The Boeing 747 had a real chance to become the a fleet of KC-25s in the US Air Force
Unbeknownst to many in the general population, the KC-747 (what would have become the KC-25) was the potential powerhouse that fizzled out before it could make an impact on military aviation. Aviation enthusiasts acknowledge the shortcomings of this monstrous machine and recognize the reasoning behind the United States Air Force’s decision to decline the world’s largest tanker. However, at first glance, this giant tanker-cargo aircraft appeared to be the perfect solution to a growing need.
Throughout the course of history, dating back to World War II, the need for capable and innovative aircraft has constantly risen. With each triggering event that builds global tensions, world militaries have paralleled their growth with the exponentially increasing need, as best they can. A large portion of the aerial movement includes tanker aircraft. Aerial refueling provides the ability for aircraft to stay on station for longer periods of time, creating benefits such as extending periods of survey and intelligence gathering, as well as enabling trips across long distances much faster.
The United States Air Force (USAF) employs the largest number of tanker aircraft in the world, with a significant amount operated by the National Guard. The most common tanker in the inventory is the venerable KC-135. However, it has taken many competitive designs spanning the last few decades to reach this point of preference.
The hunt for a new tanker
In the 1960s, an initiative was created that paved the way for present-day tanker-cargo aircraft. It was dubbed the Advanced Tanker-Cargo Aircraft (ATCA) program. The goal was to create a heavy tanker-transport machine that would accommodate the growing need for aerial refueling and transportation of supplies to deployed troops.
According to a Jalopnik article from 2014 by Tyler Rogoway, the program’s initial top competitors included versions of the DC-10, L-1011, C-5, and B747. Each variant brought unique aspects to the drawing board; however, they also brought their fair share of detrimental characteristics. The C-5 is a colossal aircraft, and its sheer size is what nixed it. The L-1011 wasn’t configured for cargo operations at the time, which caused it to be too high a risk moving forward.
A decade after this initiative began, the DC-10 (KC-10) and B747 (KC-25) were paired against each other as finalists to support USAF personnel moving forward. Ultimately, the KC-10 was selected, regardless of the valiant effort KC-25 proponents put forth.
The KC-25 theoretically could have been selected to fit a need for a larger tanker with additional cargo capacity. The concept behind its creation was one of ingenuity. On paper, it seemed like a winner. However, only two were ever purchased. The buyer? The Iranian Air Force.
So why was the KC-25, a potential powerhouse aircraft, declined by the buyer it was designed for amid a time of great need?
KC-25 Specifications and Performance
During the height of the competition, the KC-25 was marketed as the ultimate tanker-cargo carrier. It far surpassed others in terms of fuel capacity, payload capability, and sheer speed. This behemoth can haul payloads of around 200,000 pounds, paired with more than 455,000 pounds of fuel. That means it carries 100,000 more pounds of fuel than the KC-10 while effortlessly flying longer distances. Unfortunately, its large size meant it could not operate on shorter runways.
The KC-25 was tested relentlessly with a multitude of receiver aircraft and passed with flying colors each and every time. Reports state that during refueling tests, the aircraft remained incredibly stable.
The KC-25 was equipped with a boom. The final configurations of the KC-747 planted an aerial refueling receptacle on the front end, with a nose cargo door that increased ease of on—and off–loading. It could offload twice as much fuel as an aircraft as the KC-135.
This massive aircraft turned tanker was meant to be an epic show of American might mixed with innovation. It was unmatched during its time; however, bigger does not always mean better in the eyes of the military.
The KC-25 Falls Short
When all was said and done, the KC-25 was still thrown to the wayside. Major points of reason include the astronomical operational expenses, its immense size preventing access to numerous runways, and the non-existent need for an aircraft that carries such high volumes of fuel and payloads. In layman’s terms, this aircraft was overkill. At the time of the final decision, the USAF had a budget that they felt would be put to better use across the acquisition of more aircraft that still performed exceptionally well across all testing platforms.
McDonnell Douglas RF-4C-18-MC (S/N 63-7445) was probably testing for wake turbulence in a KC-747 design study. Note the open IFR door on the RF-4C. (U.S. Air Force photo)
The KC-10 was a winner in the eyes of the USAF at the end of the competition due to the cheaper cost of operations as well as the key and unique features it brought to the table. This tanker-cargo aircraft could operate on shorter runways, opening up a plethora of strategic locations.
It offered automated break-away capabilities rarely found during this time and a fly-by-wire boom with a larger envelope for refueling. Comparing the KC-25 tanker-cargo aircraft to current-day applications, the competition operates more efficiently at a lower price point, with a smaller footprint, while still surpassing mission needs. Tankers such as the KC-135 and KC-10 fit better into mission platforms for squadrons throughout the USAF. The KC-767 and later the KC-46 program demonstrated that the sweet spot for a tanker was in the medium-sized category.
Yet the concept of the KC-25 lived on all the way until 2000. An Air Power Australia analysis deck (an independent think tank not affiliated with the RAAF or Australia’s Department of Defence) available on the internet highlighted that Boeing continued to look at modifying the 747-400 platform but ultimately abandoned it in favor of the 767-based aircraft. There is no other source to confirm whether or not it was seriously looked at as an option in more recent times by any nation.
Editor’s Note: The original article incorrectly stated that the RAAF produced the study mentioned on the 747 tanker. The article has since been corrected.
Boeing’s KC-46 tanker. Credit: Ken Fielding, Flickr.com photos.
‘Tis the season! It is time once again for J.D. Power’s airport rankings, and the 2024 results highlight a clear trend: rising costs and record crowds are beginning to impact traveler spending. Despite this, overall satisfaction remains remarkably high.
The J.D. Power 2024 North America Airport Satisfaction Study is out, and it reveals some shakeups on the leaderboard (we see you, MSP!). Perhaps confoundingly, traveler satisfaction remains strong despite record passenger volumes, including a single-day record of three million travelers on 07 July, and soaring prices for goods and services.
“Most travelers are still enjoying the experience,” says Michael Taylor, managing director of travel, hospitality, and retail at J.D. Power. “However, we are starting to see a breaking point in consumer spending, with average spend per person in the terminal declining significantly from a year ago.”
The J.D. Power 2024 Airport Satisfaction Study: Four Key Takeaways
A security checkpoint queue at MSP | MSP Airport on Facebook
J.D. Power highlights four major insights that shape this year’s rankings:
Passengers still enjoy the airport experience: Despite crowded terminals, flight delays, and cancellations, most travelers continue to enjoy their time at airports.
Skyrocketing prices cut into spending: Passengers are spending less at airports than in previous years, with average spending down by $3.53 per person compared to 2023. That number jumps to $6.31 for large airports.
Sense of place matters: Seventy percent of travelers feel their airport reflects the local culture or region, a factor that strongly influences the high scores of top-ranked airports.
Crowded conditions hurt rankings: Only five percent of respondents reported experiencing “severely crowded” airports in 2024, but those airports saw a significant decline in their rankings.
Passengers Rate Their Experience Based on Seven Factors
The McNamara Terminal at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) | IMAGE: Detroit Metro Airport (DTW) on Facebook
The 19th annual study draws from 26,290 surveys completed by U.S. or Canadian travelers between August 2023 and July 2024. Participants must have used at least one U.S. or Canadian airport during a roundtrip (one-way flights excluded) to be eligible.
J.D. Power evaluates satisfaction levels at North America’s busiest airports, categorized into three groups: mega airports (over 33 million passengers per year), large airports (10 to 32.9 million passengers), and medium airports (4.5 to 9.9 million passengers).
For 2024, the study’s criteria have been updated and now focus on these seven factors:
Ease of travel through airport
Level of trust with airport
Terminal facilities
Airport staff
Departure/to airport experience
Food, beverage, and retail
Arrival/from airport experience
Airports utilize this study’s insights to enhance their operations and the overall passenger experience.
Let’s take a look at the list of the top five best and worst airports in the mega, large, and medium categories, along with their survey scores (out of 1,000 points). Changes from the 2023 rankings are noted in parentheses after this year’s scores.
Mega Airports (>33 million pax annually)
Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport terminal | IMAGE: MSP Airport on Facebook
Top 5
MSP – Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport: 671 (+1)
DTW – Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport: 643 (-1)
PHX – Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 633 (+10)
JFK – John F. Kennedy International Airport: 628 (+7)
DFW – Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport: 623 (-1)
Bottom 5
EWR – Newark Liberty International Airport: 552 (+/- 0)
YYZ – Toronto Pearson International Airport: 559 (+/- 0)
ORD – Chicago O’Hare International Airport: 569 (+3)
ATL – Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport: 574 (-9)
SEA – Seattle/Tacoma International Airport: 575 (+2)
Large Airports (10-32.9M pax annually)
IMAGE: John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) on Facebook
Top 5
SNA – John Wayne Airport, Orange County: 687 (+1)
TPA – Tampa International Airport: 685 (-1)
MCI – Kansas City International Airport: 683 (+10)
DAL – Dallas Love Field: 675 (+/- 0)
BNA – Nashville International Airport: 668 (+6)
Bottom 5
PHL – Philadelphia International Airport: 541 (+/- 0)
YUL – Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport: 576 (-1)
STL – St. Louis Lambert International Airport: 583 (-3)
HNL – Honolulu International Airport: 593 (+2)
MDW – Chicago Midway International Airport: 598 (-4)
Medium Airports (4.5-9.9M pax annually)
Indianapolis International Airport (IND) ranks first in medium-size airports in the 2024 J.D. Power North American Airport Satisfaction Study | IMAGE: Indianapolis International Airport on Facebook
Top 5
IND – Indianapolis International Airport: 687 (+/- 0)
JAX – Jacksonville International Airport: 686 (+4)
RSW – Southwest Florida International Airport: 675 (-1)
ONT – Ontario International Airport: 672 (-1)
BUF – Buffalo Niagara International Airport: 670 (+3)
Bottom 5
CLE – Cleveland Hopkins International Airport: 580 (-3)
PIT – Pittsburgh International Airport: 625 (-5)
BUR – Hollywood Burbank Airport: 626 (+1)
ABQ – Albuquerque International Sunport: 646 (-8)
OMA – Eppley Airfield: 653 (+/- 0)
Finding Enjoyment in the Journey
A plane silhouetted against the rising sun at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) | IMAGE: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport on Facebook
Amid rising costs and record-breaking crowds, travelers continue to find moments of enjoyment in their airport experiences. Stepping into an airport brings a familiar buzz–baggage wheels clicking, the aroma of fresh coffee, and the joy of watching planes take off all contribute to the experience.
So, while rising costs may trim a few dollars off the airport shopping spree, one thing is clear: the airport experience itself is holding steady.
Moving forward, airports will need to strike a balance between managing growing passenger numbers and maintaining the high standards that keep travelers satisfied.
The SB2C Was the Third or Fourth Best Dive Bomber on American Carriers
The Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bomber was one of the aircraft that won World War II. However, like every aircraft in service during the late 1930s, improved replacements were already on the drawing boards at several contractors even before the United States entered the war.
Of course, the SBD would turn out to be one of the greats. But the development of one of its intended replacements, the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, was so rocky that the SB2C was nearly cancelled. Several times.
SBD Dauntless. Image via US Navy
First Impressions of the Helldiver
Larger, faster, and able to carry more ordnance than the SBD, it seemed the Helldiver was the answer to the Navy’s needs for an improved dive bomber. However, the prototype XSB2C-1, powered by a Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone radial piston engine driving a three-bladed propeller, did not impress when it was flown for the first time on 18 December 1940. The litany of problems with the aircraft started with the engine itself and included poor stall characteristics, structural weaknesses, directional instability, and control issues in general.
XSB2C-1. Image via US Navy
A Very Visible Bomber
The US Army Air Corps (USAAC) and the US Marine Corps were also looking at the Helldiver. In USAAC (later USAAF) service, the aircraft was known as the A-25A Shrike. Shrikes were equipped with modified landing gear and Army-specific radio equipment, along with a few other minor differences.
When the XSB2C-1 crashed on 8 February 1941, Curtiss rebuilt it, but fitted an enlarged vertical stabilizer and an autopilot. Then the rebuilt XSB2C-1 crashed on 21 December 1941. A nation now at total war and needing the SB2C justified the decision to order the SB2C-1 into production in November of 1941. The first production SB2C-1 was rolled out in June of 1942.
SB2C-1. Image via NACA/NASA
The Beast
Production was one thing. Taming the beast was another. While the SBD was helping to win battles all over the Pacific and the Grumman TBF/TBM Avenger torpedo bomber was already entering service aboard the few Navy carriers during the second half of 1942, Curtiss was working through a voluminous “punch list” for the SB2C.
The initial production aircraft featured an enlarged vertical stabilizer, self-sealing fuel tanks, and additional wing-mounted .50-caliber machine guns, as well as later a pair of 20-millimeter cannons. However, 880 modifications to the early models had to be completed before the Navy would accept the SB2C-1 for service.
SB2Cs. Image via US Navy
Taking What’s Available to Sea
When VB-17 finally took the SB2C-1C Helldiver to war aboard the Essex-class aircraft carrier USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) in November of 1943, the aircraft still had plenty of challenges. Crews, used to the slower but reliable and proven SBD, took to calling the Helldiver the Big-Tailed Beast (or just Beast) and Son of a Bitch Second Class.
Handling problems persisted, and the SB2C was significantly more complicated than the Dauntless, which led to neither the crews nor the maintainers liking them much. However, with aircraft carriers under construction and requiring airplanes for their air wings to operate from them, the Helldiver had to adapt and overcome. So it (eventually) did—to a degree.
SB2C-1C. Image via US Navy
Design Compromises Doomed the Beast
Problem one was that the SB2C was underpowered from the beginning. Resolution arrived in the form of the SB2C-3, powered by the R-2600-20 Twin Cyclone engine producing another 200 horsepower and turning a Curtiss-Electric four-bladed propeller. Coupled with a 40% weight reduction in later models, performance was improved.
But the Beast was still a design compromise.
The fuselage was truncated to allow the airplane to fit on carrier elevators. Approach speeds were too high, and control at those speeds was imprecise. But consider that the SB2C’s range was actually less than the SBD’s, and the problem comes into sharp relief. Rather than replace the SBD, the SB2C augmented the Dauntless. Few, if any, crews believed the SB2C was better than or an improvement over the SBD.
SB2C-3. Image via US Navy
In the End They Did Their Part
SB2Cs did battle in the Pacific Theater during the last couple of years of the war. Thanks to their existence, the Navy was able to deploy dive bombers on the numerous large-deck Essex-class carriers constructed during the war. They participated in every major engagement through the end of hostilities.
Helldiver oddities
SB2Cs did not operate from light carriers or escort carriers thanks to the aircraft’s combination of high approach speed, poor approach handling, and sheer size and weight.
Don’t Mess With the Yorktown
The SB2C also didn’t operate from every Essex-class carrier, either. Captain Joseph J. “Jocko” Clark got so tired of them making a mess of his carrier, the USS Yorktown (CV-10), that he put them on the beach while on the way to the Pacific and replaced them with SBDs. Clark also recommended cancelling the SB2C entirely.
Wave off! Image via US Navy
The Last Dive Bomber
Though the SB2C was capable of delivering bombs with more precision over a greater range, both the Grumman F6F Hellcat and Vought F4U Corsair were capable of delivering nearly the same payload as the Helldiver. That, coupled with the advent of aerial rockets, spelled the end of the dive bomber in US Navy service.
Called The Helldiver “Appalling”
After the war ended, the Navy flew Helldivers for a few years. The Naval Reserves retired their last examples in 1950. F4U Corsairs and Douglas AD Skyraiders did the Beast’s job. Foreign operators of the SB2C were France, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Thailand. Both the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy were in line to fly the SB2C, but canceled orders for their carriers- the British after reporting “appalling” handling.
Naval Reserve SB2C-5s. Image via US Navy
Contract Builders
Canadian Car and Foundry built a total of 894 SB2Cs, designated as SBW-l, SBW-3, SBW-4, SBW-4E, and SBW-5. Fairchild in Canada built another 300 of them, designated as XSBF-l, SBF-l, SBF-3, and SBF-4E. An amazing 7,140 Helldivers were built in total.
A Respectable Tally
Officially, Helldivers flew 18,808 combat sorties in the Pacific War and were involved in or directly credited with sinking 301 Japanese ships of all types. SB2C radiomen-gunners shot down a total of 41 Japanese aircraft.
SB2C-3. Image via US Navy
The Army and the Aussies
Remember those Army Shrikes? Well, they were delayed the same as the rest. By the time the Army did get them into service, they were discovering they already had a highly capable bomber in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. Some of the Shrikes were offered to Australia, which said thanks but no thanks. The US Marines ended up with more than 400 of them (designated SB2C-1A) but never flew them in combat. They ended their careers as trainers and target tugs.
A Rare Warbird Indeed
The single airworthy SB2C is Bureau Number (BuNo) 83589 and operated by the Commemorative Air Force (West Texas Wing) in Graham, Texas. Built in 1945, the aircraft was extensively damaged in 1982 and rebuilt, returning to flight in 1988. Enjoy this video of 83589 flying with some other warbirds uploaded by AirshowStuffVideos.
“The biggest threat wasn’t the Germans. It was the cold.” Inside the Avro Lancaster’s brutally spartan WWII missions and the crews who endured them.
Aviation was pretty spartan back in the 40s by today’s standards. Planes weren’t pressurized, heat was nearly non-existent, and the quarters were cramped. There were operational hazards at every turn. If every bit of exposed skin wasn’t covered, you could get frostbite in seconds.
Yet the heroes of World War II battled the elements to defend freedom in Europe. They were brave men.
Take a tour of the interior of this Avro Lancaster, affectionately known to avgeeks as “the Lanc.” You’ll learn some fascinating facts about a bomber that helped turn the tide of war against the Nazis in Europe. Liz Dodds and Andrew Panton are your hosts. They’ll provide some fascinating facts mixed with a little dry British humor. The 25-minute video, uploaded by Rob Hayton, provides a comprehensive look at the exterior, interior, and even the cockpit of this pivotal aircraft.
image via IWM
The Avro Lancaster was a mid-wing, cantilever heavy bomber powered by four wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Merlin piston engines. It earned its reputation during the Second World War, becoming one of Britain’s most famous bombers through its extensive combat service.
The Lanc featured an oval-shaped, all-metal fuselage divided into five main sections, along with similarly sectioned wings. Its aft was distinguished by its twin elliptical fins and rudders, a hallmark of its design.
image via iwm
One notable feature of the Avro Lancaster was its unobstructed bomb compartment, which was more than 33 feet long. The Avro Lancaster was capable of holding the largest bombs in the RAF. Then bulged doors were added so the aircraft could carry even bigger bombs. The Avro Lancaster could eventually hold a bomb that weighed 12,000 pounds.
image via battle of britain memorial flight
The Avro Lancaster was designed and built by Avro for the Royal Air Force (RAF). Its maiden voyage was on 9 January 1941. The aircraft was introduced into service in 1942. Primary users of the Avro Lancaster were the Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the Royal Australian Air Force.
Between 1941, when the first one was built, and 1963, when the model was retired, 7,377 Avro Lancaster aircraft were manufactured.
Captains Kirk and Picard had starships to explore the universe. Earthly mortals could have had a futuristic Beechcraft Starship to crisscross the world, but circumstances, both in development and marketing, limited the success of what was otherwise a stunning aircraft.
In the early 1980s, Beechcraft began looking for a successor to its popular King Air. The objective was for this successor to be faster, quieter, and safer, with an equal or greater payload, and, of course, to achieve the sales success of the King Air.
Developmental History of the Beechcraft Starship
The design result was a sleek, twin-turboprop pusher, canard design. Another goal was to utilize composite materials to the maximum extent possible, thereby reducing weight and increasing structural integrity compared to the metal structures of their previous aircraft.
An added safety feature of the canard design is that it would be essentially stall-proof. Canards are a front wing that actually produces lift. As the aircraft approaches a stall, the canards stall first, causing the nose to drop slightly, ensuring that the main wing continues to fly, enabling a prompt stall recovery.
Although there are several very successful canard experimental aircraft, such as the Rutan Long-EZ and the Velocity, a six-to-eight passenger composite canard was a new concept, and Beechcraft would experience unexpected developmental challenges.
The Starship is a two-surface aircraft, i.e., it has a main wing and a canard. In contrast, the canard Piaggio P.180, introduced in 1990, is a three-surface design that includes a conventional horizontal stabilizer and elevators.
The Canard, Pusher-prop Long EZ is a popular homebuilt experimental aircraft.
Development of the Beechcraft Starship
Early in the development phase, Beechcraft commissioned Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites to build and test fly an 85% scale version of the Starship design. This proof-of-concept aircraft flew successfully (1983) and was also shown at business aircraft conventions as the next Beech business aircraft of the not-too-distant future.
Beech initially built three full-scale flying prototypes for testing and certification. Each aircraft had a specific test program, including aerodynamic testing, avionics and systems testing, and integration and testing of the flight management system, as well as engine testing. The first test aircraft flew in February 1986.
The Starship on display at the Beechcraft Heritage Museum, Tullahoma, Tennessee.
Although testing proceeded relatively smoothly, the company’s investment in composite construction exceeded expectations, both in terms of production facilities and the extended learning curve required for a production team transitioning from conventional metal construction to composite construction.
The composite aircraft was also new to the FAA, and they, in effect, required twice the flight test time as for a more conventionally constructed aircraft. Consequently, the first production aircraft did not fly until April 1989.
Marketing of the Beechcraft Starship
Following the successful flights of the 85% scale aircraft, the business community assumed that the certified Starship was just a year or two away. The business aircraft market, typically slow to accept radically new concepts, was cautiously optimistic.
But at least two negative forces were in play when the Starship was finally certified and the first production aircraft flew in 1989. First, an economic recession had significantly weakened demand for new aircraft. More importantly, the Starship may have been just “too new” with too many “firsts” for the traditionally conservative business aircraft market.
For example, the Starship was the first certified business aircraft to use:
An all-glass cockpit, using 14 different displays for all aircraft systems, navigation, and performance data.
All composite construction.
A canard with no horizontal stabilizer or rudder.
Twin turboprop pusher engines.
The Starship, in keeping with its futuristic image featured an “all glass” panel.
Price and performance were also problematic. The 1989 list price was close $5.0 million, which was more than comparable Cessna Citation V and Lear 31 jets, both of which were more than 80 knots faster than the Starship.
Production and Status of Beechcraft Starship
A total of 53 Starships—the three prototypes and 50 production aircraft—were built. The initial aircraft was the Model 2000. Halfway through production, Beech redesigned the interior and made some improvements in performance (Model 2000A), but it was too little, too late.
At last report, four or five are still flying. Raytheon, the parent company of Beechcraft, has essentially decommissioned all aircraft it had in its possession or could obtain. Several aircraft have been donated to museums, including the Beechcraft Heritage Museum in Tullahoma, Tennessee.
Just Theorizing – What Could Have Made the Starship More Marketable
Robert Scherer, a Starship pilot, suggests that several relatively minor fixes could have improved Starship performance and reduced production costs, including:
Use a filament winding process for the composite fuselage, much like that used on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. This would have reduced production costs and complexity.
Replace the turboprops with fan jets for more speed and less turbulence from the aft-mounted propellers.
Remove all but the two inboard vortex generators on the canards to significantly reduce drag with no loss in performance.
Eliminate the landing flaps. The flaps lower the landing speed by about five knots. The landing flap system adds about 800 pounds to the aircraft’s weight. Without that weight, the landing speed would probably be no more than three knots faster than with the flaps. This would have reduced the weight, complexity, and cost of the aircraft.
Beechcraft Starship Never Became The Hoped for Success
Unfortunately, the fate of an aircraft design depends on much more than just being airworthy and practical. Market timing, perception, and misperception; with just a few tweaks to the design, it could have been the replacement for the King Air that Beechcraft originally envisioned.
Lead photo by Ken Mist (used under CC2.0).
The cabin has six seats; the front two seats face aft. The Princess phone clearly dates the design.
Lockheed’s L-133 Starjet Could Have Been a Contender!
A blended body with aft-mounted laminar flow wings and forward mounted canards. Slotted flaps to enhance lift. Tricycle landing gear. Twin axial flow turbojet engines with afterburners fed by advanced aft-mounted NACA-type intakes reducing frontal area and therefore drag. Four nose-mounted 20 millimeter cannons for armament.
Does this remind you of any 1950s or 1960s jet fighters? How about something even more modern? Would you be surprised to know that the jet I just described never flew at all? Would you be surprised to find out the Starjet was in development…in 1939?
Lockheed L-133 Starjets. Image via YouTube screen capture
Lockheed began working on their Model L-133-02-01 in 1939. By 1940 the company-financed jet was on the drawing board. The brainchild of none other than renowned Lockheed “Skunk Works” engineers Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson, Willis M. Hawkins and Hall L. Hibbard, the L-133 might have been, could have been, maybe even should have been, this country’s first jet-powered fighter aircraft.
The design was proposed to the US Army Air Corps in 1942. So what happened? Remember-this was 1942. The USAAC (after March 1943 the US Army Air Forces) simply wasn’t prioritizing jet fighters over bombers and propeller-driven fighters. Not yet anyway.
Lockheed L-133 Starjet. Image via YouTube screen capture
Of course Germany and the Brits were designing and building jets by then. Lockheed’s L-1000 axial flow turbojet engine (designated J37) would have been a robust powerplant for the L-133 Starjet, but developmental priorities placed the J37 on the back burner for many years. It wasn’t until 1953 that the plug was pulled on the J37 after three of them had been built.
L-1000 engine by Sturmvogel 66 [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons
Meanwhile, Lockheed focused on another much simpler design for their first production jet fighter. Still using the laminar flow wing (stolen from the P-38 Lightning) but powered by the centrifugal flow Allison J33 engine, the P-80 Shooting Star was said to have benefited from the exercise of working through the kinks Johnson and his team experienced while developing the design of the Starjet.
Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star. Image via USAF
The L-133 would have come in at about 48 feet in length with a wingspan of nearly 47 feet. With a wing area of 325 square feet and a total of more than 10,000 pounds of thrust from those twin L-1000 engines, the Starjet was expected to be capable of a maximum speed of 625 miles per hour!
On 13 September 1985, F-15 test pilot Maj. Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearson (now retired Maj. Gen.) took off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on a mission that would see him become history’s first space ace.
Dubbed the “Celestial Eagle Flight,” the assignment called for Pearson to make a near vertical ascent in a specially-configured F-15A to over 35,000 feet, to fire a 2,700 pound, 18-foot long missile into space and kill an obsolete satellite over 2000 miles away, at an altitude of 340 miles (about as high as the space shuttle could fly).
Maj. Wilbert ‘Doug’ Pearson stand with his modified F-15A, prior to firing an ASAT missile to destroy an obsolete satellite over the Pacific Ocean on 13 Sept 1985. Photo: USAF
It was the culmination of a six-year development and test program for the anti-satellite (or ASAT) missile; Maj. Pearson commanded the F-15 Anti-Satellite Combined Test Force. The flight required Pearson to arrive at a precise point and time over the Pacific Missile Test Range, and fire a Vought ASM-135A ASAT missile automatically from the belly of his jet, taking aim at the 2,000-pound Solwind P78-1 solar laboratory, which launched in 1979.
Weapons in space was already controversial, and still is to this day, but so was the shoot down of the satellite, especially in the science community, because even though it was not operating at 100%, it was still returning valuable data. But that’s a whole other story.
Going supersonic at Mach 1.2, Maj. Pearson pulled into a 3.8g, 65-degree climb, slowing down to just below Mach 1, before firing the missile at 38,100 feet, about 200 miles west of Vandenberg AFB.
The ASM-135 loaded onto a F-15 in flight. Photo: USAF
The rocket separated from the missile after the first stage, and propelled a miniature homing vehicle with an infrared sensor into space on a bullseye intercept with the satellite, nailing its target with a closing velocity of 15,000 mph and marking the first successful satellite kill by an aircraft launched missile in history.
The Air Force originally wanted to modify 20 F-15s to do the same, an operational force of 112 ASM-135s, but huge cost overruns and technical issues killed the program in 1988 (after the F-15s had already been modified of course).
Maj. Wilbert ‘Doug’ Pearson fires an anti-satellite missile launched from a highly modified F-15A over the Pacific Missile Test Range off the coast of California, September 13, 1985. Photo: USAF
According to the USAF, “The jet, F-15A 76-0084, was the 275th F-15 fighter jet to roll off the McDonnell Douglas assembly line in St. Louis, and it flew its maiden flight on Veteran’s Day, 1977. Its assignments have included two stints with the 49th Test Fighter Wing at Holloman AFB, the 1st TFW at Langley AFB, the 6512th Test Squadron of the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, the 131st Fighter Wing of the Missouri Air National Guard in St. Louis, and the 125th Fighter Wing of the Florida Air National Guard.”
In 2007, 22 years after the mission, Staff Sgt. Aaron Hartley with the Florida Air National Guard 125th Fighter Wing, Detachment 1, was tasked with putting together a lithograph for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) F-15 Alert Detachment at Homestead Air Reserve Base.
Major General Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearson Jr. Photo: USAF
“I was researching the history of the jets to see which one was the ‘coolest’ and had the most history, so I contacted historians from the Boeing Company, Edwards AFB and the Air Force Historical Research Society at Maxwell AFB, Ala.,” he said.
That’s when he learned that the 125th FW had the historic jet, and so he reached out to the retired Maj. Gen. Pearson about it, who by that time had moved on to vice president of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Integrated Test Force.
Retired Major General Doug Pearson (left) and Capt. Todd Pearson (right) joke around before Captain Pearson took off on the Celestial Eagle remembrance flight Sept. 13, 2007. Photo: USAF
His son, then Capt. Todd Pearson, was an active-duty F-15 pilot at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho.
So naturally, the idea of a Celestial Eagle remembrance flight piloted by Captain Pearson was born.
“Celestial Eagle” was painted on the nose of 76-0084, and the captain’s name was painted on the side of the cockpit. He even wore the same circular patch on his left shoulder that his father wore on that same day 22 years earlier, and they performed the pre-flight walk around the aircraft together.
Capt. Todd Pearson performs pre-flight checks on an F-15A at the Florida Air National Guard 125th Fighter Wing located at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Fla., during the Celestial Eagle Remembrance Flight on Sept. 13, 2007. Captain Pearsons father, retired Maj. Gen. Doug Pearson, flew the exact same F-15 22 years prior while accomplishing the first successful satellite kill by an aircraft launched missile in history. Credit: USAF
“I thought it was a great idea,” Captain Pearson said regarding the remembrance flight. “I’ve always been an aviation ‘buff,’ and I’ve wanted to fly eagles since I was three because my dad flew them. The flight was a significant event in military aviation history, and I’m glad that I’ve been able to be a part of this 22 years later.”
The historic jet retired to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center “Boneyard” at Davis Monthan AFB in 2009, when the 125th FW transitioned to the F-15C/D.
– Follow Mike Killian on Instagram and Facebook, @MikeKillianPhotography .
Alvin “Tex” Johnston was born in Admire, Kansas in August of 1914. He took his first flight in 1925, at the age of eleven, when a barnstormer landed near his home. On that day, he decided that he would become a pilot. After flight training, he soloed his first flight at the age of 15.
In his adult years, he dropped out of college before completing his engineering courses. Then Tex Johnston worked for Bell Aircraft and Boeing as a test pilot. He is famous for his Boeing 707 and B-52 test flights. He was also a flight instructor in the Civilian Pilot Training Program, and the U.S. Army Air Corps Ferry Command.
Johnston was known for his larger than life personality. He received the nickname “Tex” because of the stetson hat and cowboy boots he liked to wear. But Johnston is even better known for executing a barrel roll maneuver with a Boeing 367-80–the Boeing 707 prototype…a giant airliner!
Check out these other great stories about the Boeing 707 on our site:
The Footage of Tex Johnston Rolling The Jet Is A Sight To Behold
This video footage shows scenes from the 1955 Seafair and Gold Cup in Seattle. Bill Allen had invited representatives of the Aircraft Industries Association to the event and Tex delivered with that famous barrel roll.
As this video shows, the whole stunt was filmed, and Tex was called into the office of his supervisor. When his boss asked him what he thought he was doing rolling his plane in the air, Tex replied, “I’m selling airplanes.” With a witty reply, his job was saved.
The Boeing 707 went on to be a very successful airliner and derivatives were selected to be air refueling tankers for US and allied forces.
The quirky and eccentric Silver Airways faces real questions about its strategy after its latest round of route cuts.
The Hollywood, Fla.-based airline, known for its distinctive fuchsia livery, white flamingo logo, and unique routes, is an eccentric player in the U.S. airline industry. As an all-turboprop regional carrier, Silver Airways focuses on intra-Florida service and service between Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean.
However, beneath its flashy and tropical exterior, there are growing signs that the airline might be facing significant financial challenges. From operational inconsistencies to highly publicized legal spats, the question arises: is Silver Airways in trouble?
One Airline’s Bankruptcy Leads to the Birth of Another
A Gulfstream International Airways Embraer 120 lands at KMIA on 31 August 2005 | IMAGE: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Founded in 2011, Silver Airways emerged from the remnants of Gulfstream International Airlines, which filed for bankruptcy in 2010. At the time of bankruptcy, the Dania Beach, Fla.-based carrier operated as a Continental Connection carrier with a fleet of 21 Beechcraft 1900D turboprops.
Following the bankruptcy, Chicago-based investment company Victory Park Capital bought Gulfstream’s assets and relaunched the airline as Silver Airways.
The newly rebranded carrier began operations as a Continental Connection codeshare partner on 15 December 2011 with a single 34-seat Saab 340 aircraft–one of six it had on order at the time. Throughout the rest of 2011 and 2012, Silver bolstered its footprint in Florida and the Bahamas and operated Essential Air Service (EAS) routes in Montana and the Mid-Atlantic.
Silver Airways’ EAS Operations and the Continental/United Merger
A Silver Airways Beechcraft 1900D in United Express Colors at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) on 22 May 2012 | IMAGE: André Du-pont (Mexico Air Spotters) (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
Picking up where Gulfstream left off, Silver took over EAS operations at Billings-Logan International Airport (BIL) in Montana using Beechcraft 1900s. Back east, Silver also operated B1900 EAS flights out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE).
Following Continental’s merger with United Airlines on 01 April 2012, Silver became a United Express carrier.
During the second half of 2012, Silver Airways commenced EAS operations out of Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) using Saab 340s. This service connected smaller communities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia to the United Airlines network. Silver also launched flights from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) to destinations in Mississippi and Alabama.
Silver’s Montana operation wound down by late 2013 following the expiration of the EAS federal contract. Those B1900s would reposition to CLE, where they continued EAS operations with United Express to smaller communities in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest. However, Silver’s CLE operation would also end in early 2014 following United’s announcement that it would dehub CLE.
Meanwhile, Silver Airways was also expanding its footprint in Florida and the Bahamas. Its growing fleet of 12 Saab 340s provided service to destinations such as Gainesville Regional Airport (GNV), Orlando International Airport (MCO), Jacksonville International Airport (JAX), and Tampa International Airport (TPA). The carrier also moved its maintenance facilities from Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) to Gainesville.
Silver reached a major milestone in 2014 when it became an independent airline.
An Independent Silver Airways
A Silver Airways Saab 340B+ | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
With Silver’s newfound independence, the carrier continued its growth strategy throughout the mid-2010s. The airline bolstered its route system throughout Florida and the Bahamas, creating a robust intra-Florida network.
Airline officials announced the establishment of a new maintenance headquarters at MCO in 2015.
In 2016, the federal government approved Silver to provide service between five Florida cities and nine Cuban cities. However, service to Cuba ended in April 2017 after just eight months.
In 2017, the carrier announced the purchase of 20 ATR -600 series turboprops, with options for up to 30 more. The order included 16 smaller 46-seat ATR 42-600s and four larger 70-seat ATR 72-600s. These additions would significantly increase Silver’s capacity as it continued adding routes.
Silver Brings ATR Aircraft Back to U.S. Skies
A Silver Airways ATR 42-600 lifts off | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Silver’s ATR order marked the first time in 25 years that a new ATR aircraft would operate in the United States. It also made Silver the first U.S. ATR 72-600 operator.
Growth continued in 2018 when Silver Airways acquired Seaborne Airlines, based in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Seaborne provided intra-Caribbean service from its hub at San Juan’s Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (SJU) with a fleet of 15-seat de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter seaplanes and eight Saab 340s.
A Seaborne Airlines de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter seaplane | IMAGE: Seaborne Airlines (Silver Airways) on Facebook
In July 2018, Silver again became an EAS contractor, this time out of Boston Logan International Airport (BOS). The carrier provided seasonal service to the summertime tourist mecca of Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport (BHB) in Maine. This route, operated for two summers with a Saab 340, ended upon the expiration of the EAS federal contract in 2020.
As the 2010s faded into the sunset, it was a time of renewal and optimism at Silver, which–at the time–billed itself as “America’s leading independent regional airline.”
Silver Airways’ first ATR 42-600 joined the fleet in early 2019. Its first revenue flight occurred on 22 April between FLL and Key West (EYW). The carrier took delivery of its first ATR 72-600 in late 2019, with its first revenue flight operating between TPA and Pensacola (PNS) on 23 November.
A Silver Airways ATR 42-600 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
A New Decade: Covid Thwarts Expansion Plans
A trio of Silver Airways ATR aircraft await passengers at San Juan (SJU) | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
At the dawn of the new decade, Silver Airways was experiencing robust expansion. The arrival of additional aircraft enabled the expansion of Silver’s Caribbean operations out of SJU. However, all expansion plans were put on hold as COVID-19 decimated the airline industry. Additional expansion plans, including new service from Charleston International Airport (CHS) in South Carolina to MCO, TPA, and FLL, were delayed until late 2020.
In 2021, Silver once again dipped its toes into something new. This time, it was a partnership with cargo carrier Amazon Prime Air. Using five Silver-operated ATR 72-500F freighters, Amazon based the aircraft out of Perot Field Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) in Texas. From its AFW base, Silver Airways operated flights to cities such as Albuquerque, N.M. (ABQ), Des Moines, Iowa (DSM), Wichita, Kan. (ICT)., and Omaha, Neb. (OMA) on behalf of Amazon Prime Air. However, Silver and Amazon abruptly parted ways in July 2023, less than two years after the partnership began.
In September 2022, Silver operated its final Saab 340 flight, thus making it an exclusively ATR -600 series operator.
The final Silver Airways Saab 340B+ revenue flight at Saint Croix, USVI (STX) on 04 September 2022 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Silver Airways Today
A Silver Airways ATR 72-600 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
As of September 2024, Silver Airways operates a fleet of 14 ATR -600 series aircraft, including eight 46-seat 42s and six 70-seat 72s. However, according to FlightAware data, two aircraft–one 42 and one 72–are currently parked at MCO. The 42, N705SV, last operated more than three months ago. The 72, N401SV, was ferried to MCO on 30 August. It is unclear if that aircraft has been parked or is simply undergoing maintenance.
It’s worth noting, however, that the carrier is in the beginning stages of a relatively significant route shakeup. As first reported by AeroRoutes last week, Silver plans to eliminate eight routes between now and early 2025. Two of the route cuts have already taken place. These cuts will also lead to the closure of four stations, including:
Governors Harbour Airport, Bahamas
GHB
Service ended 17 Aug 2024
Gainesville Regional Airport, Florida
GNV
Service ends 06 Oct 2024
Palm Beach International Airport, Florida
PBI
Service ends 06 Oct 2024
Cibao International Airport | Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic
STI
Service ends 27 Oct 2024
By the end of October, Silver will have just 20 destinations
The Silver Airways route map, not reflecting its most recent cuts | IMAGE: flysilver.com
Once these cuts take effect, Silver will be left with just 20 destinations across Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean, including:
Florida
Pensacola (PNS)
Tallahassee (TLH)
Orlando (MCO)
Tampa (TPA)
Fort Lauderdale (FLL)
Key West (EYW)
The Bahamas
Freeport | Grand Bahama International Airport (FPO)
Bimini | South Bimini Airport (BIM)
Nassau | Lynden Pindling International Airport (NAS)
Georgetown | Exuma International Airport (GGT)
North Eleuthera | North Eleuthera Airport (ELH)
Marsh Harbour | Leonard M. Thompson International Airport (MHH)
The Caribbean
San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJU) | Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport
Tortola, British Virgin Islands (EIS) | Terrance B. Lettsome Airport
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (STT) | Cyril E. King Airport*
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (STX) | Henry E. Rohlsen Airport*
Anguilla (AXA) | Anguilla-Clayton J. Lloyd Airport
St. Maarten (SXM) | Princess Juliana International Airport
St. Kitts, St. Kitts and Nevis | Robert L. Bradshaw International Airport
Dominica (DOM) | Douglas-Charles Airport
*In addition to Silver Airlines service to SJU, subsidiary Seaborne Airlines operates Twin Otter seaplane service between STT and STX
There have been significant route cuts over the last year, too
A Silver Airways ATR 72-600 waits for departure as an A-10 Warthog lands at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
These cuts follow significant cuts over the last year, including Huntsville, Ala. (HSV), Jacksonville, Fla. (JAX), New Orleans (MSY), and Savannah (SAV). Additional cuts over the last year include Providenciales, Turks and Caicos (PLS), Antigua, Antigua and Barbuda (ANU), La Romana, Dominican Republic (LRM), and Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic (POP).
Silver Airways also axed service to Greensboro, NC (GSO), Greenville-Spartansburg, SC (GSP), and Nashville (BNA) in 2023 after only four months. Announced service to Fort Myers (RSW) ended before it even began.
However, not all the news is bad, as Silver announced on 04 September that it intends to increase the frequency of flights out of TPA. The changes include daily flights to NAS, twice-daily flights to TLH, and thrice-daily flights to EYW. The additional TPA flights begin on 07 October, one day after the GNV and PBI station closures.
Silver Airways has a codeshare agreement with United Airlines and JetBlue.
Is Silver Airways in Financial Trouble?
A Silver Airways ATR 42-600 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Silver Airways’ quirks and flightiness have long been part of its eccentricity. They have carved out a niche capitalizing on their uniqueness. However, recent developments like the abrupt route cuts and station closures announced last month suggest that the airline may be in deeper trouble than it lets on.
The airline is notorious for operational inconsistencies. Passengers complain of frequent delays and cancellations. Additionally, the carrier endured an embarrassing public saga in April 2023 when it was on the cusp of eviction from FLL due to non-payment of rent and other airport services totaling over $1.4 million. However, both sides struck an eleventh-hour deal, allowing the carrier to remain at FLL.
The airline’s shrinking route network is one of the most telling signs of financial distress. Over the past few years, Silver Airways has retreated from many routes, focusing instead on core routes within Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean. This reduction could be a strategic move to streamline operations, but it could also indicate that the airline is struggling to maintain its previous level of service.
The Competition Heats Up
IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Other factors going against Silver Airways include its fleet of turboprop aircraft. Competitors like Breeze Airways operate brand-new Airbus A220 jets, including an intra-Florida route between PNS and TPA. At the same time, Silver is an exclusively turboprop carrier–something passengers no longer care for. Additionally, Brightline–Florida’s new state-of-the-art high-speed rail system–can whisk passengers between Orlando and Fort Lauderdale in less than three hours.
The uncertainty surrounding Silver Airways’ financial stability raises concerns about its long-term viability. The carrier is presumably well-funded by Philadelphia-based Versa Capital Management, which has a majority stake in Silver Airways. Still, for passengers booking flights months in advance, the possibility that Silver Airways could face further service reductions is a genuine and valid concern. Regardless of how well-funded they are, no influx of money can save a carrier with no passengers.
While the airline has not made any public statements about its financial situation, the signs of distress–along with some high-profile financial snafus–are enough to give potential customers pause.
Silver Airways Must Adapt to its Challenges
A Silver Airways ATR 72-600 at FLL | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
The future of Silver Airways remains uncertain. While the airline has survived in a highly competitive industry for over a decade, the growing signs of financial distress suggest it may be facing the most challenging moment of its short history. If the carrier is struggling financially, it must make significant changes to ensure its survival.
One possibility is that Silver could seek a merger or partnership with a larger airline. A partnership would provide the financial backing needed to stabilize operations, potentially leading to the expansion of its route network. However, merging with a larger carrier could also mean losing some of the quirky charm that has defined Silver Airways since the beginning. And let’s not even think about navigating the gauntlet of pilot unions and contracts.
Downsizing further is an option and would allow the carrier to focus on a smaller number of profitable routes and reduce overhead costs. This strategy could help Silver Airways stay afloat in the short term. However, it would also limit its growth potential and reduce its presence in the market.
A recent comment by a user on an airliners.net forum laid bare some sobering information about the carrier, saying:
“The 3M [Silver Airways IATA code] operation at SJU is so low at this point that crews are getting sent to do Florida flying to cover MCO and TPA because there’s no use for them down here. If 3M doesn’t get it together, they’re bound to lose this turf war (if it can be called that). And as for Florida, it’s sad when you have to draw down your own main base. Unfortunately, the current state of the company is something that I felt coming while I was with them; I jumped as soon as I had the opportunity, and now I see first-hand what I avoided and what my ex-colleagues are now going through.”
Oof.
Ultimately, Silver Airways’s fate will depend on its ability to adapt to its challenges. Let’s hope it turns things around quickly before the trust of its customers erodes even further.
Most all large airports have 3 dimensional routes that aircraft follow to get into position to land. The first part is the Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) and the final leg is the Instrument Approach. STARS can be hundreds of miles long and allow a predictable sequencing process for both ATC and aircraft.
Approaches have many variations, using radios or Global Positioning Systems to align the aircraft into position to land in all weather conditions. On both STARS and Instrument Approaches, there are waypoints that require a 5-letter designation. Given so many airports, so many waypoints, and the humor or passion of the person naming the waypoints, there are some funny and interesting name sequences.
Here are 3 STARS and 2 Approaches that I have flown multiple times.
#5 – NIIXX 1 Arrival into Denver
As a lover of music – who can resist this sequencing?
Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#4 – SCBBY 2 Arrival into Ontario, CA
Paying homage to Saturday morning cartoons (completely dating my childhood), the Scooby 2 Arrival into Ontario is always fun!
Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#3 – JJEDI 2 Arrival into Atlanta
Not the only Star Wars fanatics around – thanks to the namer of these waypoints!
Millenium Falcon, Skywalker, Ewoks, Planet Hoth, Leiea, Lando, Xwing, Tie Fighter, New Hope, Death star, Wookie, Boba Fett, Chewie, and Jedi! Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#2 – RNAV to Runway 16 at Portsmouth, NH
More Saturday cartoons! Apparently those cartoons influenced a bunch of us!!!
I tawt I saw a puddy tat, i did, i did! Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#1 – RNAV to Runway 1 Right in Kansas City
Had to give props to an extremely familiar city and near home! Well, and who doesn’t love Barbeque?
Not for navigation. For illustrative purposes only.
That just scratches the surface of awesome naming for those of us slipping the surly bonds of earth for a living!!!
Do you have any favorite arrivals or instrument approaches?
Note: Do not utilize any of these approach plates for navigation. They are shared for illustrative purposes only.
Earlier this morning, a Delta A350’s wing collided with the tail of a CRJ-900 on a taxiway at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta Georgia.
At approximately 10:00 am local time, Delta Flight 295 was taxing out for it’s scheduled flight to Tokyo, Japan. During the taxi, its wing tip stuck another Delta aircraft. Delta Flight 5526, an Endeavor operated jet, sustained damage as the horizontal and vertical stabilizer were sheered off.
Runway Collision At Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta Involved Two Different Delta Aircraft
Flight 5526 was reported to have had 56 passengers plus the crew on board at the time of the collision.
Delta Airbus A350 Snaps Off Tail Of CRJ-900 at Atlanta Airport 59
Delta Flight 295 was an Airbus 350, the largest aircraft that Delta Air Lines currently operates. Flight 295 was carrying 221 passengers plus the crew. Fortunately no injuries are reported at this time.
PHOTO TAKEN BY CBS NEWS HELICOPTER AND POSTED ON YOUTUBE
Delta flight 295 was able to return to the gate area under its own power. However Delta Flight 5526 was unable to do so due to the severity of the damage it obtained during the Collison. All 56 passengers aboard the regional jet were bussed back to the terminal from the taxiway.
At 10:07AM, two aircraft made contact at the intersection of taxiways E and H on the north airfield. No injuries are reported. Passengers from one aircraft are being bussed to concourse B; the other aircraft taxied on its own power to its gate. There is minimal impact to ops.
It was a long summer for Boeing and NASA. The company’s Starliner returned to Earth last night without issue, but also without its crew, following a troubled test mission.
NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched on June 5 aboard Starliner for the agency’s Boeing Crewed Flight Test. It was the first ever crewed flight of the spacecraft, but it soon began experiencing helium leaks and thruster problems en route to the International Space Station (ISS).
After 2 months of testing and analyzing data, NASA decided to return the capsule to Earth without the crew as a safety precaution. Engineers figured out the cause of the problems in the service module, but were not confident that they could predict when the issues may occur again.
Following undocking last night, the Starliner performed a textbook return to Earth. It flew nominally towards White Sands, NM through deorbit, reentry and landing. No further thruster problems were observed.
Now what?
post flight press conference
Starliner will now will ship to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, where Boeing has processing facilities for the capsule. Engineers will inspect and process it, and review all mission-related data, before charting a path forward.
NASA does not necessarily require a redo of the mission either. It depends on what objectives were achieved, and why some were not. However, public perception alone makes another flight test seem like a wise decision. NASA has not said yet whether they will or won’t demand another flight test.
This was Starliner’s third flight test in space
THE FIRST UNCREWED ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST OF STARLINER (OFT-1). THE MISSION ENDED SOON AFTER FOR TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND WAS RETURNED TO EARTH SAFELY (MIKE KILLIAN PHOTOS / AMERICASPACE.COM)
This was the third orbital test of a Starliner. The first back in Dec 2019 didn’t go well at all. Shortly after it achieved orbit Starliner suffered an automated timing issue. Flight controllers called off ISS docking, and put Starliner in a stable orbit to save other critical flight test objectives. It returned to Earth two days later.
NASA wasn’t convinced, so Boeing offered to do it again at their own expense. A joint NASA/Boeing Independent Review Team found three principal anomalies—two software coding errors and an unexpected loss of Space-to-Ground Communications. They ordered over 80 recommendations for testing and simulation, Change Board documentation and safety culture, before the redo could launch.
BOEING ENGINEERS WORKING IN STARLINER (MIKE KILLIAN PHOTO / AMERICASPACE.COM)
Leading up to that second launch, more issues popped up. While on the launch pad, some valves linked to Starliner’s abort and maneuvering thrusters failed to open, leading to a scrub.
Boeing decided to replace the OFT-2 Service Module with one previously slated for the CFT mission. The OFT-2 service module is what just flew the CFT mission with thruster problems.
MIKE KILLIAN PHOTO / AMERICASPACE.COM
OFT-2 finally launched in May 2022, and while some minor issues were encountered, the mission met its remaining test objectives from OFT-1, and was a success.
Crew will return home with SpaceX on Crew-9 mission
SpaceX has been launching NASA astronauts to the ISS now for some time, and they are scheduled to launch the next as early as Sep 24.
The mission, Crew-9, was originally supposed to send four new astronauts to the ISS, replacing others so they can come home.
Now, they will only launch with two, leaving two seats open for Butch and Suni to finally come home. That mission will return to Earth in Feb 2025.
Nasa photo
In the meantime, Butch and Suni have been staying busy on the ISS, assisting the Expedition 71 crew with research, maintenance and other tasks. We’re sure they don’t mind an extended trip in space.
The T-46 was the aircraft that was—and then wasn’t—the Air Force’s next primary jet trainer!
The T-37 entered service with the USAF in 1957 and served through 2009. Each pilot trainee logged approximately 90 hours in the T-37, with about a third of that time spent solo. Did you know that the T-37 served much longer than originally planned?
In 1981, the Air Force began looking for its Next Generation Trainer (NGT), a new primary jet trainer to replace the T-37. The final proposers included Cessna, Fairchild-Republic, and Gulfstream.
Cessna began with an upgraded aircraft design based on the T-37 and eventually moved to a whole new design. Only a mockup was produced. Similarly, Gulfstream proposed a design based on their single-engine business jet, the “Peregrine.”
Two Fairchild T-46s in formation
The T-46 proposed by Fairchild included side-by-side seating, shoulder-level wings, a twin tail, ejection seats, pressurization, and two turbofan engines. Fairchild contracted the Rutan Aircraft Factory (RAF) to build a 62% flying-scale aircraft, the Model RAF 73 NGT, which Burt Rutan test flew.
Based on the performance of the demonstrator aircraft, the Air Force awarded the contract for Fairchild’s T-46 Eaglet in 1982, placing an order for two prototypes with options for 54 additional aircraft. The proposed total number of new trainers was to be 650.
A bottle or two of champagne were probably uncorked that day at the factory, especially since this meant that Fairchild Republic would be able to stay in business!
After several delays, the first aircraft flew in October 1985. During the period from contract award to the first flight, the cost of the aircraft had doubled, from $1.5 million to $3 million. Add to that, the fact that the 1985 Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act mandated spending cuts across the board. Consequently, the Secretary of the Air Force canceled the Fairchild contract. Attempts by Congress to reinstate the funding for the contract failed.
How do you put the cork back in the bottle?
At this point, three aircraft had been completed. Within a year, the whole project had been scrapped, and the Fairchild Republic factory on Long Island was closed. In 1995, the Air Force selected the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) single-engine, turboprop, tandem-seat, Beechcraft T-6 Texan II, also used by the US Navy flight training program.
DAYTON, Ohio — Fairchild T-46A is currently in storage at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo)
All three aircraft, as well as the Rutan RAF 73 NGT, have survived. One T-46 is on display at the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards Air Force Base, California, and a second can be seen at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG)—often called The Boneyard—on “Celebrity Row” during the AMARG bus tour from the Pima Air Museum, Arizona. The third was last reported as under restoration at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The Model 73 NGT Flight Demonstrator can be seen at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, Garden City, New York.
The T-6 Texan eventually replaced the T-37 Tweet. Today it is the primary SUPT trainer at all Navy and Air Force pilot training bases.
Prior to 1952, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) had sponsored a progressive series of experimental aircraft—the X-planes—that had achieved speeds approaching the speed of sound (Mach 1) to Mach 3.2. The next step would be an aircraft capable of flight beyond the Earth’s atmosphere and speeds in excess of Mach 5—hypersonic flight. In 1954, the NACA selected North American to develop three X-15 hypersonic aircraft.
The X-15 research aircraft was developed to determine the effects of hypersonic conditions on aero-thermodynamics, aerodynamics, structures, flight controls, and the physiological aspects of high-speed, high-altitude flight.
Note: In 1958 before the first flight of the X-15, the NACA was absorbed into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The Aircraft
The X-15 was a small rocket-powered aircraft, 50 feet long with a wingspan of 22 feet. It had a conventional fuselage, but an unusual wedge-shaped vertical tail, thin stubby wings, and unique side fairings that extended along the fuselage. The X-15 weighed about 14,000 pounds empty and approximately 34,000 pounds at launch. Because the lower vertical tail extended below the landing skids, a part of the lower vertical tail was jettisoned before landing and recovered by a parachute.
X-15 Under the Wing of NB-52 on takeoff
During its first powered flights, the X-15 used two un-throttled XLR-11 engines, producing a combined thrust of 16,380 lb. With no throttles, engine power was set on the ground before each flight. The intended Thiokol XLR-99 rocket engine, which was not available at the beginning of the X-15’s flight program, produced up to 60,000 pounds of thrust and could be controlled by the pilot.
Depending on the mission and engine throttle setting, the rocket engine provided thrust for the first 80 to 120 seconds of flight. The remainder of a normal 10-11-minute flight was unpowered and ended with a glide to a 200-mile-per-hour landing. One X-15, rebuilt and lengthened after an accident, also had external tanks for additional fuel. These tanks provided about 60 seconds of additional engine burn. and were used on the aircraft’s Mach 6.7 flight.
The X-15 cockpit was cramped but functional.
Because of the rapid fuel consumption, the X-15 was air-launched from under the wing of a B-52 aircraft at 45,000 feet at a speed of about 500 miles per hour. In 1958, B-52 Stratofortress aircraft NB-52B, S/N52-008 “Balls 8,” and its sister ship, NB-52A, S/N52-0003, “The High and the Mighty,” were modified for the mission of launching the X-15.
Three aircraft were built and delivered to NASA. During a ground test later in the program, the number two X-15, with Scott Crossfield in the cockpit, experienced a serious explosion just behind the cockpit. Crossfield was not seriously hurt, and the aircraft was rebuilt and lengthened by 28 inches to provide added space for fuel and designated X-15A-2.
The X-15A-2 was also modified to carry and test a supersonic ramjet engine. Although the engine was flown as a dummy, it was never powered or tested.
The airframe manufacturer was North American Rockwell, Inc. Thiokol Chemical Corp. manufactured the rocket engine. The program was a joint NASA-USAF-USN effort.
For flight in the Earth’s atmosphere, the X-15 used conventional aerodynamic controls. The controls consisted of the rudder on the vertical stabilizers to control yaw. The canted horizontal stabilizers controlled both pitch (when operated in unison) and roll (when moved differentially by lateral movements of the control stick). For flight outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, i.e., in “space,” the X-15 used eight thrust rockets; four on the nose of the aircraft to control pitch and yaw, and four on the wings for roll control.
The Program
X-15 Number 1 Landing on a Dry Lakebed Runway
In 1955, Scott Crossfield left the NACA to become the chief engineering test pilot for North American, where he played a major role in the design and development of the X-15. The X-15 was an entirely new and unproven design, and flight operations were considered extremely hazardous. It was Crossfield’s job to demonstrate its airworthiness at speeds up to Mach 3 (2290 mph).
A total of 12 pilots participated in the X-15 program: five from NASA, five from the Air Force, one from the Navy, and one, Crossfield, from North American. Among these pilots were two future astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Joe Engle.
Pilots generally flew one of two flight profiles: (1) a speed profile that called for the pilot to maintain a level altitude until time for descent to a landing, or (2) a high-altitude flight plan that required maintaining a steep rate of climb until reaching altitude and then descending—these flights were eventually recognized as flights into space and that the pilots as astronauts.
NASA’s X-15 hypersonic research program lasted nearly 10 years and set the unofficial world speed and altitude records of 4,520 mph (Mach 6.7) and 354,200 feet. Information gathered during the program contributed directly to science and technologies used on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo piloted spaceflight programs, as well as the Space Shuttle program.
Scott Crossfield made the first unpowered flight (8 June 1959) and the first powered flight. The X-15’s last flight was on 24 October 1968. The three X-15s flew a total of 199 powered flights. A 200th flight was scheduled, but due to weather and technical difficulties, it was delayed and eventually canceled, ending the program. All X-15 flight operations originated from what is now the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center on Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
In the course of its flight research, the X-15’s pilots and instrumentation yielded data for more than 765 research reports. Dryden’s Chief Scientist Ken Iliff and his wife, aerospace research engineer Mary Shafer, wrote, “The [X-15] aircraft returned benchmark hypersonic data for aircraft performance, stability and control, materials, shock interaction, hypersonic turbulent boundary layer, skin friction, reaction control jets, aerodynamic heating, and heat transfer.”
The total cost of the X-15 program, including development of the three aircraft, was about $300 million. Although the X-15 had its share of emergency landings and accidents, only two resulted in serious injuries or death. On 9 November 1962, after the engine failed, pilot Jack McKay landed at Mud Lake, NV. The landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft flipped onto its back. McKay recovered sufficiently to fly again.
On 15 November 1967, Michael Adams, flying the number three aircraft on his seventh flight, entered a spin from which he recovered, but could not bring the aircraft out of an inverted dive due to control problems. He died in the resultant crash, and the aircraft was destroyed.
As the partial list of accomplishments suggests, the X-15 brilliantly achieved its basic purpose of supporting piloted hypersonic flight within and outside the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, it carried out the “explorations to separate the real from the imagined problems and to make known the overlooked and the unexpected problems” that Hugh Dryden had called for in 1956 when the X-15 was still in the design and development phase.
Crossfield cited the X-15 as one of the few aircraft that caused grown men to cry upon its retirement.
The X-15 Today
Of the three X-15 aircraft built, aircraft number 1 is on display in the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., and aircraft number 2 is part of the research and development display at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
The WF-2/E-1B Finally Addressed a Need Defined During the Days of the Kamikaze
When the Grumman Tracer entered operational US Navy service with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron ONE ONE (VAW-11) Early Elevens in 1958 at Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island, the aircraft was designated WF-2. The WF designation quickly branded the aircraft with the nickname Willy Fudd. The WF-2 was the third member of the Grumman family of radial engine-powered propeller-driven carrier-based workhorses along with the S2F (later S-2A) Tracker antisubmarine warfare aircraft and the TF-1 (later C-1A) Trader carrier onboard delivery variant.
TF-1 Trader (foreground) and S2F-1 Tracker (background). Image via US Navy
Project Cadillac Yields Replacement for Queer SPADs
Ever since the rise of kamikaze attacks during World War II the fleet needed a dedicated airborne early warning/air intercept control (AEW/AIC) aircraft. Project Cadillac was the effort to develop this capability for the fleet. The first type to be fitted with an airborne radar for this purpose was Grumman’s TBM-3W Avenger. After the war the Grumman AF-2W Guardian was the next fleet AEW aircraft. The tremendously flexible Douglas AD Skyraider was modified to carry the same Hazeltine Corporation AN/APS-20 radar system and designated AD-3W, AD-4W, or AD-5W depending on additional modifications. Because these variants were all equipped with the AN/APS-20 radar, they lacked effectiveness.
AD-5W AEW Skyraider. Image via US Navy
If At First You Don’t Succeed…
The first iteration of what would eventually become the Tracer was essentially a Grumman S2F Tracker with a large pylon-mounted radome mounted over the cockpit containing the AN/APS-20 radar. The placement of the radome allowed the aircraft’s wings to fold the same way as the wings of the Tracker and Trader– over the fuselage more or less parallel with the inner wings. But the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) realized that any new aircraft design equipped with the AN/APS-20 would just not be capable of doing what the Navy needed the aircraft to do and cancelled the proposal in 1951.
Tracer preparing for cat shot. Image via US Navy
Building a Better But Still Huge Scanner
In 1955 Hazeltine came up with an improved AN/APS-20 designated the AN/APS-82. Though better in just about every way than their previous airborne radar, the AN/APS-82 required a massive scanning antenna. Grumman went back to the drawing board and came up with a modified C-1A Trader with an aerodynamically neutral faired radome mounted on top of the fuselage that provided lift to partially compensate for its added weight. To adapt folding wings for the new design Grumman went back to their World War II-vintage Sto-Wing folding wing design first used on the F4F Wildcat and later the TBF Avenger and F6F Hellcat.
E-1B Tracer ready to go. Image via US Navy
Tracker, Trader, and Tracer Family Traits
Other than the huge antenna fairing, the WF-2 looked a lot like the Tracker and Trader and shared many of their systems, including the same pair of Wright R-1820-82A Cyclone 9-cylinder radial piston engines putting out 1,525 horsepower each, cockpit layout, landing gear, wings (except for the folding mechanism), and internal flexibility to allow the crew of two systems operators to work in the fuselage just aft of the cockpit.
The WF-2 fuselage received an 18 inch “plug” ahead of the wing to increase internal volume for mission equipment and avionics. The empennage was modified to an H configuration with twin vertical stabilizers and rudders. This allowed the aft attachment point for the radome fairing to mount at the base of an abbreviated Trader vertical stabilizer.
E-1B Tracer. Image via US Navy
Perfect Nicknames for a New Kind of Aircraft
An aerodynamic test airframe was modified from TF-1 Trader number 45 (BuNo 136792) and took to the skies on 17 December 1956. After flight testing concluded, the 32 foot by 20 foot oval radome fairing was removed but the airframe retained the Tracer empennage configuration-making this one unique Trader. The prototype WF-2 Tracer flew for the first time on 1 March 1958. In fleet use the aircraft picked up a couple of other nicknames: Flying Turtle and Stoof with a Roof. The radar scanner was 17 and one half feet wide and rotated inside the radome fairing 6 times per minute.
E-1B Tracers in flight. Image via US Navy
For the rest of the Willy Fudd story bang NEXT PAGE below
Watch these Stratotankers perform an intricate, highly specialized, and rare maintenance procedure called a fin fold! The 190th Maintenance Group, Kansas Air National Guard, recently performed one. It may only be done a handful of times in decades.
Most maintenance is well understood, but on rare occasions, the plane’s rudder may become damaged. When that occurs, its 2,400-pound tail fin needs to be unbolted and horizontally folded to allow access to and repair of the rudder.
Timelapse of a KC-135 Stratotanker fin fold
A highly specialized procedure for a Stratotanker, and not commonly performed
Executing a fin fold is not a mundane skill that most personnel are equipped for. It happens so rarely that crews familiar with it will have already transferred or retired by the time the next fin fold is required.
A maintenance crew may need to contact another wing entirely to engage with personnel who have direct first-hand experience.
Guardsmen from the 171st Air Refueling Wing execute a fin fold on a KC-135 Stratotanker, dated Sept. 14, 2020. Photo credit: U.S. Air National Guard / Tech. Sgt. Bryan Hoover
The complex operation requires a team with a high degree of proficiency and specialized equipment. Multiple shops are involved and must work together. The KC-135 has a support bar that allows the tail to be held at 90 degrees, lying horizontal while still attached to the plane.
A special cable assembly is attached to the tail. Safety observers, a crane operator, and maintainers all work together to unbolt the four pins and bolts securing the tail and gently fold the fin.
“On August 12, 2024, the 190th Maintenance Group, Kansas Air National Guard, Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas, successfully executed a rare fin fold on a KC-135 Stratotanker. The tail is unbolted, so it physically lies horizontal while still being attached to the aircraft. Photo credit: U.S. Air National Guard / SrA Brook Sumonja
“Coordinating a crane seems to be the biggest challenge,” says Master Sgt. Jason Brown, 190th MXG, R&R technician. “It can be intimidating to pull the rope on the right side to begin the fall, knowing what is holding it all up on the other side. Seeing it fall away on the other side is an incredible sight.”
The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard (ANG) are portrayed performing many of their wide variety of duties in the Vietnam-era film “The Men and the Minute.”
The film features the Tennessee ANG flying their Boeing C-97G Stratofreighters, Puerto Rico ANG flying North American F-86H Sabres, Massachusetts ANG flying their Convair F-102A Delta Daggers, Illinois ANG flying their KC-97L Stratofreighter tankers, and New Jersey ANG flying their Republic F-105D Thunderchiefs. The film was uploaded to YouTube by PeriscopeFilm.
One particularly interesting part of the film is the role of the Oklahoma ANG and their specially equipped communications relay aircraft dubbed “Talking Birds.” These 137th Air Transport Wing C-97 aircraft were capable of deployment anywhere in the world and often did just that.
Crewed by nine and carrying up to 39 additional communications specialists, the “Talking Bird” aircraft were equipped with the latest in navigation equipment, avionics, and communications equipment of every type. Why? Because these aircraft kept the President in contact during the days when Air Force One lacked its own mobile command communications capability, as it does today.
F-102A. Image via USAF
The film begins with an eyeful of Tan Son Nhut during the mid-1960s. Also appearing in the film in supporting roles are a bevy of Army and Air Force ANG aircraft including the McDonnell Douglas RF-101 Voodoo, Lockheed C-130 Hercules, Fairchild C-123J Provider, Douglas C-124 Globemaster II, Lockheed Constellation, de Havilland Canada U-6B Beaver, Bell UH-1D and UH-1E Iroquois, Cessna O-1 Bird Dog, Douglas C-47 Skytrain, de Havilland Canada C-7A Caribou, North American F-100D Super Sabre, Helio U-10D Courier, a Lockheed P-2 Neptune from VP-18 Flying Phantoms, Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar, Hiller OH-23 Raven, and the Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw. There’s even a UH-1D with a sling-loaded Cessna O-1 Bird Dog for those of you who hadn’t seen anything unusual today.
The 2024 US Presidential campaign is in full swing. Presidential and vice presidential candidates are criss-crossing the country to make their pitch to voters. This year, both vice presidential candidates are utilizing Boeing 737-800s. Earlier we reported on Sen Vance’s Boeing 737-800 as part of the Trump/Vance ticket. Now we are getting our first glance at the Harris/Walz Boeing 737.
The Harris/Walz campaign jet with tail number N778MA features the tagline ‘A New Way Forward” above the center of the fuselage along with a series of blue and grey stars.
The engine nacelles feature an American flag while the tail looks a little bit like a decommissioned American Airlines jet with its tail evoking the stripes of an American flag.
Boeing 737-800 Is The Hot Jet This Campaign Cycle
The Boeing 737-800 seems to be the jet of choice for vice presidential candidates this year. Both the Trump/Vance and Harris/Walz campaigns lease the type for their campaign cycle. The Boeing 737-800 is an ideal aircraft for a presidential campaign due to its size, range, and operating performance.
Harris/Walz Boeing 737 Makes Debut As Presidential Race Heats Up 91
The 737-800 has a seating capacity that can comfortably accommodates staff and media. It is large enough to have a mixed cabin configuration with first class up front, a lounge area in the middle and economy class seats in the rear for staff and media.
The 737-800’s range of over 3,000 miles allows for non-stop travel between key campaign stops across the country. The 737-800 can fly into regional airports with runways as short at 5,500 feet allowing it to stop at more airfields.
While the design is approaching 25 years old, the Boeing 737-800 is still relatively efficient and cost effective. It is also readily available on the leasing market via charter operators.
Who Operates the Harris/Walz Boeing 737?
KaiserAir, which is leasing a Boeing 737-800 to the Harris/Walz campaign, operates a fleet of 2 737-800s. Image: KaiserAir
The Harris/Walz campaign jet is operated by Kaiser Air. Kaiser Air is one of the oldest charter companies still in business. The company first flew DC-3s in 1946. They later flew a host of business jets includes Gulfstreams, LearJets, Hawkers, Challengers, and Citations. The company still operates a charter division with a small fleet of business jets.
Kaiser Air is based in the San Francisco Bay Area. They provide all air travel for the San Jose Sharks and fly a number of professional and collegiate teams to events throughout the country with a fleet of three aircraft including 2 Boeing 737-800s and a single Boeing 737-700.
Kaiser Operates Two Scheduled Shuttles To Hawaii
Notably, Kaiser Air has also been a Part 121 air carrier since 2011. They fly for two membership clubs on their Boeing 737NG fleet. Kaiser operates private, yet scheduled service between the West Coast and Kona. The aircraft are configured in a two by two business class arrangement.
Kaiser Air offers an all business class configuration for their Hawaiian shuttles between Kona and the West Coast. Image: Kaiser Air
The Hawaii Shuttle is offered exclusively for members of certain Big Island neighborhoods to the West Coast. The Kona shuttle operates twice-weekly scheduled service from Oakland to Kona.
Title Image courtesy of Daniël Cronk, used with permission.
DFW airport is getting a major facelift. They just kicked off a major $9 billion transformation and expansion project. It’s the largest capital investment in DFW airport since it opened in 1974, and includes renovating their busiest and most outdated Terminal, C, and adding a new Terminal F.
Millions of travelers pass through Terminal C every year. Just this weekend airport officials expected 1.4 million travelers for the Labor Day holiday, with the majority passing through C. In the coming years, they expect 100 million annually.
Major growth in air travel expected at DFW
“When you look at the economic success of this region and some of the projections for the region over the next 50 years, we have to get ahead of that growth,” says Sean Donohue, the CEO of DFW Airport. “We are making the investments needed today so that our facilities are ready for the future.”
Of that $9 billion, $3 billion is for Terminal C. They will gut and modernize the terminal, and add 4 new gates to it. They will also add 5 new gates to Terminal A. DFW has already overhauled terminals A and E.
Construction Begins to Renovate Terminal C
Terminal c as of 2024. Photo credit dfw airport
Officials held a ceremony at the airport last week to mark the official start of Terminal C construction. During the pandemic DFW built gates C35 – C39, and say Terminal C will look similar.
They will revamp Terminal C in 6 gate intervals, to minimize and limit disruptions to travelers. Ticket counters and security checkpoints at C30 are now closed for construction.
illustration of the renovated terminal cDFW Begins Major $9 Billion Transformation and Expansion 99DFW Begins Major $9 Billion Transformation and Expansion 100
The new C will give more space, more light, and more opportunities for concessionaires. Plans include removing over 400 view-blocking columns, adding new windows and raising the roof.
It will have all-new facilities, shops and restaurants, lounge space, check-in areas, security checkpoints and better restrooms. Completion is expected in 2030.
Illustration of the renovated terminal c (credit dfw airport)
The adjacent south parking garage will also be completely rebuilt. It will close Sep 14 for demolition soon after. The north and central garages will stay open. Travelers are encouraged to book parking online, and check live availability before arriving.
DFW will add a new Terminal F
When the idea of a new Terminal F first began, it was put on hold due to challenges stemming from the pandemic. Plans are now moving forward again, which include modernized systems and expanded concessions.
Illustration of Terminal F at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport from May 2023.
Terminal F will be built on the southwest side of the airport, with 15 gates and a new SkyLink station to connect it to the rest of the airport. It won’t share the same crescent-shape of the other 5 terminals either, but will be rectangular, with gates on both sides.
Other projects in works
DFW’s transformation and expansion doesn’t stop at Terminal C or a new Terminal F. Over 180 projects are in various stages of planning and construction across the vast airfield.
Photo credit dfw airport
An International Parkway Modernization project will transition access to Terminals A, B and C to right-hand exits. A new Electric Central Utility Plant will heat and cool DFW’s terminals with electricity from 100% renewable resources. A new southside east-west roadway will connect Rental Car Drive to State Highway 360. Two new fire stations are also being built.
New facilities are also planned to double the number of cargo aircraft able to park, to support increasing demand. The airport’s third end-around taxiway will also be improved for the safety and efficiency of aircraft movements.
Stay informed and prepared if you’re driving to/from DFW airport
The DFW App and website will provide real-time information on these projects and road closures to help travelers plan accordingly. You can also sign up for construction updates via email.
The troubled spacecraft is back in the news for another odd reason. This time, its due to a series of weird noises coming from the speaker of the Boeing Starliner cabin.
🚨#BREAKING: Boeing's Starliner crew are reporting hearing strange "sonar like noises" emanating from the spacecraft⁰⁰📌#OuterSpace | #Earth ⁰⁰Crews on the International Space Station are trying to identify the source of strange noises reported by Boeing’s Starliner crew, who… pic.twitter.com/MNPpOPnMTR
The noise sounds like its out of a late 1970s space horror movie. The pulsing noise was first reported by NASA astronaut Butch Wilmore who casually asked about a “strange noise coming from the speaker” of the Boeing Starliner.
NASA Listens in to Hear Boeing Starliner Noises
NASA configured the ISS so that the unusual sound in the Starliner could be heard by the ISS Mission Control. Mission Control was able to hear and copy the noise. The original audio was first recorded by Rob Dale on the NASASpaceflight.com forum. The story was first reported by Eric Berger of Ars Technica.
UPDATE – Here is NASA’s statement after reviewing the data on the noises
Boeing Starliner Making Weird Noises While Docked at ISS 103
Starliner Still Set For a Return Later This Week
The Boeing Starliner is still scheduled to undock from the International Space Station on September 6th. The craft will undock without its two astronauts aboard.
Last week, NASA made the decision, that out of an abundance of caution, the spacecraft would return without crew.
Boeing Starliner approaches the ISS. Image: NASA
NASA veteran astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched on Starliner June 5 atop a ULA Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, on an end-to-end test flight of the Boeing Starliner. The mission was supposed to only last 8 days but a series of anomalies involving helium leaks and thruster malfunctions led NASA to scrap the crewed return.
Instead, SpaceX will fly the two astronauts home on a Dragon spacecraft on the Crew-9 mission.
