When McDonnell Made This Promo Philm During the Early 60s the Phantom II Was Already Phantastic
When the McDonnell Aircraft Company produced the film “The Free World’s Phantom II” during the early 1960s, the F-4 had just gone to sea aboard Forrestal-class aircraft carriers and the Tactical Air Command was putting the jet through a rigorous evaluation program. Nonetheless the soon-to-be-legendary do-it-all fighter was already recognized as one of the most versatile and capable aircraft in the world. McDonnell built 5,175 of them between 1958 and 1981. So sit back and enjoy this Phantom II Lovephest uploaded to YouTube by Periscope Film.
Navy and Marine Corps F-4B operators appearing the film include VF-74 Bedevilers, VF-101 Grim Reapers, VMF(AW)-531 Grey Ghosts, and VF-102 Diamondbacks. Aircraft carriers USS Forrestal (CV-59) and USS Independence (CV-62) are shown shooting and recovering the jets, along with glimpses of other CVW-8 aircraft aboard Forrestal. Also prominently featured in the film are the first two F-4B Phantom IIs evaluated by the US Air Force, both of which were McDonnell F-4B-9i’s (F4H-1s) originally built for the Navy. Navy BuNo 149405 (F-110A FJ-405) became F-4C USAF serial 62-12168. BuNo 149406 (F-110A FJ-406) became F-4C serial 62-12169.
VF-74 F-4B image via National Naval Aviaiton Museum
Phree World Phighter Indeed
Projects Top Flight, High Jump, Sageburner, and Skyburner are all highlighted in the film. The Phantom II was indeed the “free world’s fighter.” Operated currently by Greece, Iran, and Turkey, F-4s also flew for Australia, Egypt, Germany, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom (Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force), and of course United States Air Force, Marines, and Navy. Even NASA operated a couple of Phantom IIs back in the day.
A pair of F-4E Phantom II aircraft, one from the 1st German Air Force Training Squadron and one from the 9th Fighter Squadron, bank to the left during a training mission near Holloman Air Force Base. Image via US Air Force / DVIDS
By Any Other Name
Nicknames for aircraft often border on the obscene, or at least are built with a heavy dose of sarcasm. The Phantom has had some classic nicknames over the years. Some of these names included “Air Defense Diesel” (Luftverteidigungsdiesel by the Luftwaffe), “Big Iron Sled”, “Bug Smasher”, “Double Ugly”, “Flying Anvil”, “Flying Brick” (Fliegender Ziegelstein by the Luftwaffe), “Flying Footlocker”, “Grey Goose”, “Iron Pig” (Eisenschwein by the Luftwaffe), “Jeasel”, “Lead Sled”, “Old Smokey”, “Rhino”, “Snoopy”, “St Louis Slugger”, “Toom” (by the RAF), “Warped Wing”, and perhaps its most respectful moniker of all- “The World’s Leading Distributor of MiG Parts.”
VF-102 F-4B Phantom IIs image via national naval aviation museum
Universal Lovephest
It has been said that the Phantom II was “proof that with enough thrust anything can fly” and that the jet “was a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics.” No matter what it was dubbed by its crews or its maintainers, or how its unique combination of appearance, performance, and toughness under fire were evaluated, the fact is nobody doesn’t love the Phabulous Phantom II.
F-4E Phantom II #5,000 image via National Archives / NARA
During the late 1930s and early 1940s, many prototype aircraft were dreamed up, drawn up, built up, and shot down by the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC). Sandwiched between the unremarkable Vultee XP-66 Vanguard and the equally unremarkable Vultee XP-68 Tornado was the McDonnell XP-67 “Bat” or “Moonbat.”
The XP-67 was the very first McDonnell Aircraft Company prototype. The Moonbat was a twin-engine, long-range, single-seat interceptor design intended for use by the USAAC (later the United States Army Air Forces—USAAF). However, the problems with this futuristic-looking aircraft started and ended mainly with its engines. And that’s a real shame!
McDonnell Gets Into the Game
The USAAC issued Request for Proposal R-40C, requesting designs for a high-speed, long-range, high-altitude interceptor intended to destroy enemy bombers, in 1940. The specifications bordered on impossible to meet, and they forced each manufacturer to design and build a radical aircraft that would outperform anything in the air at the time. McDonnell was building parts for other manufacturers then and wanted to get into the manufacturing game. They would go on to design and build some of the most famous aircraft the world has ever seen, but their beginnings were humble indeed.
Unconventional Power
The McDonnell Model 1 was initially designed to be powered by an unusual geared drive train with a single Allison V-3420 engine buried in the fuselage, powering twin wing-mounted pusher propellers in the wings via twin 90-degree extension shafts. Aside from the complicated mechanical challenges associated with this configuration, there was competition from 22 other manufacturers who issued proposals to meet the Army’s request. Because the McDonnell Model 1 would not be expected to perform as well as many of the other designs, it was judged to be 21st out of 23 total proposals. But McDonnell was granted a contract to go back and try it again. Try it again, they did.
That Blended Design Thing
McDonnell engineers presented the Model 2 on 30 June 1941. The Model 2 was also considered a nag, but McDonnell reworked the design again, yielding the Model 2a on 24 April 1942. The 2a was to be powered by twin engines driving a four-bladed propeller each and mounted in nacelles on the wings. However, the design was aerodynamically advanced, with laminar flow airfoils, blended shaping and contours, and low drag joins between the wings, fuselage, and nacelles and wings.
The 2a was also to have one of the first pressurized cockpits ever used in a fighter aircraft. In a word, the design was futuristic. In other words, it just looked cool.
Contracted BEFORE Pearl Harbor?
McDonnell engineers and designers predicted a top speed of 472 miles per hour and a gross weight of roughly 20,000 pounds for the 2a. Although several armament configurations were considered, production 2a aircraft were to be fitted with six 37 millimeter cannons. Power for the aircraft was provided by two 1932-vintage Continental XIV-1430-1 inverted V-12 engines, each connected to a turbo supercharger that would enable the engine exhausts to actually augment thrust from the engines. On 30 September 1941, the USAAF granted McDonnell a contract for two prototypes, a wind tunnel model, associated engineering data, and designated the design XP-67.
Another Design Throttled by Engine Technology
The radical design of the XP-67 Moonbat would require extensive wind tunnel testing, and that testing revealed engine cooling airflow problems, which were never really resolved. Super-smooth surfaces presented challenges to any manufacturer- especially one building its first complete aircraft design. But the biggest challenge was acquiring the engines.
The Continental power plants to be used were simply not available for large portions of the XP-67 development program. Even getting wind tunnel testing time was a challenge. There were lots of experimental military aircraft during the war, and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) wind tunnel was booked solid for what seemed like the rest of the decade.
En Fuego
XP-67 Moonbat prototype number one, 42-11677, began ground trials on 1 December 1943, even though the airframe was not ready to be flown. A week later, the XP-67 was damaged by fires in both engine nacelles while taxying. Just under a month later, damage was repaired, and the XP-67 made its first flight, which lasted for six minutes. Engine problems experienced again. Engine installation modifications made. Two flights later, the engine bearings burned out. See a pattern yet?
The Continental engines were only putting out about ¾ of their rated output anyway—and were still almost impossible to get. McDonnell wanted to try the widely used Rolls-Royce Merlin or Allison piston engines with small turbojets installed in the nacelles. The USAAF said no because they wanted more test time with the original design.
What Could Have Been Turned to Never Was
And therein lies the rub. Had the Moonbat been powered by better engines (even without the jet power augmentation), the design of the aircraft might still have been too radical for its time, but at least we would have found out whether or not it was as fast as it looked. As it turned out, the USAAF finally did fly the XP-67 in March of 1944, and not surprisingly, found the advanced design to be advanced but needing some refinement, and the aircraft to be woefully under-powered.
While some issues were addressed by engineers at McDonnell, the engines were still crippling the plane. The top speed seen by its pilots was 405 miles per hour – considered mundane in 1944 compared to other fighters already fighting the war.
A September 1944 test flight ended with the total loss of XP-67 number one after an in-flight fire in the starboard engine and subsequent emergency landing.
A Fertile Garden for Outstanding Future Aircraft
Prototype number two was only 15 percent complete when prototype one was destroyed. The design was evaluated by the USAAF one more time as a formality, but when prototype one was destroyed, McDonnell’s first aircraft design was destroyed along with it. Of course, McDonnell’s next military airplane was the twin-jet FH-1 Phantom, followed by the F2H Banshee, the F3H Demon, the F-101 Voodoo, and ultimately the F-4 Phantom II. The merger of McDonnell and Douglas in 1967 produced the DC-10 airliner, F-15 Eagle, and the F/A-18 Hornet, among others. But the McDonnell design that started it all was the futuristic but ill-fated Moonbat.
The C-46 Commando by Curtiss-Wright during World War II was an aircraft that looked ahead of its time.
The aircraft was initially designed as a sleek commercial airliner. And like most airliners during this era, it was overbuilt and easily able to handle cargo, too. However, it turned out to be a flop compared to its competition of the day, the Douglas C-47 Skytrain. particularly during World War II.
Design Challenges Held It Back
“China Doll” Image: Kevin from Alameda, California, USA, CC BY 2.0
The Curtiss C-46 Commando is a perfect example of an aircraft that tried to incorporate too many technical advancements into a single iteration. Curtis faced numerous design and development issues that hurt its operational performance.
First flown on 26 March 1940, Curtis initially promised to deliver a pressurized airliner that could cruise comfortably above other competitors of the day. The challenges became more apparent, though, as it was adapted for military use.
The C-46’s intricate design, gear problems, and Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines made it difficult to repair, and its bulky structure (required for pressurization) limited its cargo-carrying capacity.
Operations In Combat Struggled
The aircraft was initially envisioned as one that would excel in the Pacific, particularly in mountainous regions where the benefits of pressurization could be more fully exploited.
That theory was tested during resupply operations between China and India, aka “The Hump.” Martin Caidin wrote in his book The Hump: The Great Military Airlift of World War II that while the aircraft’s higher payload capacity compared to the C-47 was helpful, its mechanical reliability in rugged terrain and unimproved fields made operations difficult.
While the aircraft’s range did prove useful, it was never an easy plane to maintain, load, or operate.
The C-46 remained in use after WWII, supporting our Asian allies against communism. It never did shake its maintenance heavy image. Image: New Zealand Railways Corporation, Head Office holdings.
C-46 vs. C-47 wasn’t even a close contest, except for range
While a betting man before the war might have put his money on the more advanced C-46, it would have resulted in massive losses.
The C-46 struggled compared to the simpler and more rugged C-47. The C-47 proved its mettle in the European theater with its notable ability to take battle damage and its repeated use on unimproved fields. The C-46 did have a notable advantage in range, nearly double that of the C-47.
Despite all of its shortcomings, its range was its primary asset. The C-46 could fly almost 2,800 nm without refueling. This was nearly double the range of the C-47, which topped out at 1,500 nm.
On the other hand, the C-47 was loved by nearly everyone who used it. The pilots appreciated its simplicity and sturdiness. Maintenance appreciated how relatively easy it was to repair and maintain, planners liked its dependability and versatility, and bean counters appreciated its lower maintenance costs and resource outlay.
After The War
Despite all its shortcomings, the C-46 still remained operational for quite a while. The C-46 had a limited role in the Korean War, and a few civilian operators kept the plane in use afterwards.
Why Was The C-46 Commando Not As Popular As The C-47? 16
Out of the nearly 3,200 airframes built between 1940 and 1945, very few remain airworthy today. Alaskan operator Everts Air, a Part 135 operator out of Fairbanks, Alaska, operates two of the type.
There are a few others still in use around the world, too. N78774 also still occasionally flies in full military colors.
Why Was The C-46 Commando Not As Popular As The C-47? 17
The legacy of the C-46 is complex. It was a significant contributor to the Allies’ war effort. However, it was held back by several shortcomings. Most would call it a weak design, but calling it a failure would be way too harsh.
On 16 May 2024, President Joe Biden signed into law the bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Bill of 2024. The legislation promises to make American airspace safer and introduce robust protections for passengers and airline employees alike.
Stemming from the turbulence in the aviation industry post-COVID-19, this legislation addresses various issues plaguing passengers, airlines, and regulatory bodies.
Among its many provisions, the decision not to raise the mandatory retirement age for pilots stands out as one of the most contentious and discussed outcomes.
Origins and Key Provisions of the FAA Reauthorization Bill
IMAGE: FAA
The FAA Reauthorization Bill’s origins date back to the chaotic post-pandemic period. In 2022, passengers faced significant issues with refunds amidst widespread travel disruptions. The new law empowers passengers by ensuring automatic refunds if they decline an airline’s booking request or fail to respond. This provision is part of President Biden’s broader campaign against “junk fees.”
Key highlights of the bill include:
Prohibition of airlines from charging families to sit together
Introduction of 25-hour cockpit recording devices
Raising the maximum civil penalties for airline consumer violations from $25,000 to $75,000 per violation
Increased oversight on aircraft production, enhancing factory inspections and FAA safety standards
Allocation of funds to hire and train FAA air traffic controllers, addressing a current shortage of 3,000 positions
Strengthening airport infrastructure at medium to large hub airports to mitigate near-collisions on runways
Reauthorization of over $105 billion in funding for the FAA and $738 million for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through 2028
Allowance for an increase of five additional roundtrip slots for long-distance flights (>1,250 miles) at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA)
Postponement of environmental efficiency rules for Boeing’s 767F production until 2033
President Biden hailed the bill as a significant (and rare) bipartisan victory.
“The bipartisan Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization is a big win for travelers, the aviation workforce, and our economy,” said Biden. “It will expand critical protections for air travelers, strengthen safety standards, and support pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic controllers.”
The Debate Over Pilot Retirement Age
Two pilots in the flight deck | IMAGE: Photo by Freddie on Unsplash
One of the bill’s most significant and hotly debated outcomes is the decision not to increase the mandatory retirement age for pilots from 65 to 67. This decision follows years of intense debate over the benefits and drawbacks of raising the age limit.
The current retirement age of 65, established in 2007 after being raised from 60, aligns with international standards. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), representing 77,000 pilots across 43 U.S. and Canadian airlines, staunchly opposed the increase. It argued that raising the retirement age would introduce unnecessary logistical challenges and safety risks.
“This legislation is a solution in search of a problem. Raising the retirement age would only increase costs for airlines, worsen the post-COVID training backlog by using much-needed training cycles to train pilots over 65 who would be limited to domestic operations, and introduce unnecessary risks to passengers and crew alike. That’s why major airlines and a significant majority of pilots and passengers oppose this move. We are disappointed by the introduction of this misbegotten bill that betrays an understanding of how the airline industry works and will create more problems for air travel.”
As recently as 2022, ALPA adopted a resolution opposing any future attempts to increase the retirement age for airline pilots.
Regarding the passage of the Reauthorization Bill, ALPA President, Capt. Jason Ambrosi, praised the decision, stating, “We are grateful for the overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and for the thousands of ALPA members who worked tirelessly to ensure this deal maintains our world-leading pilot-training standards and rejects attempts to arbitrarily raise the pilot retirement age, which would have introduced uncertainty into the U.S. aviation system and interfered with collectively bargained agreements.”
The 1,500-Hour Requirement Stays Intact
At 150 feet tall, Chicago O’Hare International Airport’s control tower is a prototype of IM Pei’s mid-century FAA control tower design | IMAGE: Photo by Miguel Ángel Sanz on Unsplash
Safety concerns have been central to the debate on pilot retirement age. Following the 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 near Buffalo, which resulted in the deaths of 50 people, the FAA enacted more stringent pilot training requirements. These include a controversial 1,500-hour flight training requirement for pilots, a standard that remains in place with the new legislation.
The bill also maintains other critical safety measures, such as enhancing runway and airport alerting systems, establishing secondary barriers for existing passenger aircraft, and creating a standardized system for reporting smoke and fume events.
Addressing the Pilot Shortage Debate
Scrapped Delta Connection CRJs at Kingman, Arizona (IGM)
The issue of pilot shortages has been a contentious point in discussions about raising the retirement age. ALPA has clashed with the Regional Airline Association (RAA) over the issue of pilot shortages in the United States. ALPA asserts that there is no current shortage of pilots and argues that “special interest groups” like the RAA are compromising safety by pushing for an increase in the retirement age. They cite FAA data, showing that 11,225 airline pilot certificates were issued in 2023, surpassing any forecasts and meeting demand.
In response, the RAA accused ALPA of cherry-picking data, pointing out that while the FAA did, in fact, certify 11,225 pilots in 2023, major airlines hired 12,193 pilots, resulting in a shortfall of 968 pilots. The RAA emphasized that this shortfall follows an even more significant gap in 2022 when major airlines hired 13,128 pilots, but only 9,491 new pilots were qualified. Consequently, the shortage of at least 4,605 pilots led to the grounding of over 400 aircraft and 317 U.S. airports losing an average of 25% of their flights, with more than 40 airports losing over half their flights and 12 airports losing all air service1.
Ambrosi questioned the RAA’s motives, noting that raising the retirement age would have minimal impact on regional airlines.
“Maybe fifty pilots at the regionals would be able to continue flying,” he told Forbes in February.
Historical Context of Pilot Retirement Age
The debate over the mandatory pilot retirement age continues | IMAGE: Photo by Karen Grigorean on Unsplash
The regulation of pilot retirement age has a long history.
The first age limit of 45 years was set in 1919 by the International Commission for Air Navigation. This restriction was lifted in 1947 when the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) took over regulatory responsibilities.
In the 1950s, U.S. airlines pushed for a mandatory retirement age, which was set at 60 in 1959. This was one year after the FAA’s creation. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) also adopted the age 60 retirement rule in 1963.
In 2006, the ICAO raised the retirement age to 65 for multi-crew operations. The caveat was that the second crewmember must be under 60. The U.S. adopted this standard in 2007.
Although Settled For Now, the Debate Will Continue On
The FAA Reauthorization Bill of 2024 represents a comprehensive effort to enhance aviation safety, protect passengers, and address workforce challenges in the aviation industry. By maintaining the current retirement age for pilots, the bill preserves international standards and avoids potential disruptions and safety concerns raised by ALPA and other stakeholders.
As the aviation industry continues to recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the provisions in this bill will play a crucial role in ensuring the safety, efficiency, and reliability of air travel in the United States. The decision to keep the pilot retirement age at 65 reflects a commitment to maintaining high safety standards and addressing the industry’s nuanced challenges.
While the decision not to raise the pilot retirement age was controversial, proponents believe it underscores the importance of maintaining rigorous safety standards and avoiding unnecessary risks.
Most importantly, they say, it solidifies the United States’ position as the global leader in aviation safety.
What do you think? Do you agree with the decision to keep the mandatory pilot retirement age at 65? Let us know. We would love to hear your thoughts!
1. Data courtesy of Future & Active Pilot Advisors (fapa.aero)
The Unducted Fan (UDF) engine, developed by General Electric, should have been more than a great trivia question.
(Welcome to Avgeekery Jeopardy.)
“Alex, I’ll take Dismissed Aircraft Technology for one hundred.”
Answer: “This fuel-efficient engine type was developed for the proposed Boeing 7J7.”
“What is the Unducted Fan?”
Correct.
In 1985, at the Paris Airshow, Boeing announced a General Electric Unducted Fan prop-fan engine that would power its new 7J7. The 150-seat aircraft, equipped with the two ground-breaking engines, would use half the fuel that the Airbus A320, which was close to coming online.
Three years later, the first plane equipped with a UDF flew, but by then, both the 7J7 and the Unducted Fan were scrapped projects.
After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, an oil embargo was put in place, impacting the United States, Europe, and Japan. Long gas lines for automobiles were one pressing issue, while higher fuel prices were wrecking airlines’ bottom lines (sound familiar?).
NASA’s Lewis Research Center in Cleveland conducted research to find the sweet spot between a propeller-driven engine that would be fuel-efficient but still deliver speeds so that a New York-to-Los Angeles flight wouldn’t take eight hours.
Originally called a “turboprop,” that term had to be changed to “prop-fan.” A survey of potential passengers rejected the first term because apparently it referenced propeller-driven aircraft, but half of those surveyed were OK with the “prop-fan” term. Go figure.
GE began developing the technology in the late 1970s, amid rumors that its CFM56 turbofan was about to be surpassed by a competitor. The UDF engine nacelle was egg-shaped. At the narrow end were two rows of 12-foot-diameter propeller blades made from carbon fiber composite materials. It was larger and more powerful than the engine that NASA had developed.
The GE engine’s twin propellers spun in opposite directions to reduce losses due to “swirl” – energy wasted in imparting spin to the air behind the airplane. The UDF blades were directly and gearlessly powered by a turbine driven by hot gas from the engine. The two rows of propeller blades were each anchored to multiple rows of turbine blades.
For the 7J7, the engines would be mounted near the tail to allow clearance for the propellers and to reduce cabin noise.
But what sparked the interest in developing a fuel-efficient engine and aircraft became the demise of the UDF and the 7J7. The end of the oil embargo led to cheaper fuel prices. The 737 remained a workhorse for short- to mid-range flights, while the Airbus A320 offered even better performance.
Developing and selling another 150-seat with radically different engines didn’t prove financially feasible in the late 80’s. Plus, the radical engine design – those darn propellers – led to scrapping both the 7J7 and the UDF for commercial use.
People loved jet engines, but the UDF design, along with some noise issues, led to the postponement and eventual cancellation of any follow-on test program or adoption.
This Team of Southwest Airlines Pros Flew a Grieving Mother From PHX to LAX With Abundant Compassion- and Plenty of Support
These days we often hear about negative experiences (or worse) when it comes to airline travel. From doors falling off jets and poor headwork in the cockpit (both on the ground and in the air) to unruly passengers and their antics, travel by air holds less and less appeal these days. It seems only the bad news makes it to your feed or the “news”, but good things happen too. The following story was written by David Dale, who is a retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, a Captain with Southwest Airlines, and a contributor here at Avgeekery.com.
Southwest 737-700. image via eddie maloney
Did You See That Lady Crying?
“Did you see the lady in the wheelchair crying when you came down the jetway?” my first officer (FO) asked as I slid my black roller bag under the cockpit jumpseat.
“Yeah, I did. There were people comforting her. What was going on?” I asked.
“She just found out her daughters were shot in Milwaukee last night.”
It Was a Day Like Any Other Out West…At First
Our scheduled trip in early January, 2015, had a minor schedule change as we passed through Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport on the way to Los Angeles. Instead of keeping the plane we just brought in, we had to give up our plane for an “unscheduled tail swap” and fly a different Boeing 737 to California. Sometimes this is required for routine maintenance or perhaps the weather conditions, such as forecasted icing or thunderstorms, meant that a crew needed our plane if theirs had a deficient aircraft system that we wouldn’t need in the sunny southwest. In any case, my First Officer Brett and I now had to quickly perform a Bag Drag, gathering up our flying gear and luggage and hustling from the C Terminal to the D Terminal in the hopes of departing on time in the next 45 minutes.
I sent Brett on ahead to begin his preflight as I spoke to the crew taking over our jet, telling them that the plane was performing fine and that they would encounter a few bumps during their climb out over the desert. The captain would pass this information along to the flight attendants so they would know to stay seated for their safety until the ride smoothed out. Once the handoff was complete I headed up the jetway and hurried over to the moving sidewalk to speed up my trek to the new gate.
Southwest 737s at KPHX. image via usa today
A Passenger in Distress, But In Good Hands
As I approached the operations agent at the open door of the jetway, I saw a middle-aged African American lady sitting in a wheelchair, wearing a blue denim jacket and black pants. Her forehead rested in her left hand as she sobbed uncontrollably. A Southwest gate agent and a lady pilot in a white short-sleeve shirt and black tie knelt on either side of her chair, patting her arm and offering her tissues. I didn’t stop to ask about the situation, 1) because she was being tended to, and 2) we were supposed to Load and Go as quickly as possible.
I walked onto the airplane and introduced myself to the lead or “A” flight attendant, then turned to place my luggage in the cockpit when my FO told me about the horrific incident.
Introductions and Assurances
After stowing my gear, I got back out of the cockpit and met the grieving mother in the jetway with the young blonde lady pilot holding onto the wheelchair behind her. I bent down and told the mother, “I am so sorry to hear about what happened, ma’am. We will do our best to get you to Los Angeles as quickly and safely as possible.” She sobbed, clutching her tissues and whispered, “Thank you.”
The young lady acting as her escort was a United Airlines first officer, Kristina, going to LAX for a trip later that evening. She graciously agreed to sit with the despondent mother during the planned one hour flight.
Our operations agent joined me in the cockpit and said that lady was called earlier this morning with the news that her two daughters were shot at around 2:00 AM and this flight to LAX was the quickest way to get her up to Milwaukee.
737-700 cockpit. image via marcela
Still Have to Check the Boxes
Brett and I competed our preflight activities, loading the flight plan in the computer and making sure the systems were set for engine start and takeoff. It would be “my leg” since he had just landed the previous flight into Phoenix. I briefed him on the planned departure procedure and what actions we would take if there was an engine failure during takeoff. This is standard procedure so that all aircrews are mentally prepared for that emergency. Plan for the worst. Hope for the best.
With our Boeing 737-700 now loaded with passengers and their luggage, the ground crew pushed the plane off the gate with their blue four-wheeled “tug” as the FO started both engines, first the #2 engine on our right wing, then the #1 engine on our left wing.
Once the ground crew completed the pushback, they disconnected the tug and waved goodbye as Brett extended our flaps to the takeoff position. He then configured the electrical, hydraulic, and air conditioning system for takeoff. Next, Brett coordinated our taxi instructions with Phoenix Ground Control as I taxied westbound along the two-mile long runway for an eastbound takeoff, before an eventual turn westward toward LA. Runways are assigned by the airport and dependent upon prevailing windings to strive for a headwind.
Southwest 737-700 pushing back. image via planespottera320
The Magic Words Get Immediate Attention
With the grieving mother in mind, I taxied at 35 miles per hour (pretty fast for a large jet on the taxiway), hoping to get airborne as soon as possible. With about a half mile to go to the end of the runway, the Tower controller advised us, “Southwest 467, due to flow (airspace congestion) into LA your takeoff time will be 0940, 13 minutes from now.”
This can be a normal circumstance flying into busy airports but it is definitely not what I wanted today. I could not imagine being that mother as we sat for 13 minutes at the end of the runway waiting for takeoff clearance.
I told the FO, “Call up Clearance Delivery on Radio #2 and tell them we have a family emergency onboard.” This was an unusual radio call but I hoped the information might decrease our planned delay.
It must have worked. While Brett was still listening for a reply Radio 2, Tower announced on Radio 1, “Southwest 467, cleared for takeoff, Runway 7 Left.”
I tapped Brett’s arm, pointing to Radio 1 and told him, “We are cleared for takeoff.” Then replied to Tower, “Southwest 467, Cleared for takeoff, 7 Left.”
I rang the cabin bell, signaling to the flight attendants that we were about to takeoff. Brett read off the items of the Before Takeoff checklist and I responded to each item, verifying that the aircraft was configured for takeoff as we rounded the corner, pointing down Runway 7 Left as I increased power to Takeoff Thrust.
Within 7000 feet we were airborne, the First Officer raising the landing gear handle as we accelerated to Flap Retraction speed.
southwest 737-700 depart PHX. image via nick young
More Support from the Ground Enroute
In a normal flight, our flight management system (FMS) would navigate us to the series of about six waypoints of the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) followed by about 20 enroute waypoints before joining the Standard Instrument Arrival (STAR) guiding us to the approach for a westbound landing into LAX on Runway 24 Right. That didn’t happen this day.
Our loving mom in back will never know the behind-the-scenes work that took place to speed her journey to LA for a connecting flight up north. Without us requesting, Phoenix Departure Control cleared us to the final furthest westerly point of the SID. Once we contacted Los Angeles Center we were cleared to a point at the beginning of the STAR. My FO did not request these shortcuts but when you say “Family Emergency” it triggered priority handling. I only wanted to avoid a 13 minute delay but received gracious handling from the air traffic controllers.
Runway 24 Right is the furthest runway north of the LAX terminal. Normal procedure is to land on this outside runway and takeoff from the close-in Runway 24 Left. Again, without our request or declaration of an aircraft emergency, Los Angeles Approach Control cleared us for a visual approach to Runway 24 Left, shaving off more time on this expedited flight. As I touched down and decelerated, we noticed a lot of aircraft stopped on the taxiway to our left. I turned left off the runway and, with other airliners giving way, we were cleared for a direct taxi to our gate.
Southwest 737-700 at LAX. Image via AeroIcarus
It Always Feels Great to Help Those In Need
We landed on time and Kristi and our flight attendants continued to help the grieving mother with her luggage to a waiting wheelchair for her next flight.
As the excitement came to a close and silence set in at the gate, Brett pulled out his phone to text his wife about this unexpected humanitarian flight. All that we knew in Phoenix was that a mother’s two daughters had been shot at a party long after midnight. We assumed that meant shot and killed. The first officer’s wife relayed the news that one daughter had been seriously injured by the gunfire but both girls were thankfully alive.
The teamwork, compassion, and graciousness provided that January, 2015 day by all aviation personnel, including the Southwest flight attendants, operations agents, air traffic controllers, and Kristi, the off-duty United pilot, is something I will always remember.
-David Dale
Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, Retired
Captain, Southwest Airlines
Ready For Takeoff – Stories from an Air Force Pilot
Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders has been killed in a tragic plane crash. Anders captured one of the most iconic photographs in history when he flew around the moon on Apollo 8.
Anders had always said they went to explore the moon, and instead found the Earth. His famous photo of the Earth rising over the lunar surface put things in perspective in a way the world had never seen before.
Anders crashed near Seattle in a small plane
The 90-year old former USAF combat fighter pilot was the only soul onboard the Beech A45 he was flying Friday near Seattle, WA.
Witnesses on the ground reported him going down about 80 miles north of the city, sinking between some islands. Videos have been circulating online from eyewitnesses. In the footages, the plane looped inverted. Anders appeared to try and pull up, before hitting the water.
In 1968, during Apollo 8, Bill Anders offered to humanity among the deepest of gifts an astronaut can give. He traveled to the threshold of the Moon and helped all of us see something else: ourselves. He embodied the lessons and the purpose of exploration. We will miss him. pic.twitter.com/wuCmfHpu3g
According to the NTSB, Anders hit the water about 80 feet offshore of Jones Island. Once recovered, they will send the plane off for investigators to examine. NTSB will release a preliminary report within 30 days. The final report will be available in 1-2 years.
“The family is devastated,” said Anders’ son, Greg Anders. “He was a great pilot and we will miss him terribly.”
Anders was a Major General, before becoming an astronaut
Apollo 8 Astronaut Bill Anders Killed in Plane Crash 36
Anders came from a military family. After graduating high school in Southern California, he attended the US Naval Academy, graduating in 1955. He commissioned into the USAF and earned his wings in 1956.
Shortly after he began flying the F-89 “Scorpion”. He spent a year in Iceland with several intercepts of Russian Bear Bombers. He later transitioned to the F-101 “Voodoo”.
On to space
Apollo 8 Astronaut Bill Anders Killed in Plane Crash 37
Anders was selected by NASA in 1963, and soon found himself assigned to the backup crew for Gemini 11. Later he would also be assigned to the backup for Apollo 11.
He was one of the first to pilot the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, which earning him a spot as the Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 8 with Jim Lovell and Frank Borman.
Apollo 8 (nasa photos)
Their launch was a significant one, possibly as much or more than Apollo 11. It marked many firsts as they thundered off the Earth December 21, 1968.
It was the first crewed flight of the mighty Saturn V rocket. the first time that humans left Earth’s gravity, and Apollo 8 became the first humans to travel to the moon.
Earthrise
The famous photo of the Earth rising kind of happened by accident. They were shooting mostly black and white images of locations for future missions to possibly land. The only reason they saw the Earth when they did was because Borman was rotating the spacecraft, pointing nose-down at the moon.
It was pure coincidence that, as they came around, Anders could see the Earth in his window. There had already been 3 Earth rises. They just couldn’t see it until now.
Anders looking out of a window on apollo 8 (nasa photo)
”When the Earth came up, I didn’t even have a light meter,” recalled Anders in the years after. “I just started clicking away and changing the F-stops and, fortunately, one of the pictures came out.
In recorded audio the crew’s surprise and rush to capture it was evident. “Oh, my God, look at that picture over there,” said Anders. “There’s the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!”
Anders (to Lovell): “You got a color film, Jim? Hand me a roll of color, quick, would you?”
The crew at the rollout of their saturn v moon rocket for apollo 8 (nasa photo)
Lovell: “Oh, man, that’s great! Where is it?”
Anders: “Hurry. Quick.”
Lovell: “Down here?”
Anders: “Just grab me a color. A color exterior. Hurry up. Got one?”
Lovell: “Yeah, I’m lookin’ for one. C368.”
Anders: “Anything quick.”
Lovell handed him the film just as Anders is heard saying, “I think we missed it.”
Lovell saw the shot again in another window. He asks for the camera from Anders, who got a bit defensive (and I as a photographer don’t blame him).
Anders: “Wait a minute, just let me get the right setting here now, just calm down. Calm down, Lovell!”
The rest, as they say, is history.
Borman, Lovell and Anders were named Time Magazine’s Men of the Year for 1968. Anders’ famous “Earthrise” was chosen by Life Magazine as one of the “100 Photographs that Changed the World”.
Lot of questions about what happened to cause Anders to crash
Right now there’s no information at all as to what could have possibly happened Friday that caused the fatal plane crash.
As noted earlier, the NTSB recovery of the plane and investigation are underway.
With the world’s two dominant OEMs booked up through the end of the decade, is there room for a new competitor?
As the demand for commercial jetliners continues to jam up assembly lines at Boeing and Airbus, a new competitor threatens to break up the duopoly.
The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, or COMAC, represents a bold initiative by the Chinese government to establish a competitive presence in the global aerospace market. Founded in 2008, the Shanghai-based manufacturer aims to reduce China’s reliance on Western aircraft manufacturers.
Although still in its infancy, COMAC has made significant strides through its ambitious aircraft programs, including the ARJ21, C919, and the upcoming C929 and C939. Each of these projects underscores China’s determination to become a leading player in the global aerospace industry.
But just how much of a threat is COMAC?
The short answer is not much—at least for now. At present, COMAC has a relatively modest presence in the skies of China with minimal exposure elsewhere. Two of its products, the ARJ21 regional jet and the C919 short- to medium-range airliner, are currently being produced at a snail’s pace. Two widebody products – the C929 and C939 – are in the design phase.
The ARJ21: The Chinese Regional Jet
A trio of COMAC ARJ21-700s | IMAGE: COMAC
The ARJ21 marks COMAC’s initial foray into the commercial aircraft market. The ARJ21 (ARJ stands for “Advanced Regional Jet”) serves short-range routes, seating between 70 to 105 passengers in a 2-3 configuration. The development of this twin-engine, single-aisle jet began in 2002, aiming to compete directly with established regional jets like the Bombardier CRJ and Embraer E-Jets.
The type’s journey from concept to commercial service was fraught with challenges. Originally, COMAC planned for the maiden flight in 2005 and commercial service by mid-2006. However, the program experienced significant delays, with the prototype unveiled only in 2007 and the maiden flight occurring on 28 November 2008. These setbacks, primarily due to design and certification issues, postponed the aircraft’s entry into service until 28 June 2016, when Chengdu Airlines operated the first revenue flight.
Questioning the Originality of the ARJ21
Jiangxi Airlines receives the first ARJ21 aircraft | IMAGE: COMAC
The ARJ21 features wings designed by Antonov and is powered by two General Electric CF34 engines mounted at the rear. The aircraft’s design, which some critics liken to the CRJ or the Boeing 717, is claimed by COMAC to be entirely original. The ARJ21-700 is the standard model, with a seating capacity of 70-95 passengers, while the ARJ21-900, a stretched variant similar to the Bombardier CRJ900 or Embraer 175-E2, will accommodate 95-105 passengers. Additional variants include freighter and executive versions, dubbed the ARJ21F and ARJ21B, respectively.
Certified in January 2023, the ARJ21CCF (Comac Converted Freighter) boasts a maximum payload capacity of 22,377 pounds and a range of 1,726 miles. Chengdu Airlines took delivery of the first two converted freighters in October 2023.
The ARJ21B is expected to seat 20 passengers in a one-class configuration.
International Reach and Future Prospects
Chengdu Airlines’ ARJ21 at Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport in 2019 | IMAGE: N509FZ, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
While the ARJ21 predominantly serves domestic routes within mainland China, Indonesian airline TransNusa became the first international customer of the type in 2022. The carrier currently operates two ARJ21-700s with an additional 28 on order.
Brunei’s Gallop Air placed an order for 15 ARJ21s in September 2023. There are also reports that the Republic of Congo’s national carrier, ECAir, is considering acquiring three ARJ21s.
Today, 146 ARJ21 airframes are operating, with more coming online slowly but steadily. The type also recently carried its ten millionth passenger.
The C919: China’s Challenger to the A320 and 737 MAX
A COMAC C919 lifts off | IMAGE: COMAC
The C919 represents COMAC’s most significant effort to date in challenging the Airbus-Boeing duopoly in the single-aisle jet market. Designed to accommodate 150-190 passengers, it targets short- to medium-range routes, directly competing with the more efficient Airbus A320neo and Boeing 737 MAX families.
The development of the C919 began in 2008, with the first flight taking place on 5 May 2017. After extensive testing and certification processes, launch customer China Eastern Airlines took delivery of the first C919 on 28 May 2023.
COMAC Will Produce Shortened and Stretched Variants of the C919
Dongfang 7801 from Shanghai-Hongqiao, landing at 36R as part of its 100-hour validation | IMAGE: N509FZ, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Powered by two CFM International LEAP (Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion) engines, the C919 shares many design characteristics with the Airbus A320, including similar wingspan and fuselage dimensions. COMAC is developing shortened and stretched variants of the C919 to enhance its market appeal, with capacities ranging from 130 to 240 passengers and a maximum range of 3,500 miles.
The shortened variant will focus on high-altitude destinations within 2,500 miles, while the extended variant will have a range of up to 3,500 miles.
C919 Production and Market Reception
The second C919 prototype lifts off for its maiden flight on 17 December 2017 | IMAGE: Ken Chen, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
With over 1,500 orders for the C919 on the books, reception to the type has been far more robust than that of the ARJ21. Production is progressing slowly, however, with COMAC aiming to achieve an annual output of 150 aircraft by 2028. Notable international orders include US-based aircraft lessor GE Capital Aviation Services and AerCap, an Irish aviation leasing company. Tibet Airlines has ordered 40 shortened-variant C919s to operate in the Himalayan Plateau region. Air China and China Southern have also ordered 100 C919s each.
China Eastern is currently the sole operator of the type, with six C919-100s in service and an additional 100 on order. The airline anticipates having ten C919s in its fleet by the end of 2024.
Despite the slow start, the future of the C919 looks promising – at least domestically – as COMAC works to ramp up production.
Chinese officials hope to receive European approval sometime in 2025, which would allow for expanded international operations. However, industry experts say that is unlikely.
The C929: A Long-Range Vision
A mockup of the COMAC C929 at the 2017 Paris Air Show | IMAGE: Marc Lacoste, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The C929 is COMAC’s ambitious project to penetrate the long-range widebody market, competing with the Airbus A330 and Boeing 787.
At its onset, the project was a joint Chinese-Russian venture to replace the Ilyushin Il-96 under the banner of the China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation (CRAIC). Dubbed the CRAIC CR (China-Russia) 929, its maiden flight was slated to occur between 2025 and 2028. However, the project faced setbacks due to geopolitical tensions and sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
In 2023, COMAC announced it would continue the venture independently, thus renaming the project C929.
Design, Development, and Future Prospects for the C929
A rendering of the COMAC C929 Interior | IMAGE: By Marc Lacoste – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60410188
Currently in the detailed design phase, the C929 is planned to offer three variants with varying capacities and ranges. The -500 variant will seat 250 passengers and feature a range of 8,700 miles, while the -600 and -700 variants will accommodate 280 and 320 passengers and feature a range of 7,500 and 6,200 miles, respectively. An all-economy configuration could potentially seat up to 440 passengers.
By comparison, the Airbus A350 has a range of 9,600 miles, while the Boeing 787-8 has a range of 8,500 miles.
Any final specifications are subject to the final design and materials.
The final choice for the C929 powerplants is yet to be determined, but initial production will likely have to rely on engines from Western manufacturers like Rolls-Royce or General Electric. Despite the breakdown of the China-Russia venture, COMAC aims to deliver the first fuselage by September 2027, though test flights are unlikely before 2030.
The C939: Just Announced
Exterior of Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport | IMAGE: shimin (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
The C929 evidently won’t be the only widebody jetliner produced by COMAC.
Earlier this month, Chinese media reported that COMAC had begun preliminary design work on the C939, another twin-aisle widebody jet.
The type, which will compete with the Boeing 777 (including the 777X) and Airbus A350, will reportedly feature a capacity of up to 400 passengers.
While not much else is public knowledge at the moment, the C939 signifies COMAC’s intent to challenge the dominance of the world’s leading OEMs in the long-haul segment.
The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
B-3388, one of the first two aircraft converted to ARJ21P2F, in Air Central livery at the 2024 Singapore Airshow
| IMAGE: By S5A-0043 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=145796643
However, this is still years – perhaps more than a decade – down the road. And much can happen between now and then. So, for now, the Airbus-Boeing duopoly is safe. But it’s hard to imagine what the world could look like a decade from now. If the last decade has taught us anything, so much can change so quickly.
COMAC’s journey from the ARJ21 to the C939 illustrates China’s growing capabilities and ambitions in aerospace manufacturing. However, becoming a global aerospace player is a long road. COMAC’s production capacity remains severely limited, and significant efforts are needed to scale up to meet demand.
The company aims to produce 150 aircraft annually by 2028, but reaching Airbus and Boeing’s production efficiency and technical support levels by 2035 will require substantial advancements.
The global aerospace industry is rapidly evolving, with China poised to surpass the United States as the world’s largest aviation market in the next few years. This shift presents both opportunities and challenges for COMAC. While the company benefits from robust domestic demand, gaining a foothold internationally will require overcoming technical, regulatory, and geopolitical hurdles.
Everyone knows that Texas is big – 268,596 square miles according to the Texas Almanac – bigger than all of the New England and the Mid-Atlantic states put together. So, it is little wonder that, when the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was issuing certificates for the newly-conceived feeder airlines in the late 1940s, Texas got an airline all its own. The company, called Aviation Enterprises, was certified to serve 28 airports over a 1,906-mile route system, all within the Lone Star State.
TTA’s original system covered 28 airports serving 34 Texas cities. David H. Stringer Collection
Founded in 1940 by R. Earl McKaughan, Aviation Enterprises was a fixed base operator (FBO) at Houston’s Municipal Airport (later renamed William P. Hobby Airport) offering maintenance services, flight instruction, and aircraft charters. During World War II, the company performed exceptional work for the government by training hundreds of ferry pilots for the Women Air Force Service Pilots (WASP) program at Avenger Field in Sweetwater, Texas.
A more suitable name was needed now, one that would catch the public’s attention. The perfect moniker was chosen in June 1947, several months before the first flight took off, when the bland-sounding Aviation Enterprises, Inc. officially became Trans-Texas Airways (TTA).
A Trans-Texas Airways DC-3 photographed at Dallas Love Field in 1950 by Bill Proctor. Jon Proctor Collection
THE ORIGINAL TRANS-TEXAS AIRWAYS NETWORK
Five routes had been awarded to the company. They stretched from Houston to Dallas, Houston to San Antonio, from San Antonio to El Paso, and from Dallas to Ft Stockton. A branch also extended south along the Rio Grande from Eagle Pass to Brownsville. Each route served several intermediate cities, which was the purpose of the new feeder carriers: to bring air service to smaller cities and isolated communities.
Back in 1942, a song entitled “Deep in the Heart of Texas” had risen to the top of the chart on America’s favorite radio music program, “Your Hit Parade”. The lyrics stated that “The stars at night are big and bright deep in the heart of Texas”. Whether or not the song influenced TTA’s managers is unknown, but the new airline of the Lone Star State dubbed its DC-3s “Starliners” when they took to the air and they would be referred to as such for years to come.
TTA’s first stewardess class, 1947. David H. Stringer Collection
TRANS-TEXAS AIRWAYS SERVICE BEGINS
Two DC-3s began serving eight Texas cities on 11 October 1947, and the entire statewide network was in operation by June 1948.
Trans-Texas Airways’ first flights were attended by stewards, but the company quickly transitioned to an all-female cabin staff, a corps that would become the talk of the industry because of their uniforms. Decked out in western boots, vest, neck scarf, traditional hat, blouse, and skirt, TTA’s ‘cowgirls’ sported the most unique uniform in the ‘Lower 48’ continental United States. The airline’s female flight attendants would continue to wear updated versions of the cowgirl uniform well into the 1960s.
A Trans-Texas Airways ‘Cowgirl’ hostess (stewardess) greets you from the cover of this March 1950 system timetable. David H. Stringer Collection
TRANS-TEXAS AIRWAYS NEARLY DIES
From January through November 1948, TTA’s average revenue passenger load per flight was a dismal 2.81. Like the other local service carriers, Trans-Texas relied heavily on government subsidies to cover losses incurred from providing service to small cities. However, for TTA, the average passenger journey represented an operating cost of $38.61, of which the passenger paid only $10.86. The government made up the difference.
Because of such disappointing statistics, on 4 April 1949, the CAB issued an order directing Trans-Texas Airways to show cause why its operating certificate should not be allowed to expire.
Trans-Texas Airways existed for the purpose of transporting passengers from small cities and towns to big city airports, and vice versa. Here is a typical scene from a day in the life of a TTA DC-3 in the early years. David H. Stringer Collection
Fortunately, the airline had hired former Texas Governor Charles V. Allred to serve as TTA’s Vice-President and General Counsel. Allred got to work reaching out to friends statewide. No fewer than 69 members of the chambers of commerce and the local governments of cities served by Trans-Texas, as well as representatives of companies reliant upon TTA service, appeared before the CAB, along with six state Congressmen. The evidence presented and the testimonials given at the hearings to determine the company’s fate were successful. With minor adjustments to its route system, including the elimination of some cities and the addition of a couple of new destinations, TTA’s certificate was renewed by the Board on 5 February 1951 for an additional three years.
TTA was saved partly through the efforts of its vice-president and general counsel, former Texas governor Charles V. Allred. The company adopted a more modern image in the early 1950s, as reflected in this baggage label. David H. Stringer Collection
ONE GOVERNOR IS REPLACED BY ANOTHER
Former Governor James V. Allred left TTA’s employ in 1949 when he was appointed to a federal judgeship by President Harry S. Truman. He was replaced in his position as General Counsel for TTA by a future Governor of Texas, John B. Connally, the man who would achieve notoriety as being the other person shot while riding in President Kennedy’s limousine in Dallas in 1963.
TTA’s first major route expansion took place in 1953, when the airline’s network finally stretched beyond the borders of Texas. David H. Stringer Collection
ROUTE EXPANSION
TTA finally received authority to expand beyond the borders of Texas in 1953. Service was inaugurated to nine airports in Arkansas, Shreveport, Louisiana, and Memphis, Tennessee. Six new stations in Texas, including Austin, the state capital, were also added to TTA’s route map, while the airline was allowed to suspend operations at the underperforming cities of Alice, Nacogdoches, and McCamey.
‘Cowgirl’ hostesses still welcomed you aboard Trans-Texas Airways. David H. Stringer Collection
On 1 January 1956, TTA expanded further by linking Laredo with San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, and Dallas, a major route across Texas touching five of the state’s important cities. On 22 January, the airline also inaugurated service to Lake Charles and Lafayette, Louisiana.
A modification program undertaken in 1957 improved the performance of TTA’s time-tested Douglas DC-3’s. The retrofitted aircraft were now referred to as Super Starliners. David H. Stringer Collection
STARLINERS BECOME SUPER STARLINERS
In 1957, the company announced an upgrade program to enhance the performance of each of its DC-3s. The retrofit program included the installation of wheel-well doors, a redesigned engine cowling and oil cooler package, a tail wheel-well enclosure, and what was referred to as a Siamese exhaust system. Cruising speed, range, and payload were all increased because of the improvements. The DC-3 upgrade program was announced at the company’s Houston headquarters by Earl McKaughan’s son, R.E. “Dick” McKaughan, Jr., the company’s Director of Flight Operations. The airline’s 20 revamped DC-3s would henceforth be known as TTA ‘Super Starliners’.
Super Starliner modifications included the addition of wheel well doors. Paul Zogg Collection (Zoggavia)
MORE GROWTH
In 1959, the CAB gave TTA another boost: 1,200 new miles and seven new cities were added to the airline’s map: Alexandria, De Ridder, Monroe, Morgan City, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Natchez and Jackson in Mississippi.
More route development took place in 1959 as Trans-Texas began offering non-stop flights from both Houston and San Antonio to the Rio Grande Valley (Harlingen, Texas). At the other end of the state, Midland / Odessa received TTA service for the first time.
By 1960, TTA’s route system reached eastward to Memphis, Jackson, and New Orleans. David H. Stringer Collection
CONVAIRS
Even though its DC-3s had been reconditioned, TTA now required larger and more modern aircraft to serve its expanding route system. The company signed a deal with American Airlines to acquire 25 of that airline’s Convair 240s as they were retired from the larger carrier over the course of the next seven years.
TTA Convair 240 photographed at Dallas Love Field by Mel Lawrence.
The 40-passenger Convairs could hardly be called ‘new’ airliners, although they were of postwar design, not pre-war like the DC-3s. Having initially entered service with American Airlines in 1948, the Convair 240 brought several advancements to TTA passengers. Most importantly, it was both pressurized and air-conditioned. Its tricycle landing gear meant that passengers didn’t have to climb uphill as they did when boarding a DC-3. The aircraft also offered carry-on luggage racks for customers.
Airline P.r. departments always had photographers on the scene when a famous person boarded one of the company’s flights. TTA was no exception. First Lady Ladybird Johnson is pictured on the front page of the company newspaper, appropriately called ‘The Starliner’. David H. Stringer Collection
The first of TTA’s Convairs entered service on 1 April 1961.
THE COWGIRL UNIFORM GETS AN UPGRADE
Along with the new aircraft came new flight attendant uniforms. In keeping with the tradition of dressing hostesses (as TTA referred to its cabin staff) in a Texas-themed wardrobe, new outfits from Dallas-based Neiman-Marcus were introduced. The uniform included ‘Convair red’ coats and western-style ties. A modern version of the cowgirl hat and vest was still part of the ensemble.
A TTA Convair 240 awaits its next assignment at Dallas Love Field. Proctor-Livesey-Thomas Collection
MORE ROUTE EXPANSION
In 1963, TTA gained access to 13 new stations in Texas and New Mexico, primarily by replacing Continental Airlines’ service previously offered to these communities. The cities that became new destinations for Trans-Texas included Abilene and Big Spring in Texas and Hobbs and Carlsbad in New Mexico. In this same CAB case, the Board also allowed more liberalized operating authority over TTA’s existing system, permitting non-stop service over several important routes, most notably Dallas—Houston.
TTA re-engined its fleet of piston-engine Convair 240s with Rolls-Royce Dart turboprop power plants. This converted them into Convair 600’s, which the company referred to as Silver Cloud 600’s. Mel Lawrence Photo
TURBOPROPS
TTA management decided to convert the entire fleet of Convairs to prop-jets. The Convair twins were well-suited for turboprop conversion.
The Convair Division of General Dynamics developed a conversion for the 240 using Rolls-Royce Dart engines. The resulting airliner was dubbed the Convair 600. Trans-Texas chose to perform all of its conversions ‘in-house’ using kits supplied by Convair. Introduced into service on 1 March 1966, TTA referred to its jet-prop Convairs as ‘Silver Cloud 600s’.
TTA Douglas DC-9 N1301T awaits passengers at San Antonio. Note the Pamper Jet branding on the engine. Also note that only the initials TTA appear on the aircraft. The full company name, Trans-Texas Airways, is no longer displayed. Proctor-Livesey-Thomas Collection
PAMPER JETS
Trans-Texas ordered seven Douglas DC-9s (DC-9-14s and DC-9-15MCs – ‘Minimum Change’ for conversion to cargo aircraft) and called them ‘Pamper Jets’. The airline’s first DC-9s entered service on 30 October 1966.
TTA’s next step forward was formalized on 18 July 1966, when President Lyndon Johnson approved the airline’s becoming an international US flag carrier. Permission was granted for Trans-Texas Airways to operate between Mission / McAllen / Edinburg, Texas, and Monterrey, Mexico, and to serve Tampico and Veracruz from Harlingen.
The 1969 name change to Texas International Airlines was accompanied by new corporate colors of purple, white, and gray. Proctor-Livesey-Thomas Collection
TEXAS INTERNATIONAL – TI
Earl McKaughan had founded Trans-Texas Airways in the 1940s and nurtured the company through two decades before turning command over to his son. Now, after more than twenty years at the helm, the McKaughans accepted an offer made by Carl Pohlad and Minnesota Enterprises, Inc. to purchase TTA. The deal was finalized in 1968.
Trans-Texas had been an excellent name for a local service airline serving routes primarily within Texas and its neighboring states. But TTA was now flying jets, and it was the US-designated flag carrier to 3 destinations in Mexico. Because management had marketed the airline by its initials, TTA, some wisecracking members of the public had begun referring to the company as ‘Tree Top Airways’ or ‘Tinker Toy Airlines’.
A DC-9 wearing the purple, white, and gray livery was photographed at Memphis by Mel Lawrence.
In a move to keep identification with the State of Texas alive while embracing the broader market being served, TTA shareholders agreed to change the company’s name to Texas International Airlines, to be referred to by its initials, TI. The name change took place on 1 April 1969, and with it came new corporate colors of purple, white, and gray, which were applied to the aircraft fleet.
When Frank Lorenzo took over the company, another new livery was introduced. The Texas state Lone Star once again graced aircraft tails. Proctor-Livesey-Thomas Collection
THE FRANK LORENZO ERA
Despite new routes intended to boost revenue, the company was in desperate financial trouble. A new name and new branding were of little help in stopping the airline’s rapid descent towards bankruptcy. With a $6 million per year loss recorded since 1968, and past debts due of $20 million, a new savior had to be found.
Jet Capital Corporation, owned by Francisco “Frank” Lorenzo and Robert J. Carney, purchased Texas International Airlines in 1972 and began the process of reviving it.
A DC-9 wears the company’s final livery. Bill Rys Collection
Another new paint scheme was applied to the company’s fleet. This one once again honored the airline’s Texas heritage with a red, white, and blue livery and the state’s ‘lone star’ painted on aircraft tails.
Frank Lorenzo implemented changes that focused the airline’s routes on its hubs in Houston and Dallas / Fort Worth. He was helped immensely by the sudden ‘sunbelt’ growth boom, with Houston at its center, after the Arab oil embargo of 1973. In 1976, the company posted a profit of $3.2 million, quite a turnaround from the dark days of 1972.
Douglas DC-9-32 N3509T is shown in this Douglas Aircraft Company photo. Proctor-Livesey-Thomas Collection
PEANUTS FARES
Texas International Airlines was competing head-to-head with the new, low-cost carrier Southwest Airlines. Lorenzo successfully petitioned the CAB to allow TI the flexibility of offering reduced fares on major routes. Dubbed ‘Peanuts Fares’, Texas International made itself known in the U.S. domestic airline market with the introduction of these lower rates in 1977. By August of that year, TI’s load factor reached 63.1%, the highest among any of the airlines that were still labeled as local service carriers.
Under deregulation, which came into effect in 1978, Lorenzo was able to realign TI’s system with two hub-and-spoke terminals: DFW (red lines), and Houston (blue lines). David H. Stringer Collection
TEXAS AIR CORPORATION
President Jimmy Carter signed the bill, deregulating the US airline industry law, on 24 October 1978.
Frank Lorenzo became the poster boy for airline leaders making the most of the new business environment. In 1980, he created Texas Air Corporation as a holding company under the umbrella of Texas International Airlines.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
In 1982, Texas Air Corporation purchased Continental Airlines, one of several carriers that had not fared well in the deregulated environment. Lorenzo then merged Texas International with Continental, and although TI was technically the surviving carrier, Continental’s name was retained. On 1 June 1982, the Texas International name was retired, bringing an end to the 35-year history of the Lone Star state’s own airline.
Efforts by airlines to invest in their employees are paying off, but there is still much room to improve.
Crowded airports, long lines, and full planes—at this point, it’s safe to say that air travel is fully back from the slump of the last few years. With a 9.4% increase in passenger volume year-to-year, airlines are reaping the benefits of a public eager to fly once again.
But with the headaches that come with busy airports, expensive fares, and crowded airplanes, are customers choosing to hold that against the airlines? Surprisingly not, according to the J.D. Power 2024 North American Airline Satisfaction Study.
The recently released study provides a comprehensive snapshot of the dynamics in play regarding air travel in 2024. Shifting passenger priorities, evolving service standards, and the airlines’ relentless pursuit of customer satisfaction paint a picture of an industry that, while imperfect, has come a long way in recent years.
This year’s survey includes 9,582 responses from travelers who flew on a major North American airline between March 2023 and March 2024. Respondents had to have flown in the prior 30 days to the survey.
The Power of People
Flight attendant Floyd Dean-Shannon helps calm a passenger during a turbulent flight on board an Endeavor Air flight to JFK in 2023 | IMAGE: Delta Air Lines Facebook
Central to the study’s findings is the transformative impact of airline staff on passenger satisfaction. Michael Taylor, senior managing director of travel, hospitality, retail, and customer service at J.D. Power, says the study shows a focus on customer satisfaction has led to markedly improved customer attitudes.
“The big takeaway from this year’s study is the power of people to positively influence the overall flight experience,” said Taylor. “Airlines that are investing in staff training and recruitment are finding ways to overcome the negative effects of crowded gates and planes simply by being nice to their customers.”
Who knew that being nice to customers could be a good thing?
Airlines substantially investing in staff training and recruitment have enhanced the flight experience and customer service, thereby overcoming challenges such as crowded gates and planes. The ability of airline personnel to foster a positive and welcoming environment has emerged as a critical factor driving passenger satisfaction.
Three Key Insights
A ramp agent directs a Southwest Boeing 737-700 into the gate | IMAGE: Southwest Airlines on Facebook
The study’s key findings shed light on several crucial aspects of passenger preferences and industry trends:
An easy and safe travel experience is worth paying for. Contrary to conventional wisdom, fares are no longer the primary determinant of customer satisfaction. Passengers prioritize ease of travel and a sense of safety, valuing problem-free experiences over high airfares.
Negative media coverage is detrimental to airline customer satisfaction. The study underscores the impact of negative media coverage on airline trust scores. Airlines that have faced adverse publicity experience a significant decline in trust scores, highlighting the importance of reputation management in the digital age. In fact, the satisfaction score for an airline was – on average – 400 points lower (out of 1,000) than competing airlines without negative media coverage.
Investing in employees is the right thing to do. And it works. Top-performing carriers such as Southwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines have reaped the rewards of investing in employee training and development. These investments have translated into significant improvements across all areas where person-to-person interactions play a crucial role.
Southwest and Delta Lead the Way in Customer Satisfaction
A Delta Boeing 717 and a Southwest Boeing 737-800 on the ramp at Dallas Love Field (DAL) | IMAGE: Dallas Love Field on Facebook
Unlike in previous years, the 2024 study categorizes airlines into three segments based on service class: Economy/Basic Economy, Premium Economy, and First/Business Class. Notable insights from each segment include:
Economy/Basic Economy: Southwest Airlines continues its reign as the top performer in this segment for the third consecutive year with a score of 685 (out of 1000). Delta Air Lines and budget carrier Allegiant Air follow Southwest with 651 and 633, respectively.
Airline
2024 Ranking (Based on a 1,000-Point Scale)
Southwest Airlines
1 (685)
Delta Air Lines
2 (651)
Allegiant Air
3 (633)
Alaska Airlines
4 (630)
JetBlue Airways
5 (630)
American Airlines
6 (611)
WestJet
7 (591)
United Airlines
8 (585)
Air Canada
9 (542)
Spirit Airlines
10 (507)
Frontier Airlines
11 (472)
Premium Economy: Delta Air Lines maintains its lead in customer satisfaction for the second consecutive year with a score of 716. Alaska Airlines and American Airlines followed closely behind, with scores of 687 and 684, respectively.
Airline
2024 Ranking (Based on a 1,000-Point Scale)
Delta
1 (716)
Alaska
2 (687)
American
3 (684)
JetBlue
4 (667)
WestJet
5 (664)
United
6 (641)
Air Canada
7 (628)
First/Business Class: Delta Air Lines secures the top position in this segment with a score of 743, underscoring its consistent excellence in providing a premium product – particularly as the post-pandemic resurgence of business travel continues. JetBlue followed closely with a score of 736.
Airline
2024 Ranking (Based on a 1,000-Point Scale)
Delta
1 (743)
JetBlue
2 (736)
United
3 (698)
Alaska
4 (695)
American
5 (676)
Air Canada
6 (629)
Airlines Still Face Challenges – and Opportunities
A plane silhouetted against the rising sun at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) | IMAGE: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport on Facebook
Despite the industry’s overall positive trajectory, challenges and opportunities abound. The study notes a decline in overall satisfaction scores compared to the previous year. For instance, Southwest Airlines saw a decline in its score for the Economy/Basic Economy segment, attributed in part to changes in survey methodology.
Looking ahead, industry observers are keen to monitor how airlines adapt to emerging trends and challenges. For example, Southwest Airlines’ recent announcement regarding a potential change in cabin configuration and its love-it or hate-it boarding process are of particular interest, as they may impact future satisfaction scores and passenger experiences.
As the aviation landscape continues to evolve, airlines must prioritize customer-centric strategies, invest in employee training, and leverage technology to deliver safe, efficient, and memorable travel experiences.
By embracing the power of people and staying attuned to shifting passenger preferences, airlines can navigate challenges, seize opportunities, and enhance the overall quality of air travel for passengers across North America.
Could the elusive “golden days” of air travel yet be ahead of us? Stay tuned.
Boeing’s P-26 Was the First Production Monoplane Fighter in US Service
On 20 March 1932, the first Boeing P-26 Peashooter took to the skies for the first time. A rare sight nowadays, the P-26 was a significant step forward from biplane pursuit ships toward the future of fighter aircraft designs. The stubby little fighter was significant in many ways, but none more so than being the first production monoplane in squadron service with the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC).
image via national archives
Obsolete Too Soon
The USAAC ordered 111 P-26As from Boeing on 11 January 1933. The order was later increased to 136 aircraft. During the 1930s, aircraft development progressed rapidly, and the P-26 was soon overtaken by more advanced, closed-cockpit, retractable landing gear, cantilever-winged fighters, such as the British Hawker Hurricane and the German Messerschmitt Bf-109. When introduced, the P-26 was capable of impressive 234 miles per hour speeds, which would be far too slow to be effective in aerial combat…and way too soon.
Photo Credit: Greg Goebel
Unique Antiques in Color
In actuality, the P-26 was practically an antique by the time it had been in service for only a couple of years. It was indeed the fastest pursuit ship in use by the USAAC when it was introduced. Another fact of life during the 1930s was lean times. The USAAC directed P-26 outfits to paint their aircraft in colorful schemes that would promote goodwill with the public. As a result, many P-26s were painted in outlandishly bright colors and Art Deco-inspired schemes.
image via NACA/NASA
Powered by a Famous Mill
Powered by the Wright R-1340 single-row radial engine, the same engine that powered aircraft like the North American T-6 / SNJ Texan trainers and later the Kaman HH-43 Husky helicopter, pilots reported that the P-26 was easy to fly but tricky in the pattern. A rash of landing accidents, caused by the high approach speeds required to land the P-26, resulted in another first for the stubby little Boeing fighter- landing flaps.
Photo Credit: Flying Legends
First Fights Between Modern Fighters
22 USAAC Pursuit Squadrons flew the P-26 at one time or another, but when the new Seversky P-35s and Curtiss P-36 Hawks came into service, the Peashooter was replaced by these newer fighters featuring all-metal construction, enclosed cockpits, and retractable landing gear. P-36s first saw combat when used by the Chinese Nationalist Air Force against the invading Japanese beginning in 1937. In fact, the first dogfights between all-metal monoplane fighters occurred when the Chinese P-26s took on the Japanese A5M Claude fighters.
Photo Credit: National Air and Space Museum
Fierce Fighters in the Hands of Filipino Pilots
A few P-26s were being operated by the Philippine Army Air Corps when the Japanese turned their attention in that direction. Filipino-American Captain Jesus A. Villamor shot down a Japanese Mitsubishi G3M2 Nell bomber, and one of his wingmen shot down one of the vaunted Mitsubishi A6M2 Zeros. Courage was a common virtue among the outgunned P-26 pilots, but in the end, the last surviving Filipino Peashooters were burned to prevent their falling into Japanese hands on Christmas Eve 1941. Villamor was awarded not one, but two, Distinguished Service Crosses for his actions in defense of the Philippines during mid-December 1941.
image via larry titchenal
Service into the 1950s?
Long since retired by the USAAC, Guatemala actually used P-26s until 1956, when P-51D Mustangs replaced them. Another P-26 distinction is that the Peashooter was the last Boeing-built production fighter aircraft until the company merged with McDonnell Douglas and adopted the F/A-18 Hornet as its own in 1997.
Photo by Kevin Trotman
In addition to the USAAC, P-26s were operated by Nationalist China, Guatemala, the Philippine Army Air Corps, and the Spanish Republican Air Force (for demonstration purposes only). Seeing a flying example of a Peashooter in this day and age is a rare treat. The video was uploaded to YouTube by Donald Von Raesfeld. Enjoy!
Lockheed’s U-2 “Dragon Lady” has spent half a century as an ultra-high altitude reconnaissance aircraft.
OK, for the younger set, this story about the U-2 is not about Bono and The Edge … and U2 is missing a hyphen anyway. This is about the Lockheed U-2, an ultra-high altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Commonly referred to as a “spy plane” it had its share of Cold War drama.
Nicknamed the “Dragon Lady,” the U-2 is a single-pilot, single-engine aircraft. It is one of the few planes that has served the U.S. Air Force for at least half a century.
Get High With This Jaw-Dropping Cockpit View From a U-2 Flight At 70,000 Feet 88
No Roof Behind the Iron Curtain
After World War II, as the Soviet Union and the U.S. faced off in the opening stages of the Cold War, American military leaders were desperate to keep tabs on what types of offensive and defensive weapons the Russians were developing.
Aerial surveillance—undetected, preferably—became a priority. The goal was to build an aircraft that could conduct photographic overflights at an altitude that would not be detected by Soviet radar or reached by MiG fighters.
DAYTON, Ohio — Lockheed U-2A at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo)
Technology Changes
The U-2 could reach 70,000 feet and its powerful cameras were capable of photo resolution of two-and-a-half feet from 70,000 feet.
When the U.S. started overflights in the 1950s, the Soviets had developed radar that could detect planes at a greater height than was anticipated. However, it wasn’t until Russia developed surface-to-air missiles that U-2 flights became vulnerable.
With the launch of Sputnik and the Soviet Union’s edge apparent in its missile programs, nerves grew short in the White House and the Pentagon. An apparent “missile gap” led President Eisenhower to authorize more U-2 flights.
Get High With This Jaw-Dropping Cockpit View From a U-2 Flight At 70,000 Feet 89
One Day in May
On 1 May 1960 – a poor choice for a mission date, considering it was May Day in Russia – Capt. Francis Gary Powers (pictured above) piloted a U-2 that was shot down by an S-75 Dvina. He was captured and held for over 21 months until released in a prisoner swap that was the central theme of the Tom Hanks movie “Bridge of Spies.”
Two years later, a U-2 overflight of Cuba detected an increase in MiG fighters, the presence of surface-to-air missiles, and the construction of launch pads for ICBMs that put the United States under grave threat.
Lockheed U-2A
Senior Service Member
As the Cuban Missile Crisis raised tensions, Major Rudolf Anderson was killed when the U-2 he was flying was shot down by an SA-2 missile during a recon mission over Cuba. This incident was referenced in the Kevin Costner movie “Thirteen Days.”
Similar to the B-52 and the A-10, the U-2 has remained a valuable reconnaissance aircraft. While satellites are more technically advanced, positioning them over important sites takes time. The U-2 can take off and “spy” on short notice.
A U-2C painted in a gray camouflage pattern called the “Sabre” scheme in 1975. The camouflage replaced the usual black finish to ease British concerns about “spy planes” operating from the UK. In Europe, this U-2 tested equipment to locate and suppress enemy surface-to-air missiles. (U.S. Air Force photo)
Keeping Up With the Times
The SR-71 Blackbird, capable of Mach 3, was thought to be the next generation in aerial recon missions, but it was retired in 1998. Development of the RQ-4 Global Hawk has run into the types of production issues and cost overruns that have plagued several modern military aircraft.
The latest version – the U-2S – has undergone a complete modernization. It remains one of the most capable and dependable ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) high-altitude aircraft in the world.
The world’s fastest motorsport will takeoff again in September, 2025.
Why Roswell?
“We’re thrilled to bring our honored tradition of racing to Roswell and are confident that they have both the enthusiasm and resources to expand the future of our races for many generations to come,” said Fred Telling, CEO and chairman of the board for the Reno Air Racing Association.
Roswell beat out several other cities who were under serious consideration.
Many communities showed interest, but only 6 submitted complete proposals. The 3 chosen as finalists were Casper, WY., Pueblo, CO. and Roswell, NM.
SITE VISIT IN ROSWELL, NM (RARA / NCAR PHOTO)
Roswell Air Center (ROW), a former military base for the Army and Air Force, can support everything RARA needs. Among many factors considered was a site’s ability to host large crowds, handle hundreds of aircraft and support a large race course.
Time will tell if Roswell / ROW and the area can actually support the crowds expected for the races. Reno-Stead airport (former home of the races) is a much larger city, with far more amenities and hotels nearby. Not to mention casinos and Lake Tahoe. Roswell, in comparison, is tiny.
Inaugural Roswell Air Races
SPECTATORS ENJOYING THE RACES (PHOTO RARA / NCAR)
The first Roswell National Championship Air Races will take place in Sep 2025 at Roswell Air Center.
The new races will again feature 7 classes of racing, static displays, military demonstrations and more. Over the years, Reno became basically an air racing / air show hybrid, trying to pull in younger crowds with jets and demo teams and anything cool they could get their hands on.
WWII triple-ace fighter pilot legend Col Bud Anderson (ret.) has passed away. He was 102 years young.
“On 17 May 2024 at 5:29pm, Anderson passed away in his home peacefully in his sleep surround by his family,” said his family in a statement. “We were blessed to have him as our father. Dad lived an amazing life and was loved by many.”
Anderson shot down 16 Nazi Luftwaffe
Col bud anderson with his mustang “old crow” in wwii (photo courtesy, bud anderson family)
He and his “Yoxford Boys” with the 357th Fighter Group, 363rd Fighter Squadron (8th Air Force) based at Leiston Field, UK made quick work of German Luftwaffe. They shot down 600 between 1943 and 1945, producing more than 40 flying aces.
With his Mustang “Old Crow”, Anderson served in 2 major combat tours. He flew 116 combat missions in Europe, shooting down 16 adversaries. Chuck Yeager even flew with Anderson.
“It was a wonderful airplane,” Anderson said of the iconic P-51. “It probably saved the air war in Europe and affected the European war in a major respect.”
Jimmy Doolittle was Anderson’s hero
Anderson said legendary Gen. James “Jimmy” Doolittle was his hero, for letting American fighter pilots pursue attacking Luftwaffe.
“He was my hero,” Anderson said. “Doolittle came in and turned things around and let the fighter pilots fight and, as a matter of fact, that allowed us to defeat the Luftwaffe. He said go for ’em, leave the bombers and destroy them anyway you can. We gained air superiority by killing their fighter pilots.”
Bud was in D-Day
The beach assault begins on D-day (dod photo)
“I wish they would have given us GPS’s during World War II,” said Anderson. “Flying with 32 other planes at the same time, in the dark on D-Day was terrifying.”
“It was the longest mission that I had ever flown,” recalled Anderson. “We took off on an early, dark morning. I remember logging over 6 hours that day. We were on patrol behind the lines to be there at daylight. It was intense, to say the least; however, I was not scared.”
“D-Day was such a turning point and significant event in American history,” Anderson said. “The fact that I participated in defeating the opposition so that the invasion could happen is very important to American history. However, I believe that it was also a double-edged sword. Although we defeated a large number of the enemy, we suffered tremendous loss. We must continue making it a priority to honor those who did not make it back to their country.”
Anderson earned many awards and decorations
Col Anderson earned numerous decorations in his 30-year career. They include 2 Legion of Merits, 5 Distinguished Flying Crosses, the Bronze Star, 16 Air Medals, the French Legion of Honor & the French Croix de Guerre. In 2015, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, with all the American Fighter Aces.
Retired U.S. Air Force Col. Clarence E. “Bud” Anderson, WWII Triple Ace, 357th Fighter Group pilot on May 15, 2022. (Usaf photo by Senior Airman Alexander Merchak)
Other highlights of his career include duty as commander of an F-86 fighter squadron in post-war Korea, and commander of an F-105 tactical fighter wing on Okinawa. He also served on 2 Pentagon assignments.
After retiring from active duty, he worked at the F-15 test facility at Edwards AFB. Anderson joined McDonnell Aircraft, where he worked for 12 years as an assistant manager and then manager of the company’s flight test facility.
WWII Pilot Clarence “Bud” Anderson photographed at his Auburn, CA home on Tuesday September 28th, 2021; inset: Anderson sitting on the wing of his P-51D Mustang “Old Crow” (photos courtesy of bud anderson family)
Anderson was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame in 2008. Anderson was promoted to the honorary rank of brigadier general in 2022 by USAF Chief of Staff.
You can see the P-51 that flies as a tribute to Anderson
Photo credit: roush aviation
Mr. Jack Roush restored a P-51 Mustang to look exactly as the one Bud flew during WWII, “Old Crow”.
“To all the young people that have the ambition to join the Air Force,” Anderson said, “have at it! You can be what you want to be and you should know that when you like what you do, you can excel, be a better person at your job to do it better.”
Bud and Eleanor at their mountain home “Sierra Hotel” at Lake Tahoe, CA (courtesy photo bud anderson family)
Over his life, Anderson logged over 7,500 flight hours, in more than 130 types of aircraft.
Perhaps, Anderson and his late friend, Chuck Yeager, are now flying formation together again.
The C-model Blackbird Was Actually Two Blackbirds Flying in Very Close Formation.
The Lockheed SR-71 is as iconic an aircraft as any that has ever flown. There have been numerous stories, legends, and myths about the Blackbird. This is the story of what may be the most unique SR-71 of them all. The two-seated SR-71C, SN 61-7981- the only SR-71C ever built. Few individual Blackbirds received nicknames of their very own. Collectively they were referred to as “Habu”, after a venomous snake indigenous to Okinawa in Japan where many of them were based during the Vietnam War and for a while thereafter. But 981 was dubbed “The Bastard.” Not because she was a particularly cantankerous bird. It was because 981 was actually two aircraft flying in very close formation.
Building the Bastard
She was actually two airframes pieced together. The forward half of 981 was actually never meant to fly at all. The structure was intended for use as an engineering mockup built for static (ground) testing only. But when one of the only two SR-71B two-seated trainers crashed on 11 January 1968, the decision was made to piece together a replacement trainer from available parts. The first YF-12A prototype, SN 60-6934, was mated to the mockup by Lockheed engineers at their Palmdale facility in California. This is where things got “interesting.”
Photo Credit Habu.org / Lockheed Martin
Not on the Straight and Level
When 981 began flying on 14 March 1969, it became obvious that the geometry of the airframe was not entirely sorted out. Lockheed test pilots Robert J. Gilliland (pilot) and Steve Belgeau (RSO) reported some trim and control issues. When the jet was delivered to Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) for Air Force acceptance testing, the issues came into clearer focus. A team of Air Force test pilots took 16 flights over several weeks to determine the issues.
When Yaw Isn’t Really Yaw at All
The Air Force had Lockheed install a beta (yaw) indicator because the dynamically variable inlets and the associated bypass doors were not staying in sync with each other. The rudders also needed to be trimmed, which meant that they were out of their normal streamlined positions which increased drag on the airplane. The inlets remained a problem as well. After installing a Nomex yaw string, it was observed that 981 was indicating four degrees of yaw on the beta indicator but the high-tech yaw string was centered- indicating no yaw at all.
There Can Be Only One: The Saga of the Only SR-71C Ever Built 105
Hit it With a Hammer and Presto!
Some head-scratching and brainstorming ensued, and when it was finally determined that the pitot boom was out of alignment, by the same four degrees as indicated on the beta, things got finally got sorted out. With the flight computers receiving valid inputs from the pitot system, 981 flew just like the B model and as normally as any SR-71 Blackbird could be said to fly “normally.” She was delivered to the 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing at Beale AFB in California for operational use on 3 September 1970.
981 at the Hill AFB museum. Photo courtesy of Jeff Jackson.
A Low-Time Airframe
981 helped train many of the pilots who flew SR-71s on their famous missions. The only operational difference between the B model and the C was that the C model had one fewer internal fuel tank, so refueling procedures were slightly different. 981 was a natural for taking VIPs on familiarization flights. But an SR-71 can’t pay the bills doing FAM flights. She flew operationally for the last time on 11 April 1976. “The Bastard” had only 737.3 hours on the clock when removed from flying status on 24 June 1976. 180.9 of those hours were actually only on the YF-12A portion of the airframe- flown before the creation of the jet. But because she was one of only two of her kind she was kept at Beale as a standby for the B.
A Fitting Resting Place for a Famous Jet
After the decision was made to enshrine 981 at the Hill AFB Aerospace Museum in April of 1990, all that was left to do was get her there. That proved to be a bit of an undertaking, but nothing the 67th Aerial Port Squadron (APS) and the 405th Combat Logistics Support Squadron (CLSS) couldn’t handle. The Blackbird was disassembled and carried to Hill in a C-5A Galaxy airlifter for reassembly and display. Air Force Reservists, active-duty USAF personnel, and volunteers got the job done in about two months. The only SR-71C ever built was towed to the museum and placed on display on 16 October 1991.
2024 marks the 50th anniversary of the legendary and lethal F-16 Fighting Falcon. Pilots call it the Viper, and the USAF F-16 Viper Demo Team just unveiled the coolest plane of the year. Check out their new FALCON 50 heritage jet!
It’s painted in the original livery worn by the YF-16 prototype that first flew in 1974 under the control of test pilot Phil Oestricher. The jet wasn’t actually supposed to fly that day, but Oestricher was faced with either taking off or crashing when nearly losing control on the high-speed taxi run.
He decided to takeoff, and was able to gain control of the jet and land safely. You can read all about that day in our previous story on the first F-16.
A lot of work to paint the demo jet
“When I was hired to be the commander and pilot last year, I made it known that I hoped to get our airplane painted in the prototype scheme,” said Capt. Taylor “FEMA” Hiester, commander and pilot of the F-16 Viper Demo Team.
F-16 Viper demo team pilot and commander, Captain Taylor “FEMA” Hiester. (USAF photo)
“I want to take America back to the beginning of the story that started 50 years ago.”
Just getting a “yes” approval on the idea from leadership can be a huge challenge, and this was no different. However, with the support of the team’s home base 20th Fighter Wing, Hiester eventually got the yes.
He contacted a friend at Edwards AFB, who recently directed a 50th anniversary event there for the F-16.
The idea was kept hush. More calls were made, and soon the personnel needed were onboard.
50th anniversary heritage viper over edwards afb, ca, fliwn by usaf captain Taylor “FEMA” Hiester (usaf photo)
In an interview with The Warzone, Hiester recalled flying the jet to Edwards in secret. He even changed the flight’s call sign, to throw off any tracking avgeeks.
The 412th Corrosion Shop took on the paint job, with extreme care. A few slight changes were made to the design, to differentiate the demo jet from the original. They put “20th Fighter Wing” on the airframe instead of “General Dynamics,” and added “Viper Demo” to the vertical stabilizer.
2024 F-16 viper demo team with their 50th anniversary F-16 demo jet (usaf photo)
Even now, new F-16s are being produced, modernized for the years ahead.
Coming to an air show near you, hopefully
The team has a busy year ahead, showing off the heritage Viper to millions of spectators across the U.S. and Canada.
Check Out the F-16 Demo Team’s FALCON 50 Heritage Jet 110
A massive solar flare that erupted from the sun is why some of you experienced a sudden lost signal while flying today. The flare affected aviators, ham radio operators and others using frequencies below 30 MHz.
Today’s flare is the strongest of the sun’s current solar cycle so far
The sun is incredibly active right now. That’s why we just experienced the strongest geomagnetic storm in 20 years. Multiple coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from the sun slammed Earth this past weekend, showering all of the United States in Northern Lights. Even Mexico and the Caribbean got a show.
A powerful geomagnetic storm over minnesota on may 10, 2024, caused by the same sunspot which caused today’s solar flare (mike killian photo)
That spectacular event did not cause any widespread or significant impacts to our communications, but such storms can. Another major solar flare just occurred today, and it’s being blamed for a deep shortwave blackout across half the planet.
Today’s flare is the strongest of the sun’s current solar cycle so far. The flare shot out extreme ultraviolet radiation which ionized Earth’s upper atmosphere.
Red zones in the map show where shortwave radio signals are being absorbed. Inside the Arctic Circle, frequencies below 30 MHz are almost completely blacked out (caption and image credit – spaceweather.com)
Could last for days, with more flares and CMEs possible
It’s probably not over, either. The sunspot that unleashed the flare was behind the edge of the sun’s disk when it erupted. Any CME would have been shot away from Earth, so we won’t get another big Aurora storm this time.
However, the sunspot’s location actually makes it more dangerous, according to SpaceWeather.com, because it’s passing over a region that is magnetically connected to Earth.
Today’s X8.7-class solar flare photographed by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory
More flares could be coming, as well as CMEs. The event may last several days. You can monitor it here via NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
That side of the sun will rotate back towards Earth in 2 weeks.
A new FAA order for an environmental review of SpaceX’s Starship ops at Kennedy Space Center in Florida may delay the first Artemis, SpaceX moon landings.
Right now, NASA has a $4.2 billion contract with SpaceX to develop a Starship variant to land NASA’s first Artemis astronauts at the moon’s South Pole on Artemis-3 by the end of 2026. SpaceX hopes to fly an un-crewed Starship lunar landing test in 2025, to give NASA confidence for a crewed landing.
Starship is not far enough developed to support landing by 2026
FAA Order May Delay First Artemis, Starship Moon Landings 120
That schedule however will likely change. Word through the aerospace grapevine is Artemis-3 will be a lunar mission, no matter where Starship development is. There is already work on changing Artemis-3’s mission parameters to a lunar orbit mission, rather than a crewed landing.
Artemis-4 is slated to be a mission to put a space station in lunar orbit, called Gateway.
Starship on the moon for a nasa artemis mission (nasa image)
Starship has only flown 3 flight tests to date. They gained tons of data and accomplished numerous milestones, but have yet to achieve a full successful test profile. They’ll need to accomplish several, and many successful operational missions, before NASA even thinks of putting their astronauts on a Starship to land on the moon.
That alone makes an Artemis-3 moon landing in 2026 unlikely, being only 1.5 years away. SpaceX leader Elon Musk said himself that Starship won’t be ready for several years. Not to mention other complications such as SpaceX needing 2 Starships for on-orbit refueling to support 1 Artemis landing.
elon discusses starship for ARTEMIS
The dry lander will be launched to Earth orbit, followed by a fully-fueled tanker Starship which will dock with and fuel the lander. The lander would then fly to lunar orbit to await Artemis and NASA’s Orion spacecraft.
NASA says Starship won’t significantly impact the ecosystem around KSC. FAA says not so fast
Now, the FAA has thrown a wrench in the timeline. SpaceX is currently building the launch pad, tower, and infrastructure to support over 40 Starship launches and landings annually from Kennedy’s historic launch complex 39A. SpaceX already launches crews and Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy rockets from 39A.
Falcon heavy conducts a wet dress reh and static test fire at kennedy lc-39a as residents of the refuge fly past (mike killian photo)
KSC has co-existed beautifully over the decades with the protected national wildlife refuge and seashore it shares. They know how to launch the most powerful vehicles ever made from a vibrant ecosystem, home to 1500 different plants and wildlife. They are responsible for more protected species than any other federal property in the continental United States.
Needless to say, NASA and KSC know how to do spaceflight without harming an ecosystem. NASA led an environmental assessment (EA) for Starship ops in 2019, concluding that Starship wouldn’t cause any significant impact.
FAA orders an environmental impact statement to be done for Starship ops at KSC
SpaceX’s plans, however, have changed since then. So, the FAA now wants a more in-depth environmental impact statement (EIS) conducted.
A spacex falcon-9 and dragon launching off lc-39a, with the new starship pad and tower being constructed next to it (nasa photo: chris swanson)
“While the 2019 EA prepared by NASA provides an analytical baseline, the environmental impacts of these proposed changes to Starship-Super Heavy LC-39A development and operations will be specifically analyzed in this EIS,” said the FAA.
“SpaceX now proposes to construct additional launch infrastructure not previously contemplated in the 2019 EA. Launch an advanced design of the Starship and Super Heavy vehicle; operate at a projected higher launch tempo; and land the Super Heavy booster at LC-39A in support of the reusability concept,” added the FAA.
It’s a big deal. An EIS on average takes 2 years to complete. Even once done, it won’t give Starship the key to space either. The FAA will still need to issue a vehicle operator’s license.
FAA is being sued for not making SpaceX do a EIA/S for Starbase before allowing Starship flight tests
The first starship flight test from starbase caused significant impact to the local environment, as well as residents of towns in the region (mike killian photos)
SpaceX conducts Starship flight tests from their “Starbase” in south Texas. The FAA, however, is being sued for allegedly not following their own regulations, requiring (allegedly) that SpaceX do a new EIA/S for testing and launching Starships from Starbase. The place also shares protected ecosystems with the state of Texas.
Seems quite a coincidence. Now the FAA wants to conduct an EIS on Starship, from a property NASA has already said is ok.
FAA invites public input
Starship’s 2nd launch flight test (mike killian photo)
SpaceX is responsible for preparing the EIS, under FAA supervision. The public is invited to give their 2-cents via 2 in-person public meetings. They’ll take place in Brevard County, FL on June 12-13. A virtual meeting will be held on June 17. Public comments can be submitted until June 24.
It’s been over a decade since a former SAS Scandinavian Airlines DC-9 took to the skies over southern California for a skydiving mission.
But this past weekend, N127NK, a 55-year-old DC-9-21 “Hot Rod,” did just that. Multiple loads of jumpers had a chance to experience history aboard the 488th Long Beach-built Douglas DC-9. Skydive Perris, a skydiving facility just 50 minutes from downtown Los Angeles, hosted three “Jump the Jet” events.
An Event Four Years in the Making
Skydive Perris DC-9-20 will soon return to the skies. Photo: Skydive Perris
The “Jump the Jet” events have been in the works since 2020. Skydive Perris, a skydiving facility at Perris Valley Airport (L65) in Perris, Calif., made waves in late November 2020 by announcing the jet would soon return to service for the first time since 2013. According to its Facebook page, the facility, located just 50 minutes from downtown Los Angeles, hosted at least three jump runs this past weekend. The events followed a successful test flight on 7 May.
Event organizers said the events were only open to licensed jumpers, who paid $150 each for the opportunity. Observer seats and tandem jumpers were not permitted.
The Onboard Experience (Spoiler: There’s no Wi-Fi)
On board N127NK before the jump | IMAGE: Screenshot captured from Ben Mertz on YouTube
Although this aircraft is a privately owned skydiving jet, it still bears an FAA registration. Thus, once jumpers boarded the aircraft, they were subject to a standard FAA safety briefing by a specially trained Florida-based flight crew. Like passengers aboard a regular commercial flight, all passengers must be seated with seat belts fastened and tray tables and seats in full, upright, and locked positions.
Once airborne, this workhorse of a machine only takes four minutes to reach a jumping altitude of 13,500′ AGL. At altitude, the tail exit opens, and the jumpers begin their exhilarating dives back to earth.
One has to imagine that this particular skydiving aircraft isn’t the most efficient choice. Even with a light load, the slowest a DC-9 can fly is roughly 125 knots. This limitation, combined with a narrow single aisle and the small exit, makes it difficult for the process to be as efficient as more suitable skydiving aircraft options – particularly for formation jumpers. Nonetheless, the experience must have been pretty amazing – especially for avgeeks who love this historic workhorse of a bygone era.
After Decades at SAS, N127NK Became a Workhorse for the Burgeoning US Low-Cost Carrier Industry
SAS Scandanavian Airlines DC-9-21 (SE-DBO) at Dusseldorf Rhein-Ruhu (DUS) on 28 January 1984 | IMAGE: Planespotters.net
The history of N127NK stretches back over half a century. Initially registered as SE-DBO, she was delivered new to SAS Scandinavian Airlines on 1 May 1969. She would serve with SAS for over two decades, briefly changing hands with Swedish carrier Nordic East Airways from 1991 to 1992. She was one of just ten DC-9-20s ever built (all for SAS).
Her post-SAS career saw her serve with various airlines throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium. Under a new US registry, N127NK, she flew for low-cost US carriers Spirit, ValuJet, and Allegiant Air.
N127NK in Allegiant Air colors at Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO) | IMAGE: FlightAware
Allegiant parked the jet in 2002 at Victorville (VCV). However, her time at VCV was short, as she was purchased by Skydive Perris in 2003. Finally entering service again on 24 December 2006, her primary use besides skydiving was for film production for studios out of Hollywood.
She was out of commission from 2013 to 2024 while stored at Perris Valley Airport ahead of this past weekend’s triumphant return to the skies.
Living Aviation History
N127NK in storage at Perris Valley Airport in California | IMAGE: Skydive Perris on Facebook
Seeing new life breathed into such a beautiful piece of aviation history is exciting. While officials at Skydive Perris indicate on Facebook that they don’t know when the next jump flights will be, one has to believe that the novelty won’t last long—especially considering the inefficiency of a DC-9 jump aircraft.
However, for those who would jump (pun intended) at the opportunity to be a part of the next “Jump the Jet” event, keep an eye on their Facebook page.
By the way, AvGeekery reached out to D.B. Cooper for comment, but at the time of writing, we have not yet heard back.
The Republic F-84F Thunderstreak bridged the gap from Thunderjet to Thunderchief
On 12 May 1954, the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak went into operational service with the United States Air Force (USAF). The F-84F was Republic’s answer to the North American F-86 Sabre. The F-84F was a development of the earlier straight-winged F-84 Thunderjet.
When first designed, it was believed that more than half of the tooling for the swept-wing F model would be the same as that used to build the Thunderjet. In reality it turned out only 15 percent of the tooling could be reused to build Thunderstreaks.
F-84F via US Air Force
Not Quite as Spritely as Advertised
The F-84F was equipped with swept wings and tail surfaces- a departure from the previous F-84E. The initial prototypes (designated XF-96A) were powered by a single Allison / General Electric J35-A-25 turbojet engine. Republic test pilot Otto Haas first flew the Thunderstreak on 3 June 1950. Although the F-84F was supposed to perform considerably better than its straight-winged predecessors, in actual practice, the performance gains were considered minor.
F-84F via US Air Force
Engine Challenges Again
That didn’t stop the USAF from ordering the aircraft, now designated F-84F, into production during July of 1950. The F-84F didn’t exactly go straight into service, though.
Those four years between first flight and service introduction were used to solve several design and performance deficiencies. The Wright J65 turbojet engine replaced the original J35, adding nearly 50% more thrust but availability of the engine was a challenge and the fuselage had to be modified to fit the larger J65.
F-84F via US Air Force
In-Service Updates and Upgrades
The first production F-84F flew for the first time on 22 November 1952. The production aircraft had a revised canopy arrangement and relocated airbrakes, but still had bugs that needed to be resolved. The Thunderstreak went through changes intended to improve stability and control. A new one-piece horizontal stabilizer (stabilator) and added spoilers got the F-84F into service. The problems didn’t end there.
F-84Fs via US Air Force
Still With the Engine Woes
In November 1954, USAF operational testing, dubbed Project Run In, concluded. By then, the F-84F was actually found to be better than the straight-winged E and G models by a considerable margin. Pilots reported that the aircraft was stable and easy to fly.
But the Thunderstreak just couldn’t catch a break. Engine problems were both frequent and serious; serious enough in fact to ground every F-84F during early 1955. The J65 engines were flaming out when the airplanes flew through heavy precipitation.
F-84Fs refueling via US Air Force
Packing a Republic Punch- But Not Using It
Equipped with six 50-caliber machine guns and capable of delivering up to three tons of bombs or rockets, the F-84F never used any of its combat capabilities while in service with the USAF.
A front-line fighter-bomber that can’t get off the ground won’t last in front-line service for long. Thunderstreaks were removed from active duty squadrons beginning in 1955.
They were replaced primarily by North American F-100 Super Sabres. All remaining F-84Fs were being flown by Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve (USAFR or AFRES) squadrons by mid-1958.
F-84Fs via US Air Force
Going Nuclear and Melting Down
The squadrons still flying F-84Fs were called up for the Berlin Crisis in 1961- largely because they were equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS) for delivery of a single Mark 7 atomic bomb.
But it was soon found that Thunderstreak control rods were failing due to corrosion. This latest problem grounded the star-crossed jets again in 1962. It took nearly 2,000 man-hours to return a single F-84F to operational service.
Once fixed yet again, the Thunderstreaks soldiered on for nearly another decade, the last of the ANG examples finally being relegated to the boneyard in 1971.
F-84F via US Air Force
Whose Idea Was THIS Anyway?
The Fighter Conveyor (FICON) program of the 1950s paired a specially modified F-84F, designated the RF-84K, with the Convair B-36 Peacemaker bomber. The concept envisioned that the fighter, armed with the atomic bomb instead of the B-36, would hitch a ride to the target in the Peacemaker’s bomb bay.
The B-36 would release the smaller aircraft near the target, where it would bomb the target and then get a ride back to friendly territory after re-mating with the B-36. The concept was better than its practical application, but it never got past the experimental stage.
FICON launch via US Air Force
For the Rest of this Thunderous Story bang NEXT PAGE below.
