Home Blog Page 23

The Rainbow: Republic’s Incredible Propeller-Driven Performer

2

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.

Boeing GM XB 39 41 36954 5412707154 Bill Larkins
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).

North American F 6D 30 NT 6900638263 Larkinsa
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 44 70155 7 July 1946 at Culver City California left front above largea
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.

Republic XF 12 Rainbow rollout
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 Rainbow
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.

Republic XF 12 Rainbow in flight 3
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.

Republic XR 12 Rainbow 02
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.

Republic XR 12 Rainbow 01
XR-12 003 image via National Archives

Click NEXT PAGE below for the rest of the Rainbow story

Inside Agape Flights: An Aviation Ministry Bringing Hope to the Caribbean

0

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.
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.

AGAPE Flights Embraer 110 flying aviation ministry mission
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.

Embrarer 100 Interior
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

Cessna F406
Inside Agape Flights: An Aviation Ministry Bringing Hope to the Caribbean 16

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 maintenance
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.

AGAPE Flights hangar filled with supplies waiting for loading on aircraft for delivery to aviation ministry partners in Caribbean
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.

Hangar2
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.

A Reflection on the Operational Challenges At Washington Reagan Airport

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.
Remembering and reflecting on flights PSA 5243 and PAT25.

American Eagle Flight And Helicopter Collide Near Reagan National Airport

0

American Airlines Flight 5342, a PSA Airlines CRJ-700 (N709PS), collided midair with a U.S. Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter near Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) while on approach to Runway 33 at approximately 9 p.m. local time on January 29, 2025.

The FAA and NTSB have confirmed the crash and will lead the investigation. Flight 5342, which had 60 passengers and four crew members, was operating from Wichita, Kansas, and that rescuers have found at least four survivors so far. The UH-60 belonged to the Army’s Fort Belvoir unit.

Latest updates are below. Refresh this link for the latest update.

Current as of 30 Jan 2025, 1:42am

Update 1:42am ET: Reagan National Airport Closed Until 11am

FAA NOTAMs for Reagan National Airport show that DCA will be closed through at least 11am today. NOTAM excerpt below.

Federal Aviation Administration NOTAM Search
American Eagle Flight And Helicopter Collide Near Reagan National Airport 21

Update 12:43am ET: President Trump posts two comments on crash on Truth Social.

Update 12:41am ET: Statement by American Airlines CEO on crash

Update 12:11am ET: DCA Closed Through at Least 5am

DCA is closed through at least 5am. That is according to Huffington Post reporter Jen Bendery.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Washington Reagan National Airport closed til 5 a.m. Friday after midair collision, Federal Aviation Administration says.

— Jen Bendery (@jbendery.bsky.social) January 29, 2025 at 10:29 PM

FAA Notams do show the airport is closed until 5am local time.

NOTAMSDCA
American Eagle Flight And Helicopter Collide Near Reagan National Airport 22

Update 12:00am ET: CNN Confirms No Survivors Thus Far

A recent X post by political commentator Charlie Kirk shared that CNN has confirmed with rescue officials that no survivors have been found thus far. A link to his post is below.

Update 11:48pm ET: US Government Leaders Post Response To Crash

President Trump has been informed of the crash. The White House released a statement from the President via his press secretary.

Newly confirmed US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy also posted on X about the accident.

Moments later he sent a second tweet promising full support of the US DOT (department of Transportation) and the FAA.

Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem also posted a response to the crash.

Update 11:45pm ET: American Airlines posts link to updates

American Airlines has posted on X with link to their website with the latest crash news. Their latest post confirms 60 passengers and 4 crew members on board.

Update 11:18pm ET: Tail number of CRJ-700

While we do not have any information on the Blackhawk, but according to NBC News the Army has confirmed that it was an Army UH-60 Blackhawk out of Fort Belvoir involved in tonight’s crash. The PSA CRJ-700 jet involved in the crash was tail N709PS.

Airfleets, a website that tracks aircraft history shows that the aircraft was first flown in September of 2004. The aircraft originally flew with Midatlantic Airways under the US Airways Express banner. The aircraft joined the PSA fleet just two months later. Airfleets website shows that the aircraft was stored from September of 2022 until earlier this month. The aircraft was 20.4 years old at the time of the accident.

Update 11:17pm ET: Contact information for families affected

Congressman Don Beyer has posted on BlueSky with information for anyone who may have had friends or relatives on the flight.

A tweet from Kansas Rep. Don Beyer, relaying info for families: … “If you believe you may have loved ones on board Flight 5342, call American Airlines toll-free at 800-679-8215."

[image or embed]

— The Hill is Home (@thehillishome.bsky.social) January 29, 2025 at 10:12 PM

Update 10:19pm ET: ATC Recording

Liveatc.com records live audio of many ATC conversations worldwide. The audio from DCA tower is available on their website. If you click on the link here, the audio involving the accident starts at 17:15 of the clip.

A PSA CRJ-700 (similar to the one pictured above) crashed near DCA airport after it collided with a helicopter. The CRJ-700 is a regional jet that can carry between 70 and 78 passengers.
A PSA CRJ-700 (similar to the one pictured above) crashed near DCA airport after it collided with a helicopter. The CRJ-700 is a regional jet that can carry between 70 and 78 passengers. Image: Flikr, motox810 CC 2.0

The PSA aircraft involved in the accident is a Mitsubishi CRJ-700. The CRJ-700 is a regional jet that first flew in 1999. It entered service in 2001 as stretch and modernized CRJ-200. The aircraft features a larger cabin, modernized avionics, and upgraded engines. The -700 typically holds between 70 to 78 passengers. Some aircraft have been reconfigured with first class seats and storage closets to seat just 50. In 2020, Bombardier sold the CRJ program to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

Update 10:17pm ET: FAA Statement on Crash

The FAA has released a statement confirming the crash. According to the FAA:

A PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 regional jet collided in midair with a Sikorsky H-60 helicopter while on approach to Runway 33 at Reagan Washington National Airport around 9 p.m. local time. PSA was operating as Flight 5342 for American Airlines. It departed from Wichita, Kansas. The FAA and NTSB will investigate. The NTSB will lead the investigation.

Update 10:11pm ET: Airport Authority Audio

Audio from the Metropolitan Airports Authority from SFBD on Bluesky.

Update 9:52pm ET: Initial Crash Information and Video

A video posted from the Kennedy Center camera shows what appears to be a helicopter flying from left to right in front of a landing aircraft. Seconds later, they appear to collide, resulting in an explosion.

Additional posts indicate that rescue helicopters are searching for the aircraft at this time.

Live scanner feed of the incident is linked here.

We will keep this link updated and correct information as we learn more.

Future Air Force Tankers Might Have Efficient Blended Wing Design

0

This would be a significant design difference from current tankers.

In August 2023, the Air Force selected JetZero to partner with Northrup Grumman to develop a prototype to test the BWB design. This may also play a role in the Air Force’s long-term plans for its Next-Generation Aerial-refueling System (NGAS).

Artist depiction of JetZero blended wing air refueling aircraft. | Image: JetZero
Artist depiction of JetZero blended wing air refueling aircraft. | Image: JetZero

Strong need for more efficient, less vulnerable tankers

In planning for future operations, the Air Force has determined a growing need for new tankers with better fuel efficiency, longer range, and increased payload capacity.  A major concern for this is to support fighters and ground attack aircraft just hundreds of miles from combat zones. With current tanker models, this close-up support would leave the tankers vulnerable to attack from enemy aircraft.

The Air Force KC-135 and KC-46 Pegasus tankers flying today are modified versions of commercial passenger jets. One of the Air Force’s primary goals for a new tanker design is for it to have greater range while being more efficient and cost effective. This has led to research in blended wing body designs.

U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft. | Image: USAF
U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft. | Image: USAF

JetZero and Northrup Grumman leading blended wing design research

JetZero is leading this effort with its “Pathfinder” prototype or demonstration model. It has a wingspan of 23 feet, approximately one-eighth of the 184 feet they plan for a full-scale aircraft. The blended wing design combines the wings and fuselage into a single unit. This produces several aerodynamic advantages over traditional tube and wing aircraft.

The Pathfinder’s combined wing and wide central body make a large surface area and allows the entire aircraft to produce lift. One advantage from this is a 9.4% lift to drag ratio better than conventional models.

JetZero blended wing aircraft configured for commercial travel. | Image: JetZero
JetZero blended wing aircraft configured for commercial travel. | Image: JetZero

Blended wing aircraft more efficient than older designs

A recent study showed that this configuration will lead to a 27% reduction in fuel burn per passenger mile or a 50% reduction in fuel consumption. Another benefit of the BWB that would be effective for tankers is a lighter maximum takeoff Weight (MTOW). This partly comes from it having less surface area than conventional designs. This lighter weight produces another advantage of having the aircraft lighter weight requiring small engines, which only adds to the overall efficiency, which then increases range. Yet another advantage is that BWB aircraft are quieter.

“Blended wing body aircraft have the potential to significantly reduce fuel demand and increase global reach,” said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. “Moving forces and cargo quickly, efficiently, and over long distance is a critical capability to enable national security strategy.”

Need for new tanker designs to have low observable features

Blended wing body design features may also impact plans for the Air Force’s plans for its Next-Generation Aerial-refueling System (NGAS). However, the purpose of this program is not just to deploy more cost-effective tankers with more range. One of the most important goals for the NGAS is to be able to refuel low-observable or stealthy aircraft like the B-21 bomber and the F-35 fighter. Air Force planners want tankers to get closer to where the bombers and fighters are flying.

Artist image of JetZero Pathfinder blended wing tanker. | Image: JetZero
Artist image of JetZero Pathfinder blended wing tanker. | Image: JetZero

“To have tactical fighters that can operate effectively, you’ve got to tank them within a few hundred miles of where they’re going to operate,” said former Secretary of the US Air Force Frank Kendall. “So, we need tankers that can get into ranges where they are now threatened. Current tankers are not very effective at that. And the commercial derivative tanker, which is a traditional route to getting one, is probably not going to be effective either, although that’s not off the table yet.”

Flying refueling missions close to the forward battle area leaves tankers vulnerable to enemy aircraft. This emphasizes the need for tankers to have stealthy features.

Changes required to make blended wing aircraft less vulnerable

Some have suggested that BWB tankers, with their flying wing designs that look similar to the B-2 and B-21, might also have stealthy qualities. However, research has not proven this yet. To make the design a true low-observable aircraft,  one change would be to incorporate the engines more into the interior of the airframe than on the Pathfinder.

There is widespread interest in developing BWB aircraft for commercial and military purposes. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, and Bombardier are also working on developing BWB tanker designs for NGAS.

Image of Lockheed Martin design idea for "optionally" manned low observable tanker. | Image: Lockheed Martin
Image of Lockheed Martin design idea for “optionally” manned low observable tanker. | Image: Lockheed Martin

New fuel potential for blended wing design

Looking ahead, manufacturers are also working on different fuels systems for aircraft. One of these is to use hydrogen as a zero-carbon option. JetZero has determined that its BWB design will be able to accommodate hydrogen fuels. It expects this technology to be ready by 2030, which only makes blended wing body aircraft more promising.

Couple Sues JetBlue After Block of Ice Falls Through Roof and Onto Their Bed

The new year started with a bang for one Inglewood, California couple. A block of ice allegedly dropped from a JetBlue aircraft and crashed through the roof of their home and onto their bed.

The couple is now suing the airline for a seven-figure lump sum. JetBlue has denied any wrongdoing and has declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

JetBlue New Year’s Ice Drop

Around 8pm local time on New Year’s Day 2024, a large block of ice crashed through the bedroom of Michael Reese and Leah Ferrarini in Inglewood, California. After a thorough investigation, it was later discovered that the ice came from a JetBlue aircraft that was on its way to Los Angeles International Airport.

Tail 989JT, and Airbus A321 was the jet involved in the lav icing incident.

Reese and Ferrarini are suing the airlines for negligence and trespassing. The latter offense is due to the couple ‘not granting JetBlue permission’ to allow the block of ice to enter the home or damage it.

According to the lawsuit, the ice severely damaged the couple’s roof and landed near the pillows in their bedroom.

The couple has also reportedly suffered insomnia and anxiety from the block of ice. Due to the home being located very close to the airport, at least one plane flies over the home every five minutes. The couple have allegedly been incapable of sleeping since the incident over the fear of other falling debris harming them and their home.

N949JT JetBlue Airways 2015 Airbus A321 231 cn 6575 Ann Rhoades 20609358629
Three A-321s will be configured for JetBlue’s premium Mint program in 2018. Photo Tomás Del Coro from Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (CC BY 2.0)

The lawsuit states that the couple had also experienced financial losses as the result of the damage. The effects of insomnia had forced Reese to decline film and television projects as a commercial driver.

Aircraft Involved in a Similar Incident?

In the lawsuit, the couple’s attorneys argue this isn’t the first time the JetBlue aircraft damaged a roof with ice. Another ice block that came from the aircraft reportedly damaged the roof of a home in Shirley, Massachusetts. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discovered the same aircraft had ‘potable water issues’ as early as July 2023.

JetBlue had been on notice for months prior to January 1, 2024, yet failed to conduct an investigation as to the problems with the potable water system valve and drain. Had JETBLUE done so after being on notice that there was a problem as early as July 2023, the discharge of the large block of ice on Plaintiffs’ home would not have occurred.” the report reads.

The couple is seeking $1 million from JetBlue as a result of the damage and ongoing emotional trauma. JetBlue responded by stating the airline’s conduct complied with industry regulations.

Spirit is Banning Trashy Tattoos and Clothes on Their Flights

We’ve all been there. You’re in the airport or boarding a flight and someone has obscene tattoos or clothes (or barely any clothes at all), while the other 99% dress like they have some common sense in public. Spirit Airlines has had enough, and is now banning visibly trashy tattoos and clothes on their flights.

Decisions on what’s considered a violation will be at the discretion of the airline employees. The company has updated their passengers’ dress code policy and contract of carriage, which passengers agree to when making a reservation.

Passengers have already been kicked off flights

Two women were kicked off a flight last fall for wearing questionable crop tops. In the video above, a man was also kicked off a flight recently for an obscene hoodie.

Spirit is specifically targeting lewd clothing and tattoos that they consider obscene, offensive or too revealing. Specific examples include see-through clothing and exposed private parts.

Other airlines also have a passenger dress code

Passengers who violate Spirit’s updated dress code will be denied boarding or be removed from flights.

Such a rule however is not out of the ordinary. Other airlines, who don’t cater to low budget individuals, have similar dress codes.

American Airlines almost kicked a former Miss Universe off a flight to Cabo back in 2022, for thinking coming onboard with a black sports bra and biking shorts was ok. They asked her to cover up, which she did, but the incident sparked a lot of controversy.

In 2021, police escorted a female rapper off an Alaska Airlines flights after it landed, for wearing black shorts and a crop top on the flight.

Hawaiian Airlines clearly states what’s not allowed: bikini bottoms, Speedos and bare feet, along with clothing that is “lewd, obscene, or patently offensive to others.” They also specify clothing must “cover the upper part of the torso”. Hawaiian also clarifies that tank tops, tube tops, and halter tops are allowed, along with shorts, but with no specifications about length.

Of course, what is considered “appropriate,” “lewd,” and “offensive” is vague. Airline employees have plenty of leeway in determining what is or is not allowed.

Pilot Recalls the Accidental First Flight of the F-16

We raise a toast to the Fighting Falcon. Also known as the Viper, it’s one of the most lethal and maneuverable aircraft ever made. Below, watch as the first pilot recalls the first flight of the F-16.

The multi-role iconic jet first took to the skies on 20 January 1974. Developed by General Dynamics, the prototype YF-16 was piloted by Phil Oestricher.

ABOVE: Watch pilot Phil Oestricher recall flying the first YF-16

The jet wasn’t supposed to fly that day

On the day of the test at Edwards AFB, Oestricher didn’t expect to fly at all. It wasn’t even in the plans. It was supposed to be a high speed taxi test to better evaluate handling in the takeoff regime. The jet itself, however, had other ideas.

The F-16 was the first aircraft to have a fixed stick. The stick used to control the aircraft interpreted forces to move the fly-by-wire control surfaces but did not actually move at all. The test that day was just supposed to be a high speed ground test. Oestricher never got a “feel” for the jet until that day.

B820B2E3 8456 458B A4D4 D7A8B1756758
Photo: USAF

As he raced down the runway, Oestricher raised the nose and applied aileron control to check lateral response. The jet, however, went into a dangerous roll oscillation. The left wing and right stabilator scraped against the ground.

Think of it like trying to control an angry Stallion that wants to do what it wants.

Fly or Crash–A Decision To Be Made

As the jet started veering off into the desert, he decided that, instead of crashing and possibly killing himself and the program, he would hit the throttle to get it in the air to try and save it.

F-16 prototype, known as the YF-16
Lockheed Martin photo YF-16

Oestricher struggled to control the jet, waiting for his airspeed to reach a point that would provide enough lift to really get flying. It worked. He recovered and flew the jet on an unscheduled first flight for six minutes before returning safely to Edwards.

Another, almost identical, No. 2 prototype YF-16 was also made. It first flew in spring 1974 but skidded across the grass next to the runway while landing at a flight demonstration for General Dynamics employees and friends in Texas in May 1975.

The pilot couldn’t get the landing gear to deploy, but brought the jet down safely with expert execution. The aircraft came out in decent shape, and the pilot was fine, but he was quite unhappy about what happened. Nevertheless, the F-16 had arrived, and it was here to stay. The original YF-16 No. 1 made the first transatlantic flight to Europe soon after, to secure potential NATO sales and perform a flight demonstration in Paris.

F-16 Enters Service

The F-16 was built under an agreement between the United States and NATO countries Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. Together, they jointly produced an initial 348 F-16s for their air forces.

F-16 Viper
USAF F-16 Viper demo (Mark Streit Photography, check out his amazing work here)

The first single-seat F-16A first flew in December 1976. Two years later, on 17 August 1978, the first operational USAF F-16A was delivered to the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

The rest, as they say, is history. Half a century after first being unleashed into the air, the jet is still in production. Though the USAF no longer buys new F-16s, the Fighting Falcon’s story is far from over. Modernized variants continue to find eager customers overseas, and in 2025, this iconic jet still wears the crown as the world’s most widely flown combat aircraft, with more than 2,000 in active service around the globe. Over 25 nations continue to operate the F-16 for their various air forces.

USAF Thunderbird F-16s
USAF Thunderbirds (Mike Killian Photo / avgeekery)

The USAF Flight Demonstration Squadron Thunderbirds also fly the F-16 for millions of spectators across America every year, with occasional visits to other countries. A single-ship F-16 Viper Demo team also flies for air shows where the Thunderbirds do not appear.

USAF Vipers have also seen plenty of action, deploying for combat numerous times. In the Persian Gulf in 1991, for Operation Desert Storm, they flew more sorties than any other aircraft.

EA3D0B48 47FB 49D0 A8FA 00E65FBBAEBF
138th Fighter Wing F-16 (Mike Killian photo / avgeekery)

They also served in Operation Allied Force, and have played a major role in the war on terrorism, flying thousands of sorties in support of operations Noble Eagle (Homeland Defense), Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and Iraqi Freedom.

You can read more about the F-16s history operating with the USAF here.

3EB2CA80 3040 40A1 AE78 499328C339A5
Ohio Air National Guard taking off into sunset (Mike Killian Photo / avgeekery)

Rebuilding the Giant: Boeing’s Fight to Regain Its Wings

For the sixth year in a row, Boeing trailed behind Airbus in aircraft deliveries, closing out 2024 with 348 deliveries—a stark contrast to Airbus’s 766.

Despite booming demand for new jets, Boeing’s delivery numbers were the lowest since the pandemic, and net orders came in at just 377, less than half of Airbus’s 826.

Boeing reported year-end numbers on 14 January, while Airbus reported its numbers on 09 January. 

With production challenges, labor strikes, and ongoing financial struggles, 2024 proved to be yet another turbulent year for the aerospace giant.

But with a new CEO, fresh strategies, and some encouraging late-year orders, could 2025 finally be the year Boeing turns things around?

Another Tough Year for Boeing in 2024

Aftermath of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 incident in January 2024
Image from the NTSB investigation of the accident involving Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on a Boeing 737-9 MAX | IMAGE: National Transportation Safety Board, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Boeing’s string of difficult years extended into 2024, marked by production disruptions, financial losses, leadership changes, and lingering reputational challenges. The year began on a troubling note with the infamous Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 incident. On 5 January, a mid-flight door panel failure on a 737-9 MAX shocked the world.

The near-tragedy underscored ongoing quality control issues within Boeing’s manufacturing processes. In response, the FAA imposed a cap of 38 units per month on 737 MAX production. While this limit reflected the regulator’s concerns over Boeing’s safety standards, the company remained unable to reach even this reduced production rate for most of the year.

Strikes and Workforce Challenges

Boeing's Everett facility
Boeing facilities in Everett, Washington in October 2011 | IMAGE: Jeremy Elson, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Labor unrest added to Boeing’s challenges. In mid-September, 33,000 machinists represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) went on strike—the first such action in 16 years.

The strike lasted 53 days and brought production of the 737 MAX, 767, and 777 programs to a grinding halt. The work stoppage, coupled with pre-existing supply chain issues, delayed deliveries and deepened Boeing’s financial woes. Production of the 737 MAX did not resume until early December, and widebody production restarted just before Christmas.

Compounding these difficulties, Boeing announced in October that it would lay off 10% of its workforce. This was in addition to the nearly 5,000 layoffs announced earlier in the year. These reductions were a stark reminder of the financial and operational strain the company faced as it grappled with declining revenue and escalating losses.

Leadership Transition Amid Turmoil

The Boeing lineup of aircraft
The Boeing lineup of aircraft | IMAGE: Boeing

In March, Boeing’s long-time CEO Dave Calhoun announced plans to step down by year-end. On August 7, he handed over the reins to Kelly Ortberg, a seasoned executive tasked with steering Boeing out of its crisis.

Ortberg’s leadership style marked a departure from Calhoun’s, with a greater emphasis on direct engagement with factory workers. By requiring company executives to spend time on the production floor, Ortberg sought to address morale issues and improve communication across the organization.

While Ortberg’s tenure began with bold promises of change, he inherited a company in turmoil. Boeing’s losses totaled $8 billion by Q3 2024, a staggering 260% increase year-over-year. With Q4 results yet to be announced, the financial outlook for the year remained grim.

Program Delays and Certification Challenges

777X Roll Out 40407369583
The new Boeing is 777-9 is the largest of the new 777x family. Seen here at the rollout ceremony back in early 2019. Photo: Dan Nevill from Seattle, WA, United States [CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]

Further setbacks in Boeing’s key programs added to the company’s woes. The 777X program, once heralded as a game-changer in the widebody market, faced additional delays. These delays have pushed its entry into service to late 2026.

Certification flights for the 777-9 resumed on 16 January after a months-long grounding due to thrust link issues, but the program’s delays have already cost Boeing significant market share.

The 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10, intended to bolster Boeing’s narrowbody lineup, also faced continued certification delays. These setbacks have limited Boeing’s ability to compete with Airbus’s highly popular A320neo family, further eroding the company’s position in the narrowbody market.

Lingering Repercussions of the MAX Crashes

Grounded 737 MAX aircraft in 2019
Grounded Boeing 737 MAX aircraft at Boeing Field in Seattle in 2019 | IMAGE: SounderBruce, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Boeing’s struggles cannot be divorced from the legacy of the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019. Together, these two tragedies claimed 346 lives. These tragedies led to a 20-month global grounding of the 737 MAX, severely tarnishing Boeing’s reputation. While the aircraft has since returned to service, lingering distrust among airlines and regulators has hampered its recovery.

The fallout from the crashes continues to weigh on Boeing’s finances. Outstanding criminal cases related to the incidents total nearly half a billion dollars. These cases reflect the long shadow cast by these events. Meanwhile, the Airbus A320neo has cemented its position as the best-selling narrowbody jet. As a result, the 737 MAX is struggling to regain its pre-crisis dominance.

A Global Supply Chain Squeeze

The newest member of the MAX family the 737 MAX 7
Rebuilding the Giant: Boeing’s Fight to Regain Its Wings 45

The pandemic-era disruptions to global manufacturing and logistics continue to echo across the industry. Suppliers, still recovering from workforce shortages and financial pressures, are struggling to meet the growing demand for components, particularly for engines, avionics, and advanced materials. For Boeing, which sources parts from a vast network of global suppliers, even small delays can cascade into significant production bottlenecks.

However, supply chain challenges are not unique to Boeing, as its European rival has also grappled with similar disruptions. Delays in securing parts for the A320 family and A350 widebodies slowed Airbus’s production capabilities in 2024, even as demand for its aircraft surged. Without these obstacles, Airbus would likely have widened its lead over Boeing even further.

A Dual Strategy for Recovery

Boeing fuselage on a train from Kansas to Washington
The fuselage of a 737-800 on its way from Spirit AeroSystems in Witchita, Kansas to the Boeing factory in Renton, Wash. | IMAGE: Dan Bennett from Seattle, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

To address these challenges, Boeing has begun implementing a dual strategy of internal consolidation and supplier collaboration. In 2024, the company acquired the majority of Spirit AeroSystems, a move aimed at regaining control over critical components like fuselages and flight decks for its flagship programs, including the 737 MAX and 787. This acquisition marks a return to a more vertically integrated production model, which Boeing hopes will reduce its reliance on external suppliers and improve quality control.

Additionally, Boeing is working closely with its remaining suppliers to streamline production and secure a steadier flow of parts. Investments in digital tracking systems and predictive analytics are helping the company identify potential disruptions earlier and mitigate their impact. While these measures are promising, their full effect may not be felt until 2025 or beyond.

For now, Boeing’s supply chain remains a fragile link in its recovery strategy. As the company seeks to rebuild its reputation and ramp up production, addressing these bottlenecks will be critical to meeting its ambitious goals and regaining its competitive edge.

Bright Spots Amid the Clouds

Pegasus Airlines Boeing 737-10
Turkish carrier Pegasus Airlines has ordered up to 200 Boeing 737-10 aircraft | IMAGE: Boeing

Despite a rocky year, Boeing did experience several high-profile wins. Turkey-based Pegasus Airlines placed a blockbuster $36 billion order for 100 737 MAX 10 aircraft, with an option for 100 more. Flydubai added 30 787-9s to its fleet, while American Airlines committed to 85 737 MAX 10s.

On the production front, the company plans to ramp up 787 Dreamliner production from five per month to ten by early 2026, signaling confidence in the long-term outlook.

Facing Airbus Head-On

A350 Trash Panda
Airbus A350-900 OH-LWC NRT Author: Masakatsu Ukon (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Airbus continues to dominate, delivering 602 A320-family jets in 2024, including over 300 A321neos—a model for which Boeing has no direct competitor. In widebodies, Airbus’s A350 secured 57 deliveries and 138 net orders, while Boeing’s 777-9 program remains stuck in delays until at least 2026

Airbus is also aiming to make headway in the American cargo market, historically Boeing’s stronghold. With production of the 767 freighter winding down by 2027 and the 777-9 freighter delayed until at least 2028, Airbus sees an opening with its A350F, which already has 60 orders.

The Stakes Are High for 2025

The lineup of Boeing aircraft
IMAGE: Boeing

Boeing’s challenges in 2024 underscore the depth of its operational and financial struggles. From declining deliveries, high-profile incidents, labor unrest, and leadership changes, the company has faced a near-perfect storm of adversity.

However, with new leadership, a commitment to quality, and some promising late-year orders, Boeing is positioning itself for a comeback. Key priorities include overcoming production challenges, accelerating deliveries, and restoring customer confidence.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Airlines and the flying public have little patience left after years of delays, scandals, and safety concerns. For Boeing, 2025 must be a year of action and results.

As Ortberg leads the charge, the aviation world is watching closely. Can Boeing reclaim its place at the top? The answer lies in the months ahead. For now, all eyes are on 28 January, when Boeing will release its Q4 financial results—and perhaps, a clearer picture of its flight path forward.

Cloud Seeding Is Real. Here’s How It’s Done

0

Researchers have used a variety of aircraft and technologies to perform cloud seeding operations in the 78 years since scientists first began developing it. Cloud seeding is an approach to modify weather, most often for increasing precipitation. The usefulness and safety of this technology has mixed reviews with people and organizations both in favor of it and against it.

Bombers for cloud seeding instead of combat

One of the first uses of cloud seeding occurred on 13 October 1947 when two Air Force B-17s and a B-26 flew into a hurricane 415 miles east of Jacksonville, Florida. Their mission, “Project Cirrus,” was to deploy dry ice into the storm. The purpose was to see if the dry ice would affect the storm’s clouds and precipitation and cause it to change its path.

B-17, aircrew, and support personnel. The bomber flew the first cloud seeding operation in 1947. | Image: NOAA
B-17, aircrew, and support personnel. The bomber flew the first cloud seeding mission in 1947. | Image: NOAA

The first bomber flew at cloud level above the hurricane and dropped crushed dry ice from its belly. The second B-17 followed a half mile behind to monitor cloud changes, and the B-26 trailed behind, directing the first two. The first B-17 made a half-hour run over 100 miles and dumped 80 pounds of the dry ice. The idea was for the dry ice to make drops of water vapor and ice crystals in clouds stick together, forming large, heavy droplets that would fall as rain or snow. The B-17 made two more passes, dropping another 100 pounds of dry ice.

They circled back and noticed the cloud deck below beginning to break up and the cloud top starting to grow larger. This convinced the crews and scientists that the seeding had an effect, but it did not turn out the way they expected. The next day, the storm made a sudden 135 degree turn to the west and strengthened. It struck Savannah, Georgia on 15 October, killing one and causing $2 million, or about $28 million in today’s dollars, in damage in Georgia and South Carolina.

First arguments appear against cloud seeding

This caused a public outcry that the experiment had caused the storm to turn, and people threatened lawsuits. Eventually, scientists proved that other storms had made similar turns without human influence, and the lawsuits did not move forward.

In the years since 1947, researchers have continued developing cloud seeding methods to be able to increase precipitation. Today they are performing cloud seeding operations with more modern platforms including fixed wing aircraft, turboprop aircraft, helicopters, and drones.

Modern aircraft used for cloud seeding

The Beechcraft King Air C90/200 is one such design. Weather Modification International (WMI) in Fargo, North Dakota has installed cloud-seeding equipment on over 100 aircraft including 5 Beechcraft King Air 350s in the past 24 months. These modifications include installing weather research, atmospheric measurement, and cloud-seeding equipment such as ejectable flare racks, burn in-place flare racks, and firing-control boxes. Some of the other aircraft WMI has modified for cloud seeding and atmospheric research include the Hawker 400, Piper Seneca II, and Cessna 340A.

Beechcraft King Air with flare racks on trailing edge of wing. | Image: Weather Modification International
Beechcraft King Air with flare racks on trailing edge of wing. | Image: Weather Modification International

Aircraft deploy flares into clouds to spread particles

The aircraft deploy pyrotechnic flares to scatter cloud seeding agents or particles into clouds. The flares burn as they drop through clouds, releasing particles that promote ice crystal formation. Along with dry ice, silver iodide is also often used for cloud seeding. Its structure is similar to ice crystals, and it can cause water vapor to freeze and grow and then fall as precipitation.

Flare rack on wing of aircraft. | Image: NMI
Particle flare rack on wing of aircraft. | Image: NMI

A newer technology for cloud seeding is an electric charge producing device. It uses an electrode to create a strong electric field around the device to release ions from air molecules. These ions attach to water droplets in clouds, making larger droplets

“Charge can influence how a droplet population evolves into larger drops, sometimes reaching raindrop sizes,” said author Giles Harrison.

Electronic charge device developed to increase size of water droplets and increase precipitation. | Image: Fargojet.com
Electronic charge device developed to increase size of water droplets and increase precipitation. | Image: Fargojet.com

Obstacles and arguments against cloud seeding

Despite the research and advancement in cloud-seeding operations, it faces some obstacles. Some scientists claim it is not really effective in producing precipitation or cost effective. There is also some debate on whether the silver iodide could be harmful to the environment.

Worldwide interest remains strong

These questions do not seem to be impacting interest in cloud seeding. Currently, more than 50 countries around the world are experimenting with and using the technology. These include China, India, Dubai, Russia, Australia, and South Africa.

Another view of equipment mounted on aircraft for cloud seeding. | Image: Fargojet.com
Cloud Seeding Is Real. Here's How It's Done 51

Another view of equipment mounted on aircraft for cloud seeding. | Image: Fargojet.com

Japan Airlines Unveils Universal Studios Livery Featuring Mario, Harry Potter

Japan Airlines is featuring a commercial jet with Super Mario, the Minions, and other popular characters for a limited time. The occasion? The airline and Universal Studios are commemorating the opening of a brand new themed area.

A Colorful Medley of Mascots

Japan Airlines has unveiled a special livery with Mario and other pop culture characters for one of its Embraer 190 aircraft. The aircraft is named ‘Donkey Kong Country Opening Commemorative JAL x Universal Studios Japan Jet 2’.

The livery is to commemorate the opening of the Donkey Kong Country area at Universal Studios Japan. The design features a picture of Donkey Kong on the tail, but also sports Super Mario, the Minions, Harry Potter, Elmo and Cookie Monster, and Woody Woodpecker. Each image represents a different area found at the theme park.

The new Donkey Kong area opened on 11 December, 2024. The special jet entered service with the limited-time design on 14 January, 2025. Its last flight with the design will take place some time in June 2026.

Japan Airlines revealed the livery at a special ceremony featuring mascots of Sesame Street and Woody Woodpecker characters. A video later shows the jet taking off from Osaka to Fukuoka, Japan.

The jet will make seven flights during the month of February, flying from Osaka to seven other Japanese prefectures.

Universal Goodies on Japan Airlines Flights

Aside from the Donkey Kong Jet, travelers on board one of the airline’s Boeing 737-800 or Boeing 767-300ER will receive several freebies. These souvenirs include a boarding pass sticker sheet, a headrest cover, and a collectable paper cup. Unfortunately, these items are while supplies last.

Japan Airlines Senior Vice President of Marketing Ryo Kanazawa had this to say during the unveiling ceremony:

“As the official airline of Universal Studios Japan, JAL plays an important role in transporting customers from all over the country to Kansai and then to the park, and we are conducting joint marketing…Through this specially painted aircraft, we hope to deliver super excitement and thrills to people in various regions of the country, and make them feel super energetic. We hope to further strengthen our partnership with JAL and make many people happy.”

McDonnell Douglas Once Proposed A DC-10 For Air Force One

A C-10 Could Have Replaced The VC-137 (707) for Air Force One

Air Force One is the descriptor for any aircraft carrying the President of the United States, but to avgeeks, it generally refers to the highly customized Boeing 747-200 (VC-25A) with the unique Raymond Loewy-designed paint livery.  It is a powerful symbol of the United States of America and commands a presence wherever it travels. 

When the president travels, the White House serves as a mobile command center. It features over 4,000 square feet of space that accommodates the President, his staff, and a small traveling press pool. Many wonderful and detailed books have been written on the history of aircraft that have transported the President.

It Was Time For A Replacement Air Force One Aircraft

071106 F 1234S 020
The Special Air Mission (SAM) VC-137 was a specially outfitted Boeing 707. It has been replaced by a 747. SAM 26000 is on display at the NMUSAF (NMUSAF Photo)

In 1985, the VC-137C was reaching nearly twenty-five years in service.  As a result, the United States Air Force (USAF) began to plan for a replacement aircraft.  After internal requirements had been set, the USAF began to send out requests for proposals (RFP) to Boeing, Lockheed, and McDonnell Douglas. 

General John Michael Loh was appointed to Air Force Director of Operational Requirements in 1985, and Loh’s job was to find a replacement aircraft and suitable proposals for the aging VC-137Cs.  There were really only two choices at the time of this new RFP from the USAF:  The Boeing 747 and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10.  Lockheed’s L-1011 had ceased production, not to mention it barely met the endurance requirement the Air Force had set, and Lockheed wasn’t about to build an all-new aircraft for the VC-137C replacement, nor restart the L-1011 production line.  

Boeing, of course, offered the Boeing 747-200 aircraft, even though the Boeing 747-300 had entered service two years prior. The 747-200 had more in common with the current fleet of E-4B aircraft, the Advanced Airborne Command Post, which were flying for the USAF. 

Boeing knew that with the E-4Bs flying, the current Presidential aircraft being a Boeing with four engines, and that the 747 easily met or exceeded all the operational requirements, it had the advantage to walk away with the contract award.  Boeing was also keenly aware that both Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas had no interest in competing for what they viewed as a sole-sourced competition that had already been decided in their view.  

Smart Maneuvering by Gen Loh

What happened next was chronicled in Air and Space Weekly in a fascinating article by Lara Seligman back in 2016. Seligman interviewed Gen Loh for an article that discussed the latest acquisition of the Boeing 747-8i to fulfill the role as the next Air Force One.

According to the article, Boeing met with Loh and presented its proposal: two Boeing 747-200 aircraft retrofitted with all the custom fitment, countermeasures, and other operational requirements that the USAF requested at just under $1 billion USD in 1985 ($2.4 billion adjusted for inflation in 2020). Boeing was in for a rude awakening. 

The list price of the Boeing 747-200 in 1985 was $112 million for green aircraft (new), or $224 million for two aircraft, and this was the list price before discounting (which generally occurs). 

Boeing was then adding nearly four times the cost of the aircraft for customization and fitment to meet the USAF’s requirements.  Loh was reportedly furious at the estimate and knew that unless he had a viable and alternative proposal, he’d have very little leverage against Boeing’s proposal.

McDonnell Douglas was already 100% focused on its struggling C-17 airlifter. However, facing delays, cost overruns, and the threat of cancellation, Loh convinced McDonnell Douglas to compete for the Air Force One replacement. 

Seligman reported that Loh already knew the DC-10 was a viable alternative to the 747, and with McDonnell Douglas struggling, Loh told McDonnell Douglas, “Look, if you are interested in keeping your C-17 and building a strategic airlifter, I think you ought to be interested in bidding on Air Force One.”  What Loh knew that wasn’t quite clear to McDonnell Douglas was that Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was considering cancellation of the C-17 project and would instead go with Boeing’s proposal for a new C-X alternative based on the 747.  

McDonnell Douglas Made a Real Effort With the C-10

7b
Model of C-10. Jim Keeshan Model collection

McDonnell Douglas submitted a proposal based on the DC-10. They produced a book in 1985 called “C-10 – The Presidential Aircraft” with details about their proposal.  The C-10 was centered around the DC-10-30 as the baseline aircraft because of its longer endurance range, time in service, and in-service reliability.  

The offering had integrated air stairs at the center-main passenger and rear doors on the port side, and numerous options, including inflight refueling.  For comparison purposes, McDonnell Douglas compared the C-10 to an ‘equivalent’ competitive aircraft: the Boeing 747SP, not the proposed 747-200.  The C-10 was also presented as an aircraft that can operate from many more airports than the 747SP could.  Comfort, performance, and reliability were based on the commercial DC-10 counterpart.

McDonnell Douglas showed the C-10 as 17% less expensive per flight vs. the 747SP, with an estimated operating cost of $30,000 for a 2,000 nautical mile trip (using $1 a gallon fuel cost from 1983), and that the maintenance and fuel costs were 37% more efficient vs. the Boeing aircraft (using a Boeing performance report #D6-33819).  

McDonnell Douglas took another dig at the Boeing 747 by noting that it couldn’t utilize the existing hangars at Andrews AFB. The USAF had already estimated that new hangar facilities would add another $40 million to the cost of operating any 747. The C-10 could use the existing hangar facilities.  

C-10 Had A Unique Floorplan

The C-10 even included a proposed floor plan that featured a stateroom in the front of the aircraft and a radio operating station in place of the forward galley (which had been moved to in front of the main door entrance). 

Medical and conference facilities were mapped out, as well as sections identified for traveling staff, executives, and areas for media.  The rear featured a full galley as well as stairs to the lower deck, while the front galley had a lift to the lower deck.  

The unique floorplan of the C-10
McDonnell Douglas Once Proposed A DC-10 For Air Force One 56

The 747 Proposal Was The More Robust Solution In The End

VC 25040616 F 5677R 002
The Current Air Force One, SAM 28000, is a specially equipped Boeing 747, designated VC-25. Note: the call sign applies only when the President is on board. When the President is not aboard, the aircraft is identified by its tail number, 28000. (USAF Photo)

The McDonnell Douglas proposal was substantially lower than Boeing’s and had the desired effect that Loh had wanted: Boeing dropped the price in their proposal from nearly $1 billion for two modified aircraft to just $249 million in a fixed-price contract, according to Loh. 

In the end, Loh’s pressure on McDonnell Douglas to submit a proposal for a VC-137C replacement was a win-win for both the USAF and McDonnell Douglas. 

The USAF saved nearly $700 million ($2.1 billion adjusted for inflation in 2025), and it won brownie points for McDonnell Douglas at the USAF, negating a sole-source bid from Boeing.  Boeing was awarded the newly designated VC-25 contract to build the replacement aircraft for the VC-137s, and the rest is history.

The C-10 Made Boeing’s Air Force One Cheaper

In the end, however, Seligman notes in her article that Boeing had to absorb nearly $600 million in unforeseen costs before the first VC-25 was delivered and entered service, bringing the actual cost of each aircraft to approximately $425 million each ($1.3B in 2025 dollars). 

This figure doesn’t include the upgrades to the VC-25 fleet over the years after delivery.  Loh maintained in the article that every Presidential aircraft, every single part from the airframe to the rivets, should have competitive bids to ensure the USAF (and the taxpayer) receives value for their money.

The C-10 Wasn’t Meant to Be Air Force One

The C-10 never became Air Force One. It was a long shot from the beginning. With less space, just three engines, and a mixed public perception of the jet, the odds were not in McDonnell Douglas’ favor. It remains a unique footnote in aviation history, leaving many avgeeks to wonder what could have been after all these years.