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 7
Now just three years later, the FAA has reverted back to the original term, Notices to Airmen. While some mocked the change back in 2021, the term was never really a pressing issue for many others in the industry. From the Air Force to FAA pilot certificates, the term airman was seen as defining a human aviator, not necessarily a male or female aviator.
In line with my commitment to restoring sanity to @USDOT, the FAA will resume using the term “Notice to Airmen” instead of “Notice to Air Missions.”
Also, pilot charts will now reference the Gulf of America and Mt. McKinley. Thanks to President Trump, we are taking back our… pic.twitter.com/kUXcszogg3
The NOTAM system itself went down in 2023, grounding all flights for part of a day. A recent outage affected the primary NOTAM system. Only a backup system kept NOTAMs from causing additional delays.
Companies Pursue Space Advertising While Scientists Object
The idea of billboards in space may seem like a logical step forward from planes dragging banners along beaches, skywriting, and lighted signs on the sides of blimps. Several companies are working on technologies to display huge messages across the sky and reach more people than ever before. This, however, may be a rare example of a technological innovation that scientists and politicians almost universally reject.
Avant Space promises to reach one billion people
Several companies are developing ways to display messages from space that people can see with the naked eye. One of these is the Russian company Avant Space. Their plan is to launch constellations of small satellites, CubeSats, that will move in orbit and shine lasers to make logos or other images for advertisers.
Avant Space launched a single CubeSat in April 2024 to test their technology and reported that it was successful. The company website describes how it will provide customizable personal constellations to its customers. Company advertisements claim its images will be able to reach one billion people.
CubeSats moving into position to display space advertising message. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
StartRocket to launch hundreds of CubeSats
Another Russian company, StartRocket, says it will deploy its own fleets of hundreds of CubeSats. The satellites will reflect sunlight from Mylar sails to form logos and other images visible from the ground. The company plans to launch the satellites to a low-earth orbit at an altitude of about 310 miles. It also plans to charge about $200,000 for every eight hours of advertising.
This hasn’t been only a Russian effort. In 2019, StartRocket announced it was working with PepsiCo on an “orbital advertising campaign” to market a new energy drink called Adrenaline Rush.
Artist image of space advertising message in orbit. | Image: Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
Space advertising illegal in the United States
There may be a simple reason why Americans are not pursuing space advertising; it’s illegal in the United States. 51 U.S. Code 50911 – Space Advertising clearly states, “No holder of a license under this chapter may launch a payload containing any material to be used for purposes of obtrusive space advertising.”
The law went into effect in 2000. It includes a note stating that the US president should negotiate with foreign countries to create agreements supporting US law.
The definition of “obtrusive space advertising” is “advertising in outer space that is capable of being recognized by a human being on the surface of the Earth without the aid of a telescope or other technological device.”
Artist image of message over San Francisco. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
Scientific community firmly against space advertising
This idea of obstruction leads to the reason why the scientific community appears united against space advertising. In fact, many are pushing for a global ban on it. Their primary objection is that they believe constellations of satellites will interfere with ground-based astronomy.
In October 2024, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) issued a statement against space advertising. It includes the following lines concerning its position: “Increasing humanity’s scientific understanding of the universe depends on clear and unobstructed views of the cosmos,” and, “That enterprise is currently under threat from activities in space, including the proliferation of large satellite constellations,” and, “This kind of use of outer space represents a presently unknown, but potentially serious, threat to the pursuit of astronomical discovery using ground-based facilities.”
They released this message: “We can confirm StartRocket performed an exploratory test for stratosphere advertisements using the Adrenaline GameChangers logo. This was a one-time event; we have no further plans to test or commercially use this technology at this time.”
It will be interesting to see if other companies and countries continue developing space advertising technology.
“The lure of it is so great that I can’t imagine that no one will try,” said John Barentine of Dark Sky Consulting, and a member of AAS’s Committee for the Protection of Astronomy and the Space Environment. “I think the commercial value will prompt somebody to do it.”
Artist image of space advertising over a European city. | Image: Vlad Sitnikov, Vimeo.com
China Airlines is bringing the love with a special sale for North American markets. Those looking for a romantic getaway can take advantage of a Valentine’s Day promotion happening now until 23 February.
Love is in the Air
China Airlines issued a press release on Monday kicking off a special Valentine’s Day sale for North American travelers. The airline is offering a 12% discount on fares from North America to Asian destinations.
The promotion lasts until Sunday 23 February. The list of eligible departure cities include New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, and Vancouver.
China Airlines’ statement indicates ‘all online destinations’ are applicable in the promotion. Though a few romantic destinations the airline gives include Kyoto, Japan, Hanoi, Vietnam, Bangkok, Thailand, Penghu County, Taiwan, and Seoul, South Korea.
The furthest flight date one can book to claim the promotion is 15 May, 2025. This gives couples and families three months to book a relaxing spring getaway.
For those uncertain about what to expect when flying with China Airlines, here’s a rundown of the in-flight experience.
Aboard many flights from China Airlines, in-flight entertainment is available. Travelers can stream content, play games, or listen to music from their screens. The airline also introduces the ‘Fantasy Sky’ Wi-Fi, allowing you to stream and play from your own mobile devices.
For premium economy travelers, China Airlines has collaborated with MOSCHINO and Roots to present in-flight travel kits featuring one of many collectable colors.
Business and premium business class travelers will also receive a complimentary set of noise-canceling headphones that are lightweight and can be worn for hours at a time.
In terms of delectables, travelers can enjoy a taste of some of the best food and drink Taiwan has to offer.
“Passengers departing from Taiwan to North America can savor Michelin three-star cuisine curated by Le Palais, Taiwan’s most acclaimed restaurant. The airline has also partnered with Wu-Tong Hao, a renowned Taiwanese tea brand, to offer exclusive drinks and desserts onboard,“ stated by a recent press release.
Airplanes and ice have always had an adversarial relationship. Ice can prevent airplanes from getting airborne and should they be airborne, ice will do its best to facilitate an airplane’s hasty return to Earth, willingly or not.
From the earliest days of aviation, airframe icing has been recognized as a significant threat to flight safety. Icing will cause problems for aircraft in two ways. The first is the simple weight that icing can add to an aircraft. Adding thousands of pounds of weight from icing on an airframe can increase stall speeds and prevent an airplane from climbing out of icing conditions.
U.S. Air Force photo by Alejandro Peña
The second pernicious effect of airframe icing is the addition of drag and the destruction of a wing’s ability to create lift. As you’ll recall, lift is generated due to the Bernoulli effect with regards to the flow of air over the wing. Faster moving airflow over the wing has lower dynamic pressure than the air passing beneath. This pressure differential generates the lift that keeps airplanes in the sky.
One requirement though is that this airflow must be laminar, or smooth, to work its magic. A coating of ice will destroy the smooth flow of air and result in what is known as boundary layer separation. When this happens, the wing stops producing lift and the airplane drops. As ice progressively coats a wing in icing conditions, the wing’s lifting ability decreases and its drag increases to the point where flight is no longer possible.
Even a layer of frost over the top of a wing can have devastating effects on lift. Roughness approximating a piece of #40 grit sandpaper will reportedly reduce lift by 30 to 40%. This loss of lift can produce disastrous results, especially during takeoff, which is why icing must be taken seriously.
Ice Can Kill On the Ground
Over the years, numerous accidents and incidents have been attributed to airframe icing. One of the most famous ones was Air Florida 90, which crashed into the Potomac River moments after takeoff in a snowstorm in 1982. While the ultimate cause was determined to be pilot error, the series of errors that led to the crash was caused by the pilots’ lack of understanding of the effects of ice on their aircraft.
Specifically, the crew inexplicably failed to use engine anti-icing and also allowed a dangerous buildup of snow to accumulate on the aircraft prior to takeoff. The failure to use engine anti-icing, which heats sensors that determine thrust settings, allowed a false reading from clogged sensors to show that the engines were at full thrust while they were actually set much lower.
The lower thrust, combined with the added weight and increased drag from accumulated snow, prevented the aircraft from remaining airborne. It hit the 14th St bridge 30 seconds after takeoff, killing 69 of the 74 passengers and crew.
And is Also Deadly in the Air
Ice accumulation while airborne has been a well-documented hazard to aviation over the years and also a staple of aviation film drama. Should an airplane fly into what is known as “icing conditions”, supercooled rain droplets will freeze on the surface of an aircraft, leaving a coating of ice. This coating starts at the leading edge of the wing and slowly travels back over the wing, destroying the wing’s ability to create lift as it progresses.
A simpler word for “icing conditions” would be cloud. Any time visible moisture is present and the temperature is below freezing, icing conditions are present, and airframe icing is possible. Airframe icing is categorized as either “rime” or “clear”. Rime icing is opaque in color and easily visible on the aircraft, while clear ice is much harder to see and therefore more difficult to detect.
One of the more recent casualties of airborne ice accumulation was American Eagle 4184, which crashed due to icing-induced loss of control in 1994. The aircraft, an ATR 72 en route from Indianapolis to Chicago, had held in freezing rain conditions while awaiting further clearance to O’Hare. While descending to enter a second holding pattern, the pilots retracted the flaps, which had been extended for the first holding pattern.
Upon flap retraction, the aircraft became uncontrollable, rolling completely at least twice before crashing in a field near Roselawn, Indiana, killing all 64 passengers and four crew. The cause of the accident was attributed to a buildup of ice on the wing, which only became critical after the flaps were retracted.
Many aircraft now have restrictions against holding in icing conditions with flaps extended as a result.
Clean Aircraft Concept
The mitigation of dangers posed by icing before takeoff and while airborne are two very different problems requiring different solutions, but the end objective is the same: to keep ice off the aircraft. And short of keeping an airplane safely in a warm hangar, solutions to icing have become ever more exotic as the dangers of icing have become better understood.
By Nicholas Hartmann (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
After many years of trying to come up with a regulatory framework which could be universally and simply applied, the FAA came up with the Clean Aircraft Concept. This formulation left no wiggle room as to how much freezing precipitation could be adhering to an aircraft readying for takeoff:
The “clean-airplane” concept is derived from U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.629, which states, “No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section. Takeoffs with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks may be authorized by the Administrator.”
The FAR also prohibits dispatch or takeoff any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected to adhere to the airplane, unless the certificate holder has an approved ground deicing/anti-icing program in its operations specifications that includes holdover time (HOT) tables.
The aim of this simple regulation was to put an end to the guessing game of how much snow and ice can safely be on the aircraft for a takeoff. The short answer is none (with occasional frost, but only on the underside of the wing). No one would be able to say “oh, it’ll blow off during takeoff”, or ” the exhaust from the plane taxiing ahead of us will melt the snow”. The airplane had to be clean. Period.
Don’t Drink the Deicing Fluid
Dating to the 1950s and earlier, deicing fluid for use on aircraft was based on ethylene glycol, commonly used as an automotive antifreeze solution, or sometimes even ethyl alcohol (the drinking kind). Due to its toxicity to animals, ethylene glycol was mostly replaced by propylene glycol in the 1980s. Ethyl alcohol fell out of favor as a deicer after World War II due to its popularity as a jaw lubricant with ground crews in Russia and other places. New fluids have been introduced over the years that not only remove ice but also inhibit further accumulation.
It is important to make the distinction between the terms “deice” and “anti-ice” because they mean different things, and the fluids used in each application are also different. The term deicing refers to removing existing snow and ice from an aircraft, while anti-icing means applying a fluid that inhibits continuing frozen precipitation from adhering to aircraft surfaces.
Specialty fluids have been developed over the years for these two separate functions. For most applications, fluids used to deice aircraft are known as “Type I” fluids, while anti-ice fluids are “Types II, III, and IV”. They function differently.
While Type I fluids are used mainly for deicing, Types II, III, and IV have thickeners included and are designed to adhere to the wing and absorb moisture from additional snowfall or ice accumulations and then shear off the wing during takeoff. This gives extra time between the application and taking off.
This extra time is known as “holdover time” and differs depending on the type of fluid used, its concentration, the type and intensity of the snow or ice coming down, and the outside temperature. We have lots of very complicated charts to figure it all out. If holdover time is exceeded, we go back to the gate and get sprayed again.
A typical Type I fluid will be based on propylene glycol (PG) and will include other ingredients such as corrosion inhibitors, surfactants, wetting agents, and dye. It will usually be diluted with water and heated in the truck to be sprayed on the aircraft.
So, as you sit in your window seat, you might see the trucks make two passes during deicing. The first pass will be with Type I fluid to deice, while the second pass will be to spray Type IV fluid as an anti-icer. Type IV fluid is green in color and sticks to the wing but is designed to shear off.
Deicing Ain’t Cheap
With a quick web search, I found a vendor selling DOW UCAR PG Type 1 fluid in a handy 230-gallon pack for $4250. This will typically be diluted 70/30 with water, making the solution about $13 per gallon. Keep in mind that it may take up to 500 gallons to properly deice a 737 or A320, two common airliners, so you can see that the process is expensive.
Another facet to consider is what happens to all that deice fluid after it hits the ground. Many environmental jurisdictions are starting to require capture and recycling systems for used fluid, which further drives up the costs. Given the thin profit margins of most airlines, it’s likely that flights that have been deiced are marginally profitable or unprofitable.
This begs the question of why airlines even fly in snow. Well, for one, the airline has no sure way to tell when snow will fall, but the more likely answer is that canceling flights prematurely is expensive and kills customer loyalty if the competition is still flying. Plus, aircraft and crews may also be needed elsewhere.
The tarmac delay law, with its substantial penalties for long delays, also contributes to the cancellation equation.
Clean or “Cell Phone Clean”
After many years of ambiguity regarding the question of when and how to deice, everyone from the FAA, the airlines, unions, safety administrators, and aircraft manufacturers is really on the same page concerning pre-takeoff deicing. The airplane has to be clean to take off. On this, everyone agrees.
Photo by: Newkai~commonswiki (CC 2.0)
But in tearing a page from medicine, a new phenomenon of “defensive deicing” is making itself slowly apparent. Airlines managements, while fully onboard with the need to properly deice an aircraft, also don’t want pilots to be spraying thousands of dollars worth of fluids unnecessarily. Thus pilots are routinely bombarded with memos to this effect.
Here is where a pilot’s and the airlines’ incentives may be somewhat misaligned. There are plenty of instances say where flurries may be coming down in windy conditions, where no snow may be sticking to the aircraft. In this case, it is perfectly appropriate, safe, and legal to depart without deicing.
Pilots also know, however, that in the back of the airplane are several hundred cell phone cameras with some owners only too eager to snap a picture of a snow flurry for forwarding to the FAA (believe me, I’ve seen it happen). And the FAA, being the ever loyal guardians of aviation safety, will dutifully send a letter of investigation to a pilot who thought he was doing the right thing, advising him to retain a lawyer and to explain his actions.
Having one’s livelihood potentially threatened does wonders to concentrate the mind and has resulted in a type of bunker mentality. If one airplane is getting sprayed, they all seem to end up getting sprayed if there’s even a flurry still in the air.
And should the hourly weather observation list frozen precipitation at an airport, deicing seems to always continue regardless of whether snow is actually still coming down 45 minutes later or not. And so it goes.
But there’s no doubt that a certain measure of over-caution, while an inconvenience, never ended with an airplane in the Potomac.
The XF-12 Rainbow Crushed Every Requirement Except Timing
This is the story of an aircraft unique in form and function. No other four-engine aircraft driven by reciprocating engines could touch its performance. Boeing’s prototype XB-39, a one-off experimental B-29 driven by Allison V-3420-11 liquid-cooled W24 (double-V) engines putting out 2,100 horsepower each, barely topped 400 miles per hour.
Still, it was only meant to prove that other power plants could power the B-29 should the R-3350 engines standard on the B-29 encounter problems. They did, but that’s another story. Even the RB-50, powered by the same engines as the object of this story, could only reach 385 miles per hour. In fact, not until the Lockheed P-3C Orion came along was an American four-engine propeller-driven aircraft capable of (barely) superior performance.
XB-39 image via Bill larkins
The President’s Ear
The year is 1943. America is in its third year of war. In the Pacific, seemingly endless expanses of deep blue water between island fortresses were the order of the day. Long-range aircraft were desperately needed and in short supply. Consolidated B-24s were doing the best they could with what they had. The Boeing B-29 was nearing service entry, but it was desperately needed as a bomber first.
However, a need was identified by Colonel Elliott Roosevelt (son of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt), commander of the 12th Air Force’s 90th Photographic Wing in the MTO, for a high-altitude long-range reconnaissance aircraft. The original proposal for the aircraft was made at the end of 1943 by the Air Technical Service Command of the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC).
F-6D Mustang image via Bill Larkins
The Impossible Dream Machine
This new aircraft would be required to fly at an altitude of 40,000 feet and at a speed of 400 miles per hour for 4,000 miles- a tall order indeed. The aircraft was intended primarily for high-altitude photographic reconnaissance of the Japanese homeland and those island fortresses- most of which would have to be amphibiously assaulted.
Other existing aircraft had been adapted to the role of photographic reconnaissance. USAAF reconnaissance aircraft designations began with F. P-38 Lightnings with cameras were designated F-4 or F-5. P-51 Mustangs with cameras mounted were F-6s. The photo recon versions of the B-24 were designated F-7A and F-7B. B-17 recon ships were F-9As or F-9Cs. B-25s adapted for camera work were designated F-10. The photo recon version of the B-29 would be designated F-13. Later reconnaissance aircraft designations switched to an R prefix when the US Air Force was born in 1947.
Hughes XF-11 image via National Archives
The (Lack of) Competition
Republic Aviation envisioned a large but aerodynamically smooth airframe powered by four of the most powerful radial piston engines available- the 28-cylinder 3,250-horsepower Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major. Legendary Republic designer Alexander Kartveli and his team began drawing what is still considered one of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever built. Still, the no-compromise design was more than just shapely.
Hughes Aircraft came up with the XF-11- essentially a larger version of the P-38 Lightning and also powered by R-4360s, but two of them. Howard Hughes crashed the first prototype on its first flight, and the Hughes entry went downhill from there. No other companies were designing to the requirements, though the B-29/XB-39 was considered a potential option. Foreshadowing.
Rollout of XR-12 prototype image via National Archives
First Fast Flight
Though ordered by the Army Air Force in March of 1944, when the war ended in 1945, Republic’s design, designated XF-12 and named Rainbow, was not yet complete. Work continued anyway on the two prototypes, assigned Air Force serial numbers 44-91002 and 44-91003. Rolled out in December of 1945, XF-12 002 flew for the first time on 4 February 1946 with Lowery L. Brabham, who had taken the P-47 up on its first flight five years earlier, at the controls.
The aircraft was said to be as pleasing to fly as it was to behold. But the proof was in the performance, and the Rainbow did not disappoint. The aircraft exceeded every design requirement by a healthy margin- flying at an altitude of 45,000 feet, at a speed of 470 miles per hour, for 4,500 miles. Republic had pulled it off- exceedingly well.
But, as with so many late-war designs, timing (and the advent of the jet engine) doomed the hottest prop job on the planet to notoriety only as a footnote or curiosity.
XF-12 image via National Archives
Film at 11
Republic continued to fly the Rainbows, and it seemed there was some interest from the Air Force, but it was short-lived. The XR-12’s performance and capability were showcased during Operation Birds Eye on 1 September 1948. XR-12 003, first flown on 12 August 1947, departed Muroc AFB in California, climbed to 40,000 feet over the Pacific, and then turned eastward.
The aircraft shot one continuous roll of 10-inch film as it passed over the country, photographing a 490-mile-wide swath of the earth below. Three hundred twenty-five feet of film and six hours and 55 minutes later, 003 landed at Mitchel AFB on Long Island in New York.
When later fitted with more powerful engines and additional sensors providing improved all-weather capabilities, the XR-12 was still seen as a potentially important intelligence platform. Day or night, good visibility or bad, the Rainbow could get the job done. This was the ultimate high-speed low-drag Foto-mat.
XF-12 in flight image via National Archives
Flying Foto Mat
Aerial reconnaissance pioneer Brigadier General George W. Goddard was involved in the design of the mission equipment for the Rainbow. The XR-12 was equipped with three six-inch Fairchild K-17 aerial cameras oriented for vertical, split vertical, and trimetrogon (simultaneous vertical and side-looking) photography located in compartments aft of the wing.
The Republic engineers designed heaters for the camera lenses and aerodynamically efficient inward-retracting doors for the cameras. Also carried aboard the aircraft were high-intensity photo-flash “bombs” dropped to provide target lighting at night. The aircraft even had a fully-equipped darkroom for film development and printing of the “take” from the cameras while in flight.
There was additional capacity for additional photo or other reconnaissance equipment as well. The combination of performance and capability was unprecedented.
XF-12 posing with a P-47N Thunderbolt and an SC-3 Seabee image via Republic Aviation/KB Walton
High-Tech and Looking Every Bit of It
The Rainbow displayed advanced engineering everywhere one looked. The wings were high-aspect laminar-flow shapes for efficiency without added drag. The elliptical vertical stabilizer and straight horizontal stabilizers were also efficient and low-drag. Later, the aircraft received revised, rounded wingtips and stabilizer tips.
The engines were tightly cowled and equipped with two-stage impeller fans located behind the 16-foot four-blade Curtiss propellers and large bullet spinners for increased engine cooling. High-pressure engine intake, intercooler, and oil cooler air were provided by leading-edge intakes, which were then routed to the rear of the engine nacelles, providing additional thrust. Each engine was equipped with twin General Electric turbochargers located at the trailing end of each nacelle.
XR-12 003 image via National Archives
Click NEXT PAGE below for the rest of the Rainbow story
For nearly half a century, the staff and volunteers at Agape Flights have been operating their aviation ministry out of a small hangar at the Venice Municipal Airport (VNC), along southwest Florida’s Gulf Coast. They have made a very positive impact on people throughout the Caribbean by delivering critical humanitarian aid and relief supplies and sharing a message of faith.
In the Fall 2024 issue of the Agape “Flightline” newsletter, CEO Alan Speers commented on their annual project of flying Thanksgiving meals to their affiliate partners in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, and Cuba: “I challenge you to join me in this process of looking up, looking around, and looking within, and I think you will soon discover an attitude of gratitude rising up within you!”
Map showing location where Agape Flights conducts its aviation ministry in the Caribbean.
Agape Flights Aircraft
The Agape hangar is stuffed with thousands of boxes and containers that the organization will deliver with its two aircraft. The organization has an Embraer 110, which can carry up to 3000 pounds of cargo, and a Cessna F406, which can carry 2000 pounds. While some nonprofits transport passengers, Agape aircraft are configured to carry cargo.
An Embraer 110 is one of the aircraft used in Agape Flights’ aviation ministry | Image: Agape Flights
Both aircraft have open cargo bays behind their cockpits, which the crews fill with boxes, packages, envelopes, and anything else their missionary partners need. On a typical flight, Agape aircraft carry a wide variety of items, from packages from Amazon and other businesses to medications, fresh food, and more. Flights have even carried equipment such as baby warmers. They really do their best to carry and deliver as much as they can.
Cargo bay of Embraer 110 | IMAGE: Bill Lindner
Jacques May, Agape’s Communications Director, demonstrated their determination to help others when he said, “We want to be able to say yes.”
Missionary Aviation Focused on Faith
When talking with the people at Agape, one quickly gets the sense that they genuinely care about their mission and want to help their missionary partners. They smile when they talk about their work. Although they are not attached to a specific church, they frequently mention Jesus as inspiration for their efforts.
“It’s about the Big C, or Christianity,” said Speer.
Challenges of Missionary Aviation
Inside Agape Flights: An Aviation Ministry Bringing Hope to the Caribbean 31
Greg Haman, Director of Flight Operations and Maintenance, has been the Agape Staff Pilot since 2015. He also holds an Aircraft & Powerplant (A&P) license and is responsible for ensuring the aircraft are ready to fly. Aircraft readiness, however, is not always just basic maintenance and inspections.
In April 2024, the Cessna 406 (reg. N17CK) suffered damage after a failure in flight forced it to make a gear-up landing in Haiti. Thankfully, neither of the two pilots on board was injured. The aircraft is back in the air as of August 2025.
Cessna F406 undergoing repairs in Agape Flights hangar | image: Bill Lindner
Haman said getting parts for the Embraer 110 and Cessna 406 is often difficult. The Embraer is a 1980 model, and the Cessna is a 1985 model. Haman added that neither aircraft has been in production for some time, so their manufacturers no longer supply parts for them. It is challenging to find spares, and they are expensive when they do find them. One of Agape’s goals for the future is to acquire a new aircraft, although there are no immediate plans right now.
Some of their flights are direct routes to the Caribbean, while others require fuel stops en route. For example, it takes the Embraer about 4.5 hours to fly the 800 miles from Venice, Florida, to Haiti, including a refueling stop in the Bahamas.
Volunteers Central to Agape’s Aviation Ministry
Volunteering is a big part of Agape’s operation. Along with its 13 paid staff members, Agape has 150 volunteers, including four pilots. One of the volunteers’ most important tasks is to help process, weigh, and inspect the many packages arriving at the hangar daily.
Containers, boxes, and pallets waiting for flights to Agape mission partners | image: Bill Lindner
Agape, a nonprofit aviation ministry organization, works with affiliate missionary partners who pay $125 annually to receive supplies and bulk mail from the United States. Affiliates also pay fifty percent of the five-dollar-per-pound shipping charge for the packages, and Agape pays the other half. They currently support about 300 missionaries, their families, and their missions. Agape mission partners arrange to send mail and packages to Venice with their suppliers.
Another view of the Agape Flights hangar | IMAGE: Bill Lindner
According to Shelly Watkins, Director of Donor Engagement for Agape, companies and other organizations often pay the shipping charge to help the missionaries receiving the supplies.
This is more than a business arrangement to deliver packages, as faith and service are central to everything Agape does with its aviation ministry. In addition to their regular deliveries, they also provide support following natural disasters. Following the 2021 earthquake in Haiti, they delivered tarps, tents, and other essential items.
Agape Begins Its Aviation Ministry in 1980
Keith and Clara Starkey founded Agape Flights in 1980. Following mission trips to help people in Haiti, Spain, Guatemala, and Africa, they wanted to serve even more and decided to do so through aviation ministry. They purchased a Cessna 411 and initially used their home as the organization’s shipping center and mailing address. Agape began operations on 24 October 1980 and flew its first mission on 15 November from Sarasota, Florida, to Cap Haitien, Haiti.
The word “Agape” is Greek and means God’s unconditional love, so Agape flights, or “God’s Love Flights”, seems especially fitting for the good work they have been doing for nearly 45 years.
Last night’s tragic crash in DC really disturbed me and undoubtedly so many others around the country and the world. My thoughts are with the families of those affected as well as the entire industry who is in shock over this accident.
It’s upsetting to see people start shooting blame so soon, particularly knowing how many issues and factors aligned to cause such horrific tragedy. At this point, we don’t yet know why two aircraft collided on a perfectly clear but busy winter night in DC.
A few people today have asked me about the challenges of flying into and out of DCA so I figured I would share some thoughts, possibly as a way to process the events of last night myself.
DCA Is A Complex Airport For Many Reasons
Over the past few years, I’ve flown into DCA a number of times. I’ve flown in and out of the busy DC airspace hundreds of times over my career. Captains who I’ve flown with have operated at the airport for even longer.
Everyone in the profession understands the ins and outs and the complexity of operating at DCA. The pilots and the controllers are utmost professionals who take their jobs very seriously and would do anything and everything in their power to avoid what occurred yesterday.
DCA is a very complex airport both due to its design, its busy airspace, location, operating requirements, restricted airspace, and government restrictions.
Originally built for a much different era of aviation
DCA was an airport originally built for much slower prop aircraft in the 1940s. The airport features three runways, most still long enough for today’s jet traffic but relatively short by today’s standards. The design of the airport forces a complex choreographed ballet of operations between the intersecting runways. Multiple runways are used for takeoffs and landings at alternating times, typically in rapid fire succession.
Limited space on the ground for a large operation
The limited footprint of the airport requires precise attention to detail both in the air and the ground. On the ground, aircraft must often cross other active runways to the tarmac. This requires precise language and timing by both the pilots and the controllers.
The airspace is very busy. DCA is located in the heart of DC with multiple other airports in the region. This means that radio traffic in the region is bustling everyday, made even busier during bad weather or prominent national events that increase traffic even further.
Nation’s Capitol to the north of the field
The airspace immediately to the north of DCA is prohibited due to its close proximity to both the capitol, National Mall, and the White House. Unlike a normal airport where low altitude turns are avoided, DCA departures to the north require an immediate left turn at around 300 feet to stay south of the prohibited Capitol airspace.
Quirky Approaches due to airspace requirements
Aircraft on arrival in a south flow have to follow the Potomac river for arrival forcing an impressive low altitude final turn to align with runway 15 or 19. This has been made easier by RNP approaches that guide every turn.
Even when landing to the north though, aircraft are requested to overfly the river for noise abatement forcing gentle but otherwise unnecessary turns on short final.
Traffic volume that requires constant optimization
Many times, regional aircraft and sometimes larger aircraft are requested by tower to circle to runway 33 as what occurred last night. This maneuver allows for more efficient aircraft utilization of the runways. Once again, this maneuver is safe and common but the low altitude maneuver requires mental sharpness and focus to safely accomplish.
Significant traffic transiting the airspace
Military helicopters routinely transition the Potomac river at low altitudes very close to DCA, making last night’s events both startling in the result but not unusual at all that the operations were occurring in the area simultaneously. While (once again) not inherently unsafe, the complex operations so close to the field require additional attention to detail to keep operations safe.
Convenience makes DCA popularity ever growing
Lured by the close proximity to the city, DCA has continued to grow in popularity over the years. While the airport is slot restricted, congress just recently approved 5 additional flights into DCA beginning this year.
…And add in security and weather
Beyond just the airspace and the airport environment, you have additional factors that make operations into DCA more complex. It’s proximity to the Nation’s Capitol require additional security measures. The weather in the area is very dynamic too adding an additional layer of complexity. All of these factors come together to make DCA one of the more challenging airports to operate in the United States.
Changes won’t be easy and might not be popular
While operations will undoubtedly resume shortly, the longer path forward for DCA is not yet clear. In an ideal world, you would build a new airport nearby with 9,000 foot runways and wider margins from the prohibited airspace and VFR helicopter routes. With the density of the DC area though, the cost of a new airport, and the lack of available land that is highly unlikely to occur.
Congress could mandate less flights into the airport but that would be unpopular and have significant economic impact to the region, airlines, and the efficiency of government.
A crash like yesterday could force a more radical shift in the thinking of DCA operations. A pie in the sky idea I’ve always thought about would be closing DCA to airline traffic, building high speed rail between DCA and Dulles (much faster than the current silver line Metro service) that shift all operations to the larger international airport. DCA would then remain open only for military and government traffic or closed all together.
At this point though, the truth is that no one knows what will happen net. There will be plenty of time to debate and figure out next steps.
For Now, Let’s Pause To Remember And Honor Their Memory
The bottom line is that this tragedy is an inflection point for DCA. For today though, it is most appropriate to reflect and mourn. May we learn from this tragedy and honor the dead and their families by finding ways never to let it happen again.
Remembering and reflecting on flights PSA 5243 and PAT25.
American Airlines Flight 5342, a PSA Airlines CRJ-700 (N709PS), collided midair with a U.S. Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter near Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) while on approach to Runway 33 at approximately 9 p.m. local time on January 29, 2025.
The FAA and NTSB have confirmed the crash and will lead the investigation. Flight 5342, which had 60 passengers and four crew members, was operating from Wichita, Kansas, and that rescuers have found at least four survivors so far. The UH-60 belonged to the Army’s Fort Belvoir unit.
Latest updates are below. Refresh this link for the latest update.
Current as of 30 Jan 2025, 1:42am
Update 1:42am ET: Reagan National Airport Closed Until 11am
FAA NOTAMs for Reagan National Airport show that DCA will be closed through at least 11am today. NOTAM excerpt below.
American Eagle Flight And Helicopter Collide Near Reagan National Airport 36
Update 12:43am ET: President Trump posts two comments on crash on Truth Social.
Two Posts on Truth Social in the last few minutes by U.S. President Donald J. Trump. pic.twitter.com/gOdB7nSNO5
Update 12:41am ET: Statement by American Airlines CEO on crash
A Statement from the CEO of American Airlines, Robert Isom following the Crash tonight of a Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-700 operated by PSA Airlines at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport near Washington D.C. pic.twitter.com/r998i5HmP2
FAA Notams do show the airport is closed until 5am local time.
American Eagle Flight And Helicopter Collide Near Reagan National Airport 37
Update 12:00am ET: CNN Confirms No Survivors Thus Far
A recent X post by political commentator Charlie Kirk shared that CNN has confirmed with rescue officials that no survivors have been found thus far. A link to his post is below.
CNN has confirmed with law enforcement that no survivors have been pulled from the water. The rescue efforts remain underway. pic.twitter.com/hJ0QUOMNxu
Newly confirmed US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy also posted on X about the accident.
I have spoken with Washington D.C. Mayor Bowser, Virginia Governor Youngkin, Kansas Governor Kelly, and NTSB Chair Homendy to offer our agency’s complete assistance. Thank you to all first responders who are on the scene and conducting the search and rescue operations.
Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem also posted a response to the crash.
We are deploying every available US Coast Guard resource for search and rescue efforts in this horrific incident at DCA. We are actively monitoring the situation & stand ready to support local responders.
Update 11:45pm ET: American Airlines posts link to updates
American Airlines has posted on X with link to their website with the latest crash news. Their latest post confirms 60 passengers and 4 crew members on board.
#AA5342 en route from Wichita, Kansas (ICT), to Washington, D.C. (DCA) was involved in an accident at DCA. Get the latest updates on our Newsroom https://t.co/vb4fAAUENX
While we do not have any information on the Blackhawk, but according to NBC News the Army has confirmed that it was an Army UH-60 Blackhawk out of Fort Belvoir involved in tonight’s crash. The PSA CRJ-700 jet involved in the crash was tail N709PS.
Airfleets, a website that tracks aircraft history shows that the aircraft was first flown in September of 2004. The aircraft originally flew with Midatlantic Airways under the US Airways Express banner. The aircraft joined the PSA fleet just two months later. Airfleets website shows that the aircraft was stored from September of 2022 until earlier this month. The aircraft was 20.4 years old at the time of the accident.
Update 11:17pm ET: Contact information for families affected
Congressman Don Beyer has posted on BlueSky with information for anyone who may have had friends or relatives on the flight.
A tweet from Kansas Rep. Don Beyer, relaying info for families: … “If you believe you may have loved ones on board Flight 5342, call American Airlines toll-free at 800-679-8215."
Liveatc.com records live audio of many ATC conversations worldwide. The audio from DCA tower is available on their website. If you click on the link here, the audio involving the accident starts at 17:15 of the clip.
A PSA CRJ-700 (similar to the one pictured above) crashed near DCA airport after it collided with a helicopter. The CRJ-700 is a regional jet that can carry between 70 and 78 passengers. Image: Flikr, motox810 CC 2.0
The PSA aircraft involved in the accident is a Mitsubishi CRJ-700. The CRJ-700 is a regional jet that first flew in 1999. It entered service in 2001 as stretch and modernized CRJ-200. The aircraft features a larger cabin, modernized avionics, and upgraded engines. The -700 typically holds between 70 to 78 passengers. Some aircraft have been reconfigured with first class seats and storage closets to seat just 50. In 2020, Bombardier sold the CRJ program to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
A PSA Airlines Bombardier CRJ700 regional jet collided in midair with a Sikorsky H-60 helicopter while on approach to Runway 33 at Reagan Washington National Airport around 9 p.m. local time. PSA was operating as Flight 5342 for American Airlines. It departed from Wichita, Kansas. The FAA and NTSB will investigate. The NTSB will lead the investigation.
Update 9:52pm ET: Initial Crash Information and Video
From initial information appears PSA Airlines 5342, a CRJ 700 collided with PAT25, an Army transport helicopter on the approach end of runway 33 at DCA, Reagan National Airport
iirc the PAT helos are gold top UH-60s used for VIP transport
— Ian Servin || @airplaneian.com on Bluesky (@airplaneian) January 30, 2025
.@flightradar24 recording as #AA5342 approached. Looks like another American flight was just ahead of them on final to runway 1. Possible 5342 sidestepped to runway 13, got low, and collided with a helicopter flying low on the east bank of the Potomac. The helicopter is not on… pic.twitter.com/MWo5UEOV7i
A video posted from the Kennedy Center camera shows what appears to be a helicopter flying from left to right in front of a landing aircraft. Seconds later, they appear to collide, resulting in an explosion.
Additional posts indicate that rescue helicopters are searching for the aircraft at this time.
WASHINGTON: BREAKING REPORT: An American Airlines regional passenger plane reportedly collided with a helicopter and fell into the Potomac River upon landing at Reagan Nat'l Airport near DC. Reports suggest the flight is AA5342 from Wichita, Kansas with 60 on board. pic.twitter.com/qeeaoJkhXo
WATCH 🚨: A PAT25 Military helicopter and a CRJ 700 jet collided mid-air while approaching Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport from Wichita, Kansas.
There are reports that 60 people were on board.#AA5342 operated by PSA Airlines for American Airlines is the flight that… pic.twitter.com/tvTVZmDI0f
This would be a significant design difference from current tankers.
In August 2023, the Air Force selected JetZero to partner with Northrup Grumman to develop a prototype to test the BWB design. This may also play a role in the Air Force’s long-term plans for its Next-Generation Aerial-refueling System (NGAS).
Artist depiction of JetZero blended wing air refueling aircraft. | Image: JetZero
Strong need for more efficient, less vulnerable tankers
In planning for future operations, the Air Force has determined a growing need for new tankers with better fuel efficiency, longer range, and increased payload capacity. A major concern for this is to support fighters and ground attack aircraft just hundreds of miles from combat zones. With current tanker models, this close-up support would leave the tankers vulnerable to attack from enemy aircraft.
The Air Force KC-135 and KC-46 Pegasus tankers flying today are modified versions of commercial passenger jets. One of the Air Force’s primary goals for a new tanker design is for it to have greater range while being more efficient and cost effective. This has led to research in blended wing body designs.
U.S. Air Force KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft. | Image: USAF
JetZero and Northrup Grumman leading blended wing design research
JetZero is leading this effort with its “Pathfinder” prototype or demonstration model. It has a wingspan of 23 feet, approximately one-eighth of the 184 feet they plan for a full-scale aircraft. The blended wing design combines the wings and fuselage into a single unit. This produces several aerodynamic advantages over traditional tube and wing aircraft.
The Pathfinder’s combined wing and wide central body make a large surface area and allows the entire aircraft to produce lift. One advantage from this is a 9.4% lift to drag ratio better than conventional models.
Blended wing aircraft more efficient than older designs
A recent study showed that this configuration will lead to a 27% reduction in fuel burn per passenger mile or a 50% reduction in fuel consumption. Another benefit of the BWB that would be effective for tankers is a lighter maximum takeoff Weight (MTOW). This partly comes from it having less surface area than conventional designs. This lighter weight produces another advantage of having the aircraft lighter weight requiring small engines, which only adds to the overall efficiency, which then increases range. Yet another advantage is that BWB aircraft are quieter.
“Blended wing body aircraft have the potential to significantly reduce fuel demand and increase global reach,” said Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. “Moving forces and cargo quickly, efficiently, and over long distance is a critical capability to enable national security strategy.”
Need for new tanker designs to have low observable features
Blended wing body design features may also impact plans for the Air Force’s plans for its Next-Generation Aerial-refueling System (NGAS). However, the purpose of this program is not just to deploy more cost-effective tankers with more range. One of the most important goals for the NGAS is to be able to refuel low-observable or stealthy aircraft like the B-21 bomber and the F-35 fighter. Air Force planners want tankers to get closer to where the bombers and fighters are flying.
Artist image of JetZero Pathfinder blended wing tanker. | Image: JetZero
“To have tactical fighters that can operate effectively, you’ve got to tank them within a few hundred miles of where they’re going to operate,” said former Secretary of the US Air Force Frank Kendall. “So, we need tankers that can get into ranges where they are now threatened. Current tankers are not very effective at that. And the commercial derivative tanker, which is a traditional route to getting one, is probably not going to be effective either, although that’s not off the table yet.”
Flying refueling missions close to the forward battle area leaves tankers vulnerable to enemy aircraft. This emphasizes the need for tankers to have stealthy features.
Changes required to make blended wing aircraft less vulnerable
Some have suggested that BWB tankers, with their flying wing designs that look similar to the B-2 and B-21, might also have stealthy qualities. However, research has not proven this yet. To make the design a true low-observable aircraft, one change would be to incorporate the engines more into the interior of the airframe than on the Pathfinder.
There is widespread interest in developing BWB aircraft for commercial and military purposes. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, and Bombardier are also working on developing BWB tanker designs for NGAS.
Image of Lockheed Martin design idea for “optionally” manned low observable tanker. | Image: Lockheed Martin
New fuel potential for blended wing design
Looking ahead, manufacturers are also working on different fuels systems for aircraft. One of these is to use hydrogen as a zero-carbon option. JetZero has determined that its BWB design will be able to accommodate hydrogen fuels. It expects this technology to be ready by 2030, which only makes blended wing body aircraft more promising.
