry a solid payload. As you gain experience, you’d eventually qualify to fly a Cessna Caravan, which is a single-engine turbine. That’s actually the smallest aircraft we operate at Samaritan’s Purse. Once you reach that level, SP would love to have a conversation with you about serving in one of the locations where we have aircraft stationed.
Many of the people working here came through schools like Moody or LeTourneau. They knew early on that this was the direction they wanted to go. They felt called to join a faith-based aviation mission, and they sought out the right training to make that happen. I’d highly encourage anyone who feels that same calling to pursue it.
It’s not easy work. It’s challenging in so many ways. But it’s also incredibly rewarding. I will forever be grateful that I played a small part in it.
Improving flight safety and efficiency have been two major areas of focus for NASA in recent years. It has been working on projects involving research in air traffic surveillance and operations, and new flight technologies and missions. These efforts to move aviation forward make it clear that NASA is concentrating on more than just going to space.
Air Traffic Management system to provide data to pilots and controllers
NASA’s Air Traffic Management eXploration (ATM-X) project is one of these areas of focus. With ATM-X, NASA is studying how to make digital information- data- more available and useful for pilots and air traffic controllers. It includes subprojects on unmanned aircraft traffic management, a digital information platform (DIP), Pathfinding for Airspace with Autonomous Vehicles (PAAV), and NAS Exploratory Concepts & Technologies (NExCT).
Artist depiction of a future vertiport supporting requiring effective air traffic safety and efficiency controls. | Image: NASA
NASA is seeking ways for its ATM-X research to modernize the overall national airspace system. This is the network of the network of U.S. aviation infrastructure including airports, air navigation facilities, and communications. These subprojects add up to making flight operations safer through computing, communications, and automated technologies.
Cloud-based system similar to navigation apps on smartphones
One of these subprojects, DIP, is a cloud-based program similar to an app for a smartphone. It is a “living database” that will provide users with data on weather, delays, traffic, and more. DIP will gather current data from sources like airlines and drones.
NASA describes DIP as operating in a way similar to how smartphone navigation apps get information from various sources to suggest the best route to take. This can help improve air traffic flows, and lead to significant fuel savings. The goal is to help air traffic controllers make flying safer and more efficient.
Drones will increase air traffic in already congested areas. | Image: NASA
NASA stressed that DIP will not compete with other information sources and tools, but that it will be a useful reference to assist with air traffic for the entire aviation industry. NASA has been testing DIP in several Texas airports.
Digital tools show promise in reducing aircraft fuel use
During 2022, a NASA machine learning tool under DIP named the Collaborative Digital Departure Rerouting tool improved the flow of air traffic in the Dallas area and saved more than 24,000 pounds of fuel. NASA is optimistic about the future of DIP.
Image showing the types of information pilots and controllers will get from technology like the Collaborative Digital Departure Rerouting tool. Image: NASA
“Ultimately, the aviation industry – the Federal Aviation Administration, commercial airlines, flight operators, and even the flying public – will benefit from what we develop,” said Swati Saxena, DIP project manager at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California.
NASA conducts tests to improve signal coverage and reduce interference
NASA has also been focusing on improving air traffic with the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system. With ADS-B, the FAA requires aircraft to announce their locations to other aircraft and air traffic control in real time. NASA has been testing ADS-Bs ability to prevent mid-air collisions.
NASA is using the Pilatus PC-12 to test Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) grid coverage. | Image: NASA
Using a Pilatus PC-12 plane flying over a grid of four ADS-B stations, they can tell exactly where signals drop due to the plane’s altitude, distance from the stations, and interference. From this, they can determine where to place additional stations to increase signal coverage. One of NASA’s goals for this project is to make signal coverage consistent for future air taxis and other new aircraft flying through congested areas.
Autonomous flights prove collision avoidance ability of software
In October 2023, NASA conducted more than a dozen test flights of two Sikorsky research helicopters. One was a modified S-76B, and the other was a Black Hawk. This was unique because both helicopters were flying autonomously. They had test pilots on board, but they did not touch the controls. Flying over Long Island Sound near Connecticut, they relied on software designed by NASA to avoid each other and other aircraft in the area. NASA, working with Sikorsky and DARPA, designed the tests to evaluate their automated flight systems and software.
Sikorsky S-76B and Black Hawk flying autonomously during test of collision-avoidance software. | Image: NASA
Autonomous helicopters fly in mixed-reality airspace
“For this test, we are using a model of future Advanced Air Mobility airspace with more than 150 virtual aircraft and their flight plans integrated with the flight path management software and the Sikorsky mission manager technology to fly the two helicopters in a mixed-reality mode,” said Mark Ballin, principal investigator for flight path management system development.
Mixed-reality airspace made for very crowded airspace during tests of autonomous helicopters. | Image: NASA
Development of autonomous aircraft increases need for software controls
The software made the helicopters work together, changing altitude, speed, and directions to avoid virtual collisions while maintaining patterns prior to landing. NASA hopes the results of these tests will result in safe, efficient autonomous flights as the technology develops.
These are just a few of the efforts NASA is making to improve aviation traffic safety and efficiency. As vehicles like air taxis and drones become more widespread, the airspace above our cities will become even more crowded. With the recent tragic incidents involving collisions and crashes, these efforts by NASA and aircraft manufacturers are becoming especially important.
Some passengers on a recent Qatar Airways flight walked away with a memorable experience, upset after being forced to sit with a dead lady on their dream trip to Venice.
The innocent bystanders, a married Australian couple, were flying from Melbourne to Doha. All was well, until about 10 hours into the flight.
A Qatar Airways A350-1000 from Doha (DOH) moments from touchdown at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Passenger collapsed
According to Australian news outlet “A Current Affair,” a large female passenger was using the nearby bathroom. Lord only knows what happened in that bathroom, because when she came out she collapsed next to the couple, and died.
“It was pretty heartbreaking to watch,” said Mitchell Ring, one-half of the Australian couple who would soon be even closer to the dead passenger. “They tried to wheel her up towards business class, but she was quite a large lady and they couldn’t get her through the aisle.”
With business class not an option, the crew decided to sit the deceased next to the Australian couple.
Qatar Airways Airbus A330-300 (Reg. F-WWKF) | IMAGE: Md Shaifuzzaman Ayon via Wikimedia Commons
“They said, ‘Can you move over please?’ and I just said, ‘Yes no problem. Then they placed the lady in the chair I was in.”
The crew would not allow the couple to move
For the next 4 hours, Ring and his wife had to sit next to the dead woman, claiming the crew would not allow the couple to move elsewhere when they asked.
Photo credit: Qatar Airways
“I can’t believe they told us to stay, it wasn’t nice,” added Ring.
Qatar Airways has contacted passengers to apologize for the unexpected incident. “Our thoughts are with the family of the passenger who sadly passed away on board our flight” said Qatar in a statement.
If You Flew a Short or Medium Distance Segment Over a Nearly 50 Year Period, You Probably Flew the Douglas DC-9
The Douglas Aircraft Corporation designed and built many iconic aircraft over the company’s existence between 1921 and 1967 when they became McDonnell-Douglas. Think of any military aircraft name with Sky- as the prefix that comes to mind and you probably picked a winner. But there were more successful Douglas designs that entered production and fought wars than any other manufacturer. An argument can be made that overall Douglas was the most successful designer and builder of aircraft in general because their passenger aircraft designs stacked success upon success for decades. Douglas DC-9’s success kept this trend alive.
Delta DC-9-50. image via redlegsfan21
Copycatting?
The Douglas DC-8 was the company’s initial foray into four-engine jet transport, and it did not disappoint. But Douglas had no resume when it came to short / medium range twin-engine jetliners. Initially they took some design cues from British Aircraft Corporation’s BAC One-Eleven (111) and Sud Aviation’s SE 210 Caravelle, both similar in concept to what Douglas had in mind. Bear in mind that the DC-9 was not intended to leverage any components from the DC-8 as Boeing’s 727 leveraged components from the 707, using as many common components as possible. The DC-9 would be a clean-sheet design.
SUD Caravelle. image via douglas
Back to That Douglas Drawing Board
The Caravelle was actually the first jetliner designed for the kind of short/medium distance routes Douglas wanted to service with the DC-9. At one point Douglas intended to license the Caravelle to build a derivative of it in the United States, but when no airlines stepped up and expressed interest in the concept it was dropped and Douglas went back to that very successful and highly experienced drawing board. It took some time and a bunch of pencils, but by 1963 Douglas had a design in mind that resembled both the BAC 111 and the SE210, but ended up outperforming them both where it counted. On 8 April 1963 the design was approved and the DC-9 was conceived.
Douglas DC-9 ship one. image via boeing
The DC-9 Difference
The DC-9 would be powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofans mounted singly on either side of the rear fuselage of the jet, slightly forward of and under a tall T-tail empennage. This had several advantages.
For passengers it meant a quieter ride (unless seated in the extreme rear of the cabin). For baggage handlers it meant baggage compartments were closer to ground level which eased access- no pod-mounted engines on the wings made it possible to equip the DC-9 with shorter landing gear. The engines were also less susceptible to taxiway and ramp foreign object damage (FOD). The short-span swept wings were also more efficient with no engine pods slung under them. Full-span flaps made for greater lift at slower speeds around airpatches.
Douglas DC-9s at IAH. image via ken fielding
Taking It With You in a Douglas DC-9
Designed for those short / medium duration flights, potentially into austere airpatches, the DC-9 was equipped with built-in air stairs forward and aft under the empennage. Also mounted in the tail was a Garrett GTCP85 auxiliary power unit (APU) that provided power for the aircraft on the ground and eliminated the need for an external starter cart for departure.
Like (almost) any airliner the seating configuration of the 122.4-inch width cabin was flexible, but the standard arrangement was five across (usually two on the port side and three on the starboard side) in coach and four across in first class. There were multiple seating variations during the service life of the DC-9. Some cabins were configured four across with first-class seats only.
Douglas DC-9 interior. image via cory w watts
Ready. Set. Go!
Douglas built the first (and all subsequent) DC-9s in Building 80 at their Long Beach assembly plant. The first DC-9-10 flew for the first time on 25 February 1965. By July, the initial five DC-9s, joined by another four airframes, went through rigorous testing and received certification on 23 November 1965.
The initial certification put an 80,000 pound weight restriction on the jet because the crew was limited to pilot and copilot only, but the FAA lifted the restriction within a few months. The first DC-9 to go into passenger airline service was a Delta Airlines DC-9-14 registered as N3305L. The aircraft was received by Delta and flew its first revenue flight as flight 791 from Atlanta to Kansas City with a stop in Memphis on 29 November 1965.
Early Delta Douglas DC-9-14. image via national air and space museum
A Great Day for a Small Convertible
The first variant of the DC-9 was the 1X. Operated by more than 50 airlines over its lifespan, the initial aircraft was quite successful and left airline carrier customers wanting more. DC-9-10s were built in a couple of convertible flavors, both with strengthened floors and a port side 11.4 foot by 6.9 foot cargo door that swung up to allow palletized cargo.
The DC-9-15MC (Minimum Change) allowed the passenger seating to be folded up and stowed aft allowing the aircraft to be used for hauling cargo when not hauling passengers. The DC-9-15RC (Rapid Change) had passenger seats mounted on pallets that could be removed and the entire cabin used for cargo. At a length of 104 feet 5 inches the max passenger capacity for the DC-9-10 was 90 pax. Douglas built a total of 137 10 series jetliners.
Douglas DC-9-15. image via RAF_YYC
Bang NEXT PAGE below for the rest of the DC-9 story.
One of Today’s Most Popular Warbirds Is Also One of the Few Prop Fighters to Shoot Down a Jet.
On 21 February 1945, the prototype Hawker Sea Fury flew for the first time. The aircraft was designed by legendary British designer Sydney Camm and manufactured by Hawker for the Royal Navy, but began as an effort to produce an improved version of the earlier Hawker Tempest design for the Royal Air Force.
Although highly successful as a fighter-bomber, the Tempest was considered oversized and overweight for a pure fighter aircraft. The resulting design, first referred to as a Tempest Light Fighter, incorporated many of the Tempest’s characteristics but was smaller, lighter, and considerably faster.
Resurrected to Replace a Legend
As World War II drew to a close, the RAF cancelled its order for the aircraft. However, the Royal Navy saw the design as a suitable carrier aircraft able to replace several of its older, less capable Fleet Air Arm aircraft. Aircraft to be replaced by the Sea Fury included the Supermarine Seafire, a development of the legendary Royal Air Force Spitfire and a great fighter in its own right, but because of its narrow landing gear track and lack of pilot visibility during carrier landings, it was not considered a truly carrier-suitable aircraft.
Getting Into the Blue
The first Sea Fury prototype, SR661, first flew at Langley, Berkshire, on 21 February 1945, powered by a 2.450 horsepower Bristol Centaurus XII engine turning a five-bladed Rotol propeller. SR661 had a tail hook for arrested carrier landings, but was not equipped with folding wings required for storage aboard aircraft carriers.
The first production model of the Sea Fury, the Sea Fury Fighter Mark 10, flew in September 1946. Carrier suitability trials aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Victorious revealed several undesirable tendencies that were quickly corrected during subsequent development. After successful completion of weapons trials at the RAF Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Royal Air Force Station Boscombe Down, the Sea Fury was cleared for operational use on 31 July 1947.
Building a Better Beast
Hawker Aircraft’s effort to develop and refine the Sea Fury Mk X resulted in the more capable Sea Fury FB.11, which was equipped with folding wings. The two-seat Sea Fury T20 was also developed from the FB.11. The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm purchased a total of 615 Sea Furies, the majority of which were the FB.11 type. Total Sea Fury production was 864 airframes of all types.
Hell Hath No Fury Like the Sea Fury 57
A True Fighter-Bomber
Although the Sea Fury had been originally developed as a pure air superiority fighter, the Royal Navy considered the aircraft suitable for ground attack as well. Hawker tested and cleared the type to carry and employ a wide range of armaments, including up to 16 rockets, a combination of 500 or 1000-pound bombs, mines, and drop tanks. The Sea Fury also mounted four 20 millimeter Hispano V cannon in its wings. For photo reconnaissance work, the aircraft could be fitted with both vertical and oblique cameras.
Canadians First to Fly Sea Furies
Fleet Air Arm 778 Squadron (Intensive Flying Development Unit) received the first production Sea Furies in February 1947. In May of 1947, 787 Squadron (Naval Air Fighting Development Squadron) began its development work, putting the Sea Fury to the test. The first operational unit to be equipped with the Sea Fury was Royal Canadian Navy 803 Squadron, which replaced their Seafires with Sea Furies in August 1947. In September of 1947, 807 Squadron became the first operational Royal Navy Sea Fury squadron.
To Sea With the Brits
The Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) began operating Sea Fury FB.11s in August 1951. RNVR units also operated the Sea Fury T.20 two-seat trainer version of the Sea Fury beginning in late 1950. Reserve pilots were able to gain experience in the Sea Fury flying the T.20 before trading their Supermarine Seafires for Sea Fury FB 11s. RNVR 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836 Squadrons were all equipped with Sea Furies. Based at RAF Station Benson, RNVR 1832 Squadron was the final Fleet Air Arm Sea Fury-equipped unit and switched over to the jet-powered Supermarine Attacker in 1955.
image via beau giles
An International Success
Australia, Burma, Canada, Cuba, Egypt, West Germany, Iraq, and Pakistan all operated the Sea Fury- some well into the 1960s. Operators without the requirement for aircraft carrier operations simply removed the tail hooks and catapult bridle mounts from the aircraft. Cuban pilots successfully employed their Sea Furies against the invaders at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.
Bang NEXT PAGE Below For the Rest of the Sea Fury Story- and a Great Video!
On 21 February 1947, United States Army Air Force (USAAF) Boeing B-29-95-BW Superfortress, 45-21768, named the Kee Bird, ran out of fuel due to a navigational error and was forced to land on a small frozen lake in a remote area of northern Greenland. The Kee Bird was a B-29 modified to the F-13 reconnaissance configuration and was assigned to the Strategic Air Command’s 46th Reconnaissance Squadron.
Official US Air Force photograph
Ditched in a Sea of Ice
The Kee Bird’s mission originated at Ladd Army Air Field (Later Ladd Air Force Base) in east central Alaska near Fairbanks. The wheels-up landing on the ice was successful and the crew was uninjured. Three days later the crew was rescued by a C-54 transport which landed on the same frozen lake and returned to the United States. After the crew had destroyed or removed all classified materials the Kee Bird was abandoned in place. And there the Kee Bird sat, more or less intact, for 47 years.
image via usaf
Would-Be Rescuers With Credentials
Unlimited racing pilot and former SR-71 test pilot Daryl Greenamyer led a team of aircraft restorers to the Greenland emergency landing site in July of 1994. Greenamyer held several speed records in a variety of racing aircraft over the years. One of his creations, an F-104 Starfighter, was pieced together from various parts obtained primarily from wrecks, hulks, and scrap piles- so if anyone was prepared for the job of restoring a crash-landed B-29 in-place on the Greenland icecap it was probably Greenamyer.
Image via USAF
Worth the Effort and Expense?
Greenamyer’s plan was to put the B-29 into flying condition on-site and fly Kee Bird out of the site to Thule Air Force Base in Greenland where additional work would be performed to make the aircraft airworthy before flying her back to the United States. The United States Air Force had long ago surrendered any claim to the Kee Bird. If Greenamyer and his team could get the Kee Bird off the ice intact for a short ferry flight to Thule she would become only the second airworthy B-29 in the world at the time.
image via usaf
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome, Tragedy
Using uncommon ingenuity and determination in the face of the austere nature of their facilities and available resources, Greenamyer’s team was able to replace the Kee Bird’s engines and propellers, mount new tires, and resurface the aircraft’s control surfaces which had succumbed to the harsh weather on Greenland’s ice cap. But as winter’s first snow began to fall Greenamyer’s chief engineer, Rick Kriege, had to be transported to a hospital in Canada where he died from a blood clot two weeks later. Greenamyer’s team had run out of time before the winter weather would make any further work on the Kee Bird impossible. Kee Bird would spend at least one more winter on the Greenland ice cap.
Greenamyer returned with additional personnel and equipment in May of 1995. Remaining repairs were completed and the aircraft was prepared for takeoff from the frozen lake on 21 May 1995. Using a small bulldozer that had been airlifted to the site, a crude runway was carved out of the packed snow on the surface of the frozen lake. After successfully starting the newly-installed Wright R-3350 engines and with everything in the “green”, the aircraft was lined up for takeoff.
Image via NOVA
Lucky to Get Out Alive
As Greenamyer taxied the aircraft onto the smoother surface of the frozen lake, the jury-rigged fuel tank for the B-29’s auxiliary power unit (APU) in the rear fuselage started leaking aviation fuel into the aircraft. A fire broke out and quickly spread to the rest of the fuselage. The cockpit crew exited the aircraft unharmed but one crew member who was located in the middle fuselage eyeballing the engines for takeoff was slightly burned and suffered from smoke inhalation.
Burned to the Ground
The fire quickly spread through the fuselage despite attempts to extinguish it from outside the plane. The Kee Bird’s fuselage was almost totally destroyed on the ground. The wings remained largely intact. It was feared that the wreckage (with nearly intact wing panels and engines) would sink to the bottom when the lake thawed in the spring. Already thinking about salvaging whatever parts he could from the Kee Bird, Greenamyer and his team were forced to watch as the Kee Bird and all of their work and sacrifice went up in flames.
Image via NASA
There She Still Sits
In 2014 a NASA Lockheed P-3 Orion was able to capture images of the remnants of the Kee Bird as it sat broken, crumpled, and burned on the Greenland ice cap. Every now and then someone will post pictures taken with what remains of the Kee Bird. When the Kee Bird took off on 21 February 1947, despite the best efforts of Greenamyer and his team, it was indeed her final flight.
You can watch a NOVA documentary on the Kee Bird. This recording of the show was uploaded to YouTube by sogostes.
TWA’s name change ushered in an era of transatlantic glamour
On 17 May 1950, Transcontinental & Western Air underwent a corporate name change. Keeping the initials TWA, the company adopted the powerful yet elegant moniker Trans World Airlines. This new corporate name and its initials would become recognized and respected around the world for excellent service.
It was also inextricably linked to its primary stockholder, the enigmatic Howard Hughes, who technically owned 78% of the company. Hughes controlled things at TWA behind the scenes, particularly the number and types of aircraft the airline purchased.
TWA had been referring to itself unofficially as the “Trans World Airline” since 1946, when scheduled service was inaugurated across the North Atlantic to Paris.
Only 10 Boeing 307 Stratoliners were built. Five of them served with TWA. Jon Proctor Collection
In the spring of 1950, TWA was operating a fleet of 41 Lockheed Constellations (models L-049 and L-749, with the first of the new 749As coming online), 16 unpressurized Douglas DC-4s, 62 unpressurized DC-3s, and 5 Boeing 307 Stratoliners.
In 1950, TWA’s fleet included 62 Douglas DC-3s. Bob Archer photo from the Jon Proctor Collection
THE MARTINS
To replace DC-3s on TWA’s short-haul routes, Hughes turned his attention to the Glenn L. Martin Company, which was offering to build a 40-passenger, pressurized airliner to be called the Martin 404. Eastern Air Lines (EAL) ordered sixty of the new ships, and TWA requested forty.
While waiting for delivery of the 404s, TWA leased twelve unpressurized, 36-passenger Martin 202As from the manufacturer as a stopgap measure. The 202As performed so well for TWA that the company exercised its option to purchase them in addition to the forty 404s. TWA referred to its 52 Martins (unpressurized 202As and pressurized 404s) as “Martin Skyliners”. TWA operated its first scheduled Martin 202A service on 1 September 1950, and its first Martin 404 scheduled flight on 15 January 1952.
TWA purchased 40 Martin 404s and 12 Martin 202As to serve short-haul routes and smaller cities on the company’s system. Martin 404 N40420 was photographed by Mel Lawrence at Chicago—Midway (MDW) in 1959.
THE CONNIES
It was Lockheed’s Constellations that would become so closely associated with Trans World Airlines. The distinctive triple-tailed, pressurized Connies would become synonymous with TWA throughout the 1950s as Hughes considered purchasing each subsequent upgrade of the type.
Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation N6909C. Jon Proctor Collection
With each new offering from Douglas, its primary competitor, Lockheed would create a stretched, more powerful, more luxurious version of its Constellation series. The L-1049 Super Constellation was Lockheed’s answer to the DC-7.
It was with an L-1049 that TWA offered the first scheduled non-stop transcontinental service in the USA (eastbound, with cooperating winds) on 19 October 1953, just over a month ahead of American Airlines’ introduction of DC-7s on the same route (Los Angeles – New York).
The L-1049G “Super G” Constellation entered service with TWA in the spring of 1955. David H. Stringer Collection
The next advance was a Constellation that could ensure non-stop coast-to-coast operation in either direction without the need for a fuel stop, regardless of weather conditions or headwinds. Christened the L-1049G, the “Super G” became the most popular version of the tri-tailed airliner ever produced. It entered service with TWA in the spring of 1955.
The L-1049 G “Super G” became the most popular model in the Lockheed Constellation series. Mel Lawrence photo from the George Hamlin Collection
FLY THE FINEST: Fly TWA
The slogan, “Fly the Finest… Fly TWA”, was introduced in 1953. This simple motto was repeated in television, radio, and print ads until it became familiar to virtually everyone. The general public believed that there was nothing finer than flying TWA.
And fly they did: More than three million passengers took to the skies with TWA in 1954. That figure increased yearly until 5,130,000 passengers “flew the finest” in 1959.
TWA was one of the four largest domestic airlines in the USA, along with American, United, and Eastern. Known as the Big Four, they outshone all other domestic carriers in terms of passenger revenue and passenger miles flown. TWA posted a profit each year between 1949 and 1955. After two years of losses, profitability returned in 1958 and ’59.
The company advertised that there was nothing finer than flying TWA.
BEHIND THE SCENES
The difficulty of running an airline with an owner who insisted on calling the shots, even though he was often unreachable, was proving to be a stressful endeavor. Ralph Damon had been TWA’s president since 1949. He was able to work with Hughes and took the owner’s idiosyncrasies in stride. Unfortunately, Damon suffered an untimely death after dedicating a big neon TWA billboard in New York’s Times Square while enduring windy, frigid winter weather in late 1955. He passed away from pneumonia on 4 January 1956.
TWA remained without a president until a year later, when Carter Burgess assumed the office on 23 January 1957. Burgess could not work with Hughes and lasted less than a year, resigning on 31 December 1957. Charles S. Thomas was next. He began his term on 2 July 1958, lasting two years until July 1960.
Lockheed’s L-1649A Starliner was the ultimate version of the Constellation series. Howard Hughes ordered 25 of them for TWA. The airline referred to the type as the Jetstream. Jon Proctor Collection
JETSTREAMS
Hughes decided to buy the ultimate version of his much-loved Constellation, the L-1649A Starliner, which TWA would call the Jetstream. Twenty-five Jetstreams were ordered, and they entered service with TWA in the spring of 1957. In October of that year, the Jetstreams were outfitted with fully reclining “Siesta seats.” Even though they were not money-makers, they were the last of the big piston-engine airliners, offering luxurious accommodations in flight across the US and the Atlantic in the short period before the dawn of the jet age.
Fly The Finest: How TWA Became a Synonym for the Best in Air Travel 76
On 2 October 1957, TWA inaugurated trans-polar service from the West Coast (Los Angeles and San Francisco) direct to London and Paris using Jetstreams. On the other side of the globe, in January 1958, TWA inaugurated service to Bangkok and Manila with Super-G Constellations as an extension of the company’s route from Europe, the Middle East, and India.
TWA’s first jet, a Boeing 707, rolls out of the Boeing hangar at Renton, Washington. Jon Proctor Collection
INTO THE JET AGE
The company’s first pure-jet service was operated by a Boeing 707-131 on 20 March 1959, between San Francisco and New York (Idlewild – now JFK). Eight months later, on 23 November 1959, TWA inaugurated international jet service with a Boeing 707-331 operating from New York to London and Frankfurt.
TWA entered the 1960s ready to tackle the jet age head-on and, on the surface, all seemed well. But there was turbulence on the horizon for Howard Hughes. The first years of the new decade would find him embroiled in litigation with TWA’s management and the airline’s other lenders. He was also in hot water with the Civil Aeronautics Board.
The slogan inviting the public to “Fly the Finest” was dropped as the 1950s came to a close. But TWA would survive!
It’s hard to believe it’s been nearly a quarter of a century since Vanguard Airlines ceased operations. The airline, which was founded in 1994, specialized in providing low-cost air travel to leisure travelers. However, it lasted only eight years. The airline never really found its perfect niche as it entered and exited a number of markets and types of service. It even tried business class for a while!
The carrier ceased operations on 29 July 2002.
Vanguard Airlines will always have a special place in the hearts of avgeeks, though, particularly those who grew up in the Midwest. Here are five reasons we miss Vanguard Airlines:
1.) Ultra-low fares with better service than the ultra-low cost carriers of today
$10 tickets with enough leg-room for a full-size adult and no bag fees? Yes, please! Vanguard was a no-frills airline, but they were affordable. These ultra-low fares were Vanguard’s bread and butter and allowed it to become a major player in the low-cost heyday of the late 1990s. While these low prices came with a few rules (no online booking and no ticket changes), they were a welcome sight to thousands of college students and families traveling on vacation. Although Frontier, Spirit, Breeze, Avelo, and Allegiant offer similar fares today, they charge you for bag fees, snacks, and even water in some cases.
2.) Full-size jets to regional-sized cities
In the late 1990s, regional jets were an emerging craze. While many would say that riding on a CRJ-200 was an improvement over a Saab 340 or Metroliner, they were still cramped. For a time, Vanguard leveraged its Kansas City hub and Chicago Midway focus city to connect smaller cities like Colorado Springs, Austin, Buffalo, and Myrtle Beach with larger markets in Florida, New York City, and the West Coast. The combination of low fares and service to these smaller markets opened up new, affordable travel options.
3.) Their classic jets were loud (Jurassic jets by today’s standards) and fun to fly on
For the first few years of Vanguard’s operations, they flew a fleet of well-maintained but second-hand Boeing 737-200s. With the classic clam-shell reversers, rumbling cabin, and sporty performance, it felt more like riding on a rocket from Kansas City to Chicago Midway. Vanguard later added a few Boeing 737-300s and attempted to ‘modernize’ their fleet with a ragtag bunch of used MD-81s, MD-82s, and MD-87s.
4.) Upstart Vanguard wasn’t afraid to challenge the big guys
As consumers, we loved that Vanguard would often enter a prime market like DFW airport and kick off a major fare war with both Delta and American. Back in 1996, Vanguard came into the Dallas/Fort Worth market with guns blazing. They announced service to Kansas City, Chicago Midway, and Wichita, Kansas.
American responded forcefully. They matched fares, added flights, and forced Vanguard to abandon Wichita service after just a few months. In retrospect, challenging the ‘bigs’ on their home turf wasn’t a very smart move. For Texans hamstrung by American’s high fares (Southwest was limited by the Wright Amendment at Love back then), Vanguard was a hero for trying.
Vanguard Airlines attempted to transition to an MD-80-based fleet in order to offer more non-stop service to the West Coast from Chicago Midway and Kansas City. Unfortunately, they ran out of money before the transition was complete. (Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
5.) Vanguard’s no-frills felt ahead of their time
In many ways, Vanguard Airlines was ahead of its time, even with its old jets. They offered e-ticketing ahead of most other low-cost carriers at the time. With all-coach Boeing 737s in just a single class configuration and mostly leisure travelers, it would have been easy to mistake Vanguard for a more modern ultra-low cost carrier like Spirit or Frontier rather than what they were: a classic no-frills airline. Vanguard was simple, but efficient and friendly. We miss them.
Icelandic carrier PLAY Airlines arranged a wedding to take place tens of thousands of feet in the air on Valentines Day. The couple was joined by over 200 other passengers on board.
This isn’t the first time a couple has gotten married during a flight. Couples have opted to get married either improvised on board a flight or pre-arranged by the crew or airline of choice.
A Match Booked in Heaven
PLAY Airlines arranged an in-flight wedding between an Icelandic groom and French bride on 14 February, 2025. The aircraft departed Keflavik International Airport in Iceland, and arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France with a new husband and wife.
Icelandic tour guide Alexander Valur Wium Brynjólfsson, 26, and his fiancé Kita were reportedly indecisive on where to get married. Ultimately, they decided to get married in the air directly in the middle of both nations.
Brynjólfsson explained the decision further with People Magazine:
“We love traveling. When we heard about the idea that it was possible to get married on board this flight, we thought, why not? It just fit perfectly with all of our adventures, to get married in the skies between Iceland and France.”
The couple tied the knot exactly halfway through the flight to Paris. At least 200 other passengers were on board during the ceremony, unaware of the wedding in advance.
PLAY reportedly assigned specific crew members for this particular flight. Both the captain and first officer were on board the flight with their mates who are also flight attendants. Two additional crew members who are in a relationship also were on the romantic flight.
History of Inflight Weddings
Inflight weddings have occurred once every few years, whether planned or unplanned, though more have made headlined recently. In February 2021, Virgin Australia hosted its first ever inflight wedding on a flight from Melbourne to Sydney. The ceremony took place five days after Valentine’s Day due to COVID-19 restrictions.
In April 2022, a couple already dressed for the occasion was looking to get married in Las Vegas, only for their connecting flight from Dallas to get cancelled. They met an ordained minister who helped arrange them a new flight, but after a discussion with the flight’s captain, they decided to hold the ceremony on the Southwest flight.
In July of the same year, Uganda Airlines held a promotion for couples who were interested in getting married in-flight. The airlines called these Sky Celebrations. The airline also accepted bookings for marriage proposals as well as anniversaries.
American Airlines would have been the launch customer of the incredibly unique quad-engine Breguet 941.
The 1950s and 1960s were truly a marvelous era for AvGeeks. It was a transition from the graceful lines of the Lockheed Connie and Convairs to the first generation of screaming turbojets (what’s a fan?) pouring out obscene contrails of black smoke.
The pilots were dashing, the flight attendants classy. It was also an era of experimentation and ideas. One such idea was how to reach passengers in rural or austere areas of the country which could not otherwise be supported with the current fleet of aircraft. And that is where this story begins…
The Problem
In 1968, the population of the entire United states was 201.2 million. For context, the current population is approximately 342.1 million, which represents a 70.1% increase. The population density and demographics were considerably different in 1969 than they are now, with much of the population living a more rural existence.
A lot of the major suburbs that we see know were still farm communities in the 1960s. Also, the Vietnam War was in full swing at the time, and air travel was not readily available in a lot of communities on the outer reaches of the U.S. The Breguet could potentially connect communities like Joliet and Bloomington or even Meigs in downtown to Chicago O’Hare or connecting Westchester and Connecticut suburbs to JFK.
Since the late 60’s, airports which would have been target markets have since grown considerably in infrastructure and capacity. In fact, towered GA operations in 1970 were less than half of what they would be in 1979, a remarkable feat considering the oil crisis was smack dab in the middle of that decade.
This is an indicator of the self-reliant, uncontrolled nature of aviation that defined an era. But these airports lacked the characteristics to support even the most robust prop-driven commuters of the time.
Along with vast expanses of rural America, American Airlines also sought out to reach the downtown districts of America. The idea being that commuting passengers could be picked up and delivered much closer to their destinations in airports which had much smaller footprints.
In the era 1960s, jet airliners needed enormous distances for takeoff and rollout; there being no such thing as a CRJ-200s (thank God); no B737-800 operating on sub-6,000’ runways either.
A Short Takeoff and Landing concept was imagined, one where very short and marginally improved runways could be put into service for commercial air travel. And by short, we are talking 1,500’.
Since turbojets were still quite new in their evolutionary development, the aircraft would be propeller driven, have a wing with a lot of lift, lots and lots of flaps, and a rugged landing gear system.
The Prototype Breguet 941
Photo: San Diego Air and Space Museum
In collaboration with McDonnell Douglas American decided on the obscure Breguet 941, a defunct design from the French aircraft company Breguet. The 941 was a quad-engine, high-wing monoplane with a relatively short range of around 500nm, depending on configuration. Seating would have been just shy of 60 passengers.
On the surface, it honestly looks like a slightly smaller C-130…but looks can be deceiving because the appearance is only skin deep; the 941 held some seriously interesting design features.
How the Breguet 941 was powered
First and foremost were the engines. The 941 was powered by four Turbomeca Turmo III turboprop engines, rated at 1,500shp each. Okay, no big deal right? Well, the Turbomeca engines were originally designed for helicopter use and employed a common method among helicopters of power going through a transmission box rather than going directly to the rotor, for obvious reasons; power must be split in a helo to either a second tandem blade or more commonly to the tail rotor. However, fixed wing turboprop engines run more or less directly to a prop (for simplicity sake I am omitting talking about reduction drives, etc).
Breguet was keenly aware of an issue which has plagued traditional multi-engine aircraft since their inception which is the imbalance of power and torque when you lose an engine. In a four engine aircraft, you essentially are losing an additional engine to the one which is already out to compensate, making for a potentially dangerous situation.
The 941 employed a radical system to address this issue: run all power through a central gearbox and run all of the propellers off of a central driveshaft. That’s right folks. In the event of a single engine failure, the aircraft still had 75% of it’s available power and all four props would still produce equal thrust.
Breguet 941 had other innovations too
One other design characteristic of the 941 that is noteworthy are the flaps. This design just blows my mind. To say that they barn doors is a tragic understatement; the 941 was designed in the deflected-slipstream technique to optimize lift. The flaps were full wingspan and double-slotted, and had a maximum deflection of 98° for the interior flaps, and 65°for the outer flap sections.
With so much surface area devoted to flaps, the 941 adopted a common control surface technique in utilizing four spoilers for roll control.
Downsides to the Breguet 941
As truly interesting and unique as the Breguet 941 was, American Airlines ultimately scrapped the joint venture with McDonnell Douglas and only four of the aircraft were ever built. The interconnected propeller system is a great idea which is a considerable safety feature, but it also added a lot of weight to the aircraft in regard to the central gearbox and drive shafts.
These added considerable complexity to the aircraft as well, and as we all know, complexity equals cost. The design just did not solve enough problems to implement it, but it is certainly a totally unique design for AvGeeks to ponder and admire.
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 84
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.
Today, we take a look at better times for Trans World Airlines (TWA), back when the airline dominated Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL). Enjoy footage of tri-jets galore, along with various TWA liveries and a few special liveries mixed in.
As far back as 1957, TWA led STL operations (44 weekday departures compared to 24 for the runner-up AAL). In 1979, deregulation forced TWA to transition to a hub-and-spoke business model that would further concentrate and expand its operations at STL.
In particular, the realignment prompted TWA to reconsider its other hubs in Kansas City (MCI) and Chicago (ORD). Kansas City proved far too small to serve as a hub, even though it was TWA’s headquarters at the time, and TWA’s Chicago operation hemorrhaged money to the tune of $25 million a year, thanks to stiff competition from American Airlines (AAL) and United Airlines (UAL). Thus, STL seemed to be the best place for TWA to consolidate its operations and establish a primary hub.
The Glory Days
The glory days at Lambert-St.Louis International Airport (STL), showing an Ozark DC-9-30 and a pair of TWA L-1011s on the ramp | IMAGE: St. Louis International Airport
TWA grew quickly at STL during the 1980s. Indeed, by winter 1982, 20% of TWA’s domestic operations involved STL. 1985 saw further growth with the launch of international nonstop services to London, Frankfurt, and Paris. Consolidation at STL kicked into overdrive when TWA acquired Ozark Airlines in 1986.
Pre-merger TWA accounted for 57% of traffic at STL, and Ozark some 27%. Post-merger, TWA captured an astounding 80% of operations at STL. While TWA itself struggled during the 1990s amid multiple bankruptcies, a softening economy, and the tragedy of TWA Flight 800, its STL operation continued.
At their peak in 2000, total operations at STL numbered some 456,827 flights (all airlines combined with TWA and its regional affiliate operating the vast majority), resulting in 30.5 million passengers deplaned and enplaned. The video featured below documents this time.
Eduard Marmet
Downfall
By late 2000, it became clear that TWA could not stand on its own. In 2001, AAL purchased TWA, relegating it to the history books. The purchase caused great controversy among the employees of the once-great airline, and 9/11 that year further complicated matters, to say the least.
As air travel slowed, realignments were all but inevitable. With hubs in Dallas (DFW) and ORD, there was no room for an AAL hub at STL. Mainline AAL traffic suddenly became regional jet traffic, and international flights ceased. Service by AAL dwindled, and, in so doing, STL hit a (non-pandemic) low of 12.3 million passengers in 2010, a far cry from the record 30.5 million TWA once helped the airport set.
To this day, STL runs at about half the capacity it used to, having served just 15.3 million passengers in 2025.
Regardless of the controversy and tough times many at TWA endured, it’s worth taking time to look back on what was. Thanks for reading, and enjoy with fondness looking back on some really good times at STL with some really great airplanes.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared on Avgeekery.com on 5 February 2016. It was updated in April 2026 with the most recent passenger numbers for STL.
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 110
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.