In the early 1970s Saudi Arabia was looking to modernize its air force. they approached the USA and were presented with multiple options, including the McDonnell Douglas F-15 and F/A-18. The F-15 was chosen both for its overall greater capabilities and because the F/A-18 was not yet in production.
Despite opposition from some within the U.S. Congress, export of a slightly downgraded F-15 to Saudi Arabia was approved. In 1978, the Saudis placed an order for 60 aircraft, with an additional pair of jets added as attrition replacements. Under the first phase of a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program dubbed ‘Peace Sun’, deliveries of the first Saudi F-15s began in 1982.
An F-15C on a delivery flight to Saudi Arabia, 1983 – USAF Photo
No Additional Saudi F-15s – For The Moment
A further 48 F-15s were requested by the Saudis in 1983, but this was denied. Amid concerns regarding the situation in the Middle East, the original sale of Saudi F-15s was limited to 60 aircraft. In the five years that had passed, those concerns had only heightened, and this second deal was shot down by Congress.
This rejection led the Saudis to look elsewhere for aircraft in a continued effort to modernize its air force. After considering several options they turned to the UK, who’d supplied them with the English Electric Lightning in the mid 1960s.
Saudi Lightning and F-15 – Royal Saudi Air Force photo
In 1985 a deal was struck that included 72 British-built Panavia Tornados. There were 48 Interdictor/Strike (IDS) and 24 Air Defense Variant (ADV) aircraft. The IDS jets would provide the Saudis with a much improved ground attack capability over their aging Northrop F-5s. And the ADVs would partially satisfy the Saudis’ need for more interceptors.
Saudi Tornado ADV during Desert Shield – US Air Force photo by TSGt. Hans H. Deffner
Saudis Extend Their Talons
An interesting chapter of the Saudi F-15 story took place on 5 June 1984. Two Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) Eagles, an F-15C and F-15D, engaged two Iranian F-4Es over the Persian Gulf.
The war between Iran and Iraq was in full swing, and the Iranians were going after Iraqi-bound shipping in the gulf. The Iranian F-4s crossed into Saudi airspace, presumably to attack merchant ships in Saudi waters.
An Iranian F-4E Phantom II – Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force photo
Two RSAF F-15s were on a training flight with United States Air Force (USAF) KC-10 Extenders, practicing air refueling. They were vectored onto the F-4s by a USAF E-3 Sentry that was operating in the area.
US Air Force photo by MSGT. Val Gempis
Each F-15 fired an AIM-7 Sparrow, destroying one F-4 and damaging the other. The damaged jet was able to make it home but was apparently a total write off.
Two F-15s launch AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles – US Air Force photo (Altered)
Within half an hour, the Iranians sent 11 more F-4s up as a show of force and maybe with ideas of vengeance. But when the Saudis scrambled a like number of F-15s in response, cooler heads prevailed and the Iranians backed down.
Two things make this incident interesting beyond the norm. One: it was the first tme that two aircraft built by McDonnell Douglas opposed each other in an air fight. And two: a USAF pilot was riding backseat in the F-15D.
You may be wondering what that guy was doing there, and your author is willing to expound a bit. But… in another article, perhaps.
USAF photo by SSgt. Keifer Bowes
Peace Sun VI – More Saudi F-15s
Though that second deal for F-15s was denied, the USA continued to supply Saudi Arabia with other aircraft and arms under Peace Sun. Notable among these was the sale of five Boeing E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft.
That deal was as equally contested by Congress, but ultimately went through, as finally did an order in 1987 for 12 more Saudi F-15s. This was followed in September of 1990 by a transfer of 24 additional aircraft from United States Air Force (USAF) inventory.
An F-15C of the 32nd Tactical Fighter Squadron is Repainted at Soesterburg Air base, Netherlands prior to its transfer to the Royal Saudi Air Force, 1990 – US Air Force photo by SSGT. Mark Bucher
The transfer of USAF jets was largely in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Both deals were effected under Peace Sun VI.
Desert Storm – F-15s on the Defensive
A multi-national coalition was formed in response to the invasion of Kuwait. And over the final few months of 1990 a gradual buildup of coalition forces took place in the Persian Gulf region. Saudi Arabia was a key member of this coalition, and played host to the bulk of forces involved.
A Saudi F-15C Approaches a USAF KC-15 Stratotanker for Aerial refueling during Desert Shield, 1990 US Air Force photo by TSGt. Hans H. Deffner
When the Desert Storm air campaign began in January of 1991, most of the coalition air sorties were flown from Saudi bases. The Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) played its part, both in the air and against ground targets.
Though RSAF Tornado IDS jets were in the thick of it, flying several thousand strike sorties, the Saudi F-15s played a strictly defensive role. They flew Combat Air Patrol (CAP) in defense of the Kingdom, usually far behind the battle lines, referred to as ‘goalie CAP’.
A Saudi F-15C during Desert Shield – US Air Force photo by TSGt. Hans H. Deffner
Bird of Prey: Saudi F-15s Get Into the Mix
On 24 January 1991, Captain (Capt.) Ayehid Salah al-Shamrani, an F-15C driver with 13 Squadron, RSAF had his moment in the limelight.
Flying out of King Abdulaziz Air Base, Capt. al-Shamrani was leading a four-jet CAP along the eastern Saudi coast that morning. A controller aboard a USAF E-3 Sentry vectored the Saudis toward unknown aircraft flying very low just off the coast.
An Undelivered Iraqi Mirage F.1EQ embargoed in France – Project 914 Archives
The controller guided the Eagles to an intercept, and the intruders were identified as a pair of Iraqi Mirage F.1EQs. Maneuvering in behind the Mirages, Capt. al-Shamrani closed to about 1000 yards before the Iraqis broke, one to the left, and the other right.
Captain Ayehid Salah al-Shamrani – Project 914 Archives
Capt. al-Shamrani engaged one Mirage with an AIM-9 Sidewinder, destroying it, Then, a few seconds later, he loosed another AIM-9 and splashed the second Mirage. These would be the only Saudi air kills of the war, and the only victories not scored by American pilots.
The F-15C Captain al-Shamrani flew that day – Project 914 Archives (S.Donacik collection)
Strike Eagles for the Saudis? Not Quite
The Saudis had expressed interest in acquiring the F-15E Strike Eagle, but the USA refused because of its advanced radar and other systems. Saudi inquiries into the possibility of an advanced single-seat variant designated F-15F were also nixed.
A Saudi F-15S during Exercise Friendship Two, 2011 – US Army photo
After a bit of finagling, approval was given in 1993 to supply the Saudis with a significantly downgraded version of the F-15E. Shades of the original Saudi F-15 deal.
Initially designated the F-15XP, this was soon changed to F-15S. The first of 72 of these flew in 1995, and the last jet was delivered under Peace Sun IX in 1999.
Royal Saudi Air Force photo
The Greatest of all Saudi F-15s
In 2011 the Saudis ordered 84 more Eagles under the designation F-15SA. Contrary to past deals, these aircraft would incorporate significant avionics upgrades. Among these are targeting, tracking, and navigational systems of greater capability than those of the F-15S. Structural improvements, too, allow for greater load-carrying capability.
A trio of Saudi F-15SA Eagles – US Air Force photo by SSgt. Justin Parsons
The first F-15SA flew in 2013 and the last jet was delivered to the Saudis in 2020. In addition to acquiring newly-built F-15SA airframes, the Saudis engaged Boeing to upgrade its F-15S fleet to F-15SA standard.
Since 2009, the RSAF has used the F-15 numerous times during its intervention into the Yemeni Civil War. At least two Saudi F-15s have been hit by surface to air missiles fired by Houthi rebels. Some reports indicate that at least one may have been shot down, but these seem to be erroneous.
US Air Force photo
The Saudi F-15 story has largely mirrored the evolution of the USA’s overall relationship with Saudi Arabia since the 1970s. Back then, the US was willing to give the Saudis only a limited number of downgraded jets. Recent deliveries, however, have seen the RSAF operating one of the most advanced variants of the Eagle ever built.
This Grumman Cat – the F-9 Cougar – was Built on A Winner But Its Career as a Fighter Was Short Indeed
The straight-winged Grumman F9F Panther was a workhorse for the US Navy and Marine Corps during the Korean War. But when the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 showed up in the skies over Korea, it became obvious that a swept-winged fighter was needed for the Sea Services, and needed quickly. Grumman, who had a long history of designing and building fighter aircraft for the Navy, reasoned they had a good foundation for a swept-winged fighter in the Panther- and they took advantage of it.
image via NNAM
Building a Better Panther
Grumman essentially took the Panther design and added a 35-degree swept wing with leading and trailing edge flaps of wider chord, spoilers for yaw control on the upper wing, full-chord wing fences, an all-flying swept empennage, larger airbrakes, and a larger rudder. Other modifications to the basic Panther included moving the engine intakes forward and stretching the fuselage two feet in order to add internal fuel needed because the tip tanks could not be mounted on the wingtips. The swept wings also were hinged for folding up near the wing roots adjacent to the air intakes.
image via nnam
Better Around the Boat
Test pilot Fred C. Rowley flew the initial prototype of Grumman’s Design 93, the XF9F-6, for the first time on 20 September 1951- only six months after the contract was signed. Some engineering tweaks to the control surface configuration produced a swept-winged jet that had better handling around the boat than the straight-winged F9F-5. The jet’s critical Mach number was increased from 0.79 to 0.86 at sea level and to 0.895 at 35,000 feet. Power for most Cougars was provided by a Pratt &Whitney J48-P-8A turbojet engine (a license-built Rolls-Royce Tay).
image via nnam
Into Service
Fighter Squadron THREE TWO (VF-32) Swordsmen became the first fleet squadron to equip with the F9F-6 Cougar in November of 1952. VF-24 Checkertails was the first fighter squadron to deploy with the Cougar, doing so aboard the USS Yorktown (CV-10) in August of 1953, but they arrived too late to participate in the Korean War.
Cougars were armed with four nose-mounted 20 millimeter cannon aimed using the Aero 5D-1 weapons sight paired with the APG-30A gun-ranging radar. Hardpoints under the wings enabled the F9F-6 to carry a pair of 1,000-pound bombs or 150 gallon drop tanks. Many Cougars were modified with a UHF homing antenna under the nose. Cougars equipped for inflight refueling had their probes mounted right up front on the nose radome. The last of the 646 F9F-6 Cougars was delivered on 2 July 1954.
image via nnam
First Pass at a Photo Cougar
Grumman fitted sixty F9F-6 Cougar airframes with nose-mounted cameras in place of the 20 millimeter cannons. These first photo-Cougars were designated F9F-6P and delivered between June of 1954 and March of 1955. F9F-6Ps were nine inches longer than standard F9F-6s to accommodate the photo reconnaissance equipment in the elongated nose. Many of the F9F-6Ps were also equipped with inflight refueling probes mounted to the front of the photo nose.
F9F-6P image via nnam
Improving the Breed
In April of 1953 work began on the next Cougar variant (the F9F-8) with three primary improvements in mind- lower stall speed, increased range, and improved control of the aircraft at high angles of attack. The wing grew by 37 square feet, a dogtooth was added, and chord was increased.
The fuselage was stretched by 8 inches as well. These changes resulted in the desired improvements. Top speed increased to 704 miles per hour while minimum catapult speed was lowered to 146 miles per hour. First flown on 18 January 1954, the F9F-8 was capable of supersonic flight in a steep dive. 601 F9F-8s were delivered between April of 1954 and March of 1957.
When Navy fighter aircraft began deploying with the ability to fire AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles for the first time in 1956, VA-48 F9F-8 Cougars were carrying them.
The Boeing 747 had a real chance to become the a fleet of KC-25s in the US Air Force
Unbeknownst to many in the general population, the KC-747 (what would have become the KC-25) was the potential powerhouse that fizzled out before it could make an impact on military aviation. Aviation enthusiasts acknowledge the shortcomings of this monstrous machine and recognize the reasoning behind the United States Air Force’s decision to decline the world’s largest tanker. However, at first glance, this giant tanker-cargo aircraft appeared to be the perfect solution to a growing need.
Throughout the course of history, dating back to World War II, the need for capable and innovative aircraft has constantly risen. With each triggering event that builds global tensions, world militaries have paralleled their growth with the exponentially increasing need, as best they can. A large portion of the aerial movement includes tanker aircraft. Aerial refueling provides the ability for aircraft to stay on station for longer periods of time, creating benefits such as extending periods of survey and intelligence gathering, as well as enabling trips across long distances much faster.
The United States Air Force (USAF) employs the largest number of tanker aircraft in the world, with a significant amount operated by the National Guard. The most common tanker in the inventory is the venerable KC-135. However, it has taken many competitive designs spanning the last few decades to reach this point of preference.
The hunt for a new tanker
In the 1960s, an initiative was created that paved the way for present-day tanker-cargo aircraft. It was dubbed the Advanced Tanker-Cargo Aircraft (ATCA) program. The goal was to create a heavy tanker-transport machine that would accommodate the growing need for aerial refueling and transportation of supplies to deployed troops.
According to a Jalopnik article from 2014 by Tyler Rogoway, the program’s initial top competitors included versions of the DC-10, L-1011, C-5, and B747. Each variant brought unique aspects to the drawing board; however, they also brought their fair share of detrimental characteristics. The C-5 is a colossal aircraft, and its sheer size is what nixed it. The L-1011 wasn’t configured for cargo operations at the time, which caused it to be too high a risk moving forward.
A decade after this initiative began, the DC-10 (KC-10) and B747 (KC-25) were paired against each other as finalists to support USAF personnel moving forward. Ultimately, the KC-10 was selected, regardless of the valiant effort KC-25 proponents put forth.
The KC-25 theoretically could have been selected to fit a need for a larger tanker with additional cargo capacity. The concept behind its creation was one of ingenuity. On paper, it seemed like a winner. However, only two were ever purchased. The buyer? The Iranian Air Force.
So why was the KC-25, a potential powerhouse aircraft, declined by the buyer it was designed for amid a time of great need?
KC-25 Specifications and Performance
During the height of the competition, the KC-25 was marketed as the ultimate tanker-cargo carrier. It far surpassed others in terms of fuel capacity, payload capability, and sheer speed. This behemoth can haul payloads of around 200,000 pounds, paired with more than 455,000 pounds of fuel. That means it carries 100,000 more pounds of fuel than the KC-10 while effortlessly flying longer distances. Unfortunately, its large size meant it could not operate on shorter runways.
The KC-25 was tested relentlessly with a multitude of receiver aircraft and passed with flying colors each and every time. Reports state that during refueling tests, the aircraft remained incredibly stable.
The KC-25 was equipped with a boom. The final configurations of the KC-747 planted an aerial refueling receptacle on the front end, with a nose cargo door that increased ease of on—and off–loading. It could offload twice as much fuel as an aircraft as the KC-135.
This massive aircraft turned tanker was meant to be an epic show of American might mixed with innovation. It was unmatched during its time; however, bigger does not always mean better in the eyes of the military.
The KC-25 Falls Short
When all was said and done, the KC-25 was still thrown to the wayside. Major points of reason include the astronomical operational expenses, its immense size preventing access to numerous runways, and the non-existent need for an aircraft that carries such high volumes of fuel and payloads. In layman’s terms, this aircraft was overkill. At the time of the final decision, the USAF had a budget that they felt would be put to better use across the acquisition of more aircraft that still performed exceptionally well across all testing platforms.
McDonnell Douglas RF-4C-18-MC (S/N 63-7445) was probably testing for wake turbulence in a KC-747 design study. Note the open IFR door on the RF-4C. (U.S. Air Force photo)
The KC-10 was a winner in the eyes of the USAF at the end of the competition due to the cheaper cost of operations as well as the key and unique features it brought to the table. This tanker-cargo aircraft could operate on shorter runways, opening up a plethora of strategic locations.
It offered automated break-away capabilities rarely found during this time and a fly-by-wire boom with a larger envelope for refueling. Comparing the KC-25 tanker-cargo aircraft to current-day applications, the competition operates more efficiently at a lower price point, with a smaller footprint, while still surpassing mission needs. Tankers such as the KC-135 and KC-10 fit better into mission platforms for squadrons throughout the USAF. The KC-767 and later the KC-46 program demonstrated that the sweet spot for a tanker was in the medium-sized category.
Yet the concept of the KC-25 lived on all the way until 2000. An Air Power Australia analysis deck (an independent think tank not affiliated with the RAAF or Australia’s Department of Defence) available on the internet highlighted that Boeing continued to look at modifying the 747-400 platform but ultimately abandoned it in favor of the 767-based aircraft. There is no other source to confirm whether or not it was seriously looked at as an option in more recent times by any nation.
Editor’s Note: The original article incorrectly stated that the RAAF produced the study mentioned on the 747 tanker. The article has since been corrected.
Boeing’s KC-46 tanker. Credit: Ken Fielding, Flickr.com photos.
‘Tis the season! It is time once again for J.D. Power’s airport rankings, and the 2024 results highlight a clear trend: rising costs and record crowds are beginning to impact traveler spending. Despite this, overall satisfaction remains remarkably high.
The J.D. Power 2024 North America Airport Satisfaction Study is out, and it reveals some shakeups on the leaderboard (we see you, MSP!). Perhaps confoundingly, traveler satisfaction remains strong despite record passenger volumes, including a single-day record of three million travelers on 07 July, and soaring prices for goods and services.
“Most travelers are still enjoying the experience,” says Michael Taylor, managing director of travel, hospitality, and retail at J.D. Power. “However, we are starting to see a breaking point in consumer spending, with average spend per person in the terminal declining significantly from a year ago.”
The J.D. Power 2024 Airport Satisfaction Study: Four Key Takeaways
A security checkpoint queue at MSP | MSP Airport on Facebook
J.D. Power highlights four major insights that shape this year’s rankings:
Passengers still enjoy the airport experience: Despite crowded terminals, flight delays, and cancellations, most travelers continue to enjoy their time at airports.
Skyrocketing prices cut into spending: Passengers are spending less at airports than in previous years, with average spending down by $3.53 per person compared to 2023. That number jumps to $6.31 for large airports.
Sense of place matters: Seventy percent of travelers feel their airport reflects the local culture or region, a factor that strongly influences the high scores of top-ranked airports.
Crowded conditions hurt rankings: Only five percent of respondents reported experiencing “severely crowded” airports in 2024, but those airports saw a significant decline in their rankings.
Passengers Rate Their Experience Based on Seven Factors
The McNamara Terminal at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) | IMAGE: Detroit Metro Airport (DTW) on Facebook
The 19th annual study draws from 26,290 surveys completed by U.S. or Canadian travelers between August 2023 and July 2024. Participants must have used at least one U.S. or Canadian airport during a roundtrip (one-way flights excluded) to be eligible.
J.D. Power evaluates satisfaction levels at North America’s busiest airports, categorized into three groups: mega airports (over 33 million passengers per year), large airports (10 to 32.9 million passengers), and medium airports (4.5 to 9.9 million passengers).
For 2024, the study’s criteria have been updated and now focus on these seven factors:
Ease of travel through airport
Level of trust with airport
Terminal facilities
Airport staff
Departure/to airport experience
Food, beverage, and retail
Arrival/from airport experience
Airports utilize this study’s insights to enhance their operations and the overall passenger experience.
Let’s take a look at the list of the top five best and worst airports in the mega, large, and medium categories, along with their survey scores (out of 1,000 points). Changes from the 2023 rankings are noted in parentheses after this year’s scores.
Mega Airports (>33 million pax annually)
Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport terminal | IMAGE: MSP Airport on Facebook
Top 5
MSP – Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport: 671 (+1)
DTW – Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport: 643 (-1)
PHX – Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 633 (+10)
JFK – John F. Kennedy International Airport: 628 (+7)
DFW – Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport: 623 (-1)
Bottom 5
EWR – Newark Liberty International Airport: 552 (+/- 0)
YYZ – Toronto Pearson International Airport: 559 (+/- 0)
ORD – Chicago O’Hare International Airport: 569 (+3)
ATL – Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport: 574 (-9)
SEA – Seattle/Tacoma International Airport: 575 (+2)
Large Airports (10-32.9M pax annually)
IMAGE: John Wayne Airport, Orange County (SNA) on Facebook
Top 5
SNA – John Wayne Airport, Orange County: 687 (+1)
TPA – Tampa International Airport: 685 (-1)
MCI – Kansas City International Airport: 683 (+10)
DAL – Dallas Love Field: 675 (+/- 0)
BNA – Nashville International Airport: 668 (+6)
Bottom 5
PHL – Philadelphia International Airport: 541 (+/- 0)
YUL – Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport: 576 (-1)
STL – St. Louis Lambert International Airport: 583 (-3)
HNL – Honolulu International Airport: 593 (+2)
MDW – Chicago Midway International Airport: 598 (-4)
Medium Airports (4.5-9.9M pax annually)
Indianapolis International Airport (IND) ranks first in medium-size airports in the 2024 J.D. Power North American Airport Satisfaction Study | IMAGE: Indianapolis International Airport on Facebook
Top 5
IND – Indianapolis International Airport: 687 (+/- 0)
JAX – Jacksonville International Airport: 686 (+4)
RSW – Southwest Florida International Airport: 675 (-1)
ONT – Ontario International Airport: 672 (-1)
BUF – Buffalo Niagara International Airport: 670 (+3)
Bottom 5
CLE – Cleveland Hopkins International Airport: 580 (-3)
PIT – Pittsburgh International Airport: 625 (-5)
BUR – Hollywood Burbank Airport: 626 (+1)
ABQ – Albuquerque International Sunport: 646 (-8)
OMA – Eppley Airfield: 653 (+/- 0)
Finding Enjoyment in the Journey
A plane silhouetted against the rising sun at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) | IMAGE: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport on Facebook
Amid rising costs and record-breaking crowds, travelers continue to find moments of enjoyment in their airport experiences. Stepping into an airport brings a familiar buzz–baggage wheels clicking, the aroma of fresh coffee, and the joy of watching planes take off all contribute to the experience.
So, while rising costs may trim a few dollars off the airport shopping spree, one thing is clear: the airport experience itself is holding steady.
Moving forward, airports will need to strike a balance between managing growing passenger numbers and maintaining the high standards that keep travelers satisfied.
On 13 September 1985, F-15 test pilot Maj. Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearson (now retired Maj. Gen.) took off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on a mission that would see him become history’s first space ace.
Dubbed the “Celestial Eagle Flight,” the assignment called for Pearson to make a near vertical ascent in a specially-configured F-15A to over 35,000 feet, to fire a 2,700 pound, 18-foot long missile into space and kill an obsolete satellite over 2000 miles away, at an altitude of 340 miles (about as high as the space shuttle could fly).
Maj. Wilbert ‘Doug’ Pearson stand with his modified F-15A, prior to firing an ASAT missile to destroy an obsolete satellite over the Pacific Ocean on 13 Sept 1985. Photo: USAF
It was the culmination of a six-year development and test program for the anti-satellite (or ASAT) missile; Maj. Pearson commanded the F-15 Anti-Satellite Combined Test Force. The flight required Pearson to arrive at a precise point and time over the Pacific Missile Test Range, and fire a Vought ASM-135A ASAT missile automatically from the belly of his jet, taking aim at the 2,000-pound Solwind P78-1 solar laboratory, which launched in 1979.
Weapons in space was already controversial, and still is to this day, but so was the shoot down of the satellite, especially in the science community, because even though it was not operating at 100%, it was still returning valuable data. But that’s a whole other story.
Going supersonic at Mach 1.2, Maj. Pearson pulled into a 3.8g, 65-degree climb, slowing down to just below Mach 1, before firing the missile at 38,100 feet, about 200 miles west of Vandenberg AFB.
The ASM-135 loaded onto a F-15 in flight. Photo: USAF
The rocket separated from the missile after the first stage, and propelled a miniature homing vehicle with an infrared sensor into space on a bullseye intercept with the satellite, nailing its target with a closing velocity of 15,000 mph and marking the first successful satellite kill by an aircraft launched missile in history.
The Air Force originally wanted to modify 20 F-15s to do the same, an operational force of 112 ASM-135s, but huge cost overruns and technical issues killed the program in 1988 (after the F-15s had already been modified of course).
Maj. Wilbert ‘Doug’ Pearson fires an anti-satellite missile launched from a highly modified F-15A over the Pacific Missile Test Range off the coast of California, September 13, 1985. Photo: USAF
According to the USAF, “The jet, F-15A 76-0084, was the 275th F-15 fighter jet to roll off the McDonnell Douglas assembly line in St. Louis, and it flew its maiden flight on Veteran’s Day, 1977. Its assignments have included two stints with the 49th Test Fighter Wing at Holloman AFB, the 1st TFW at Langley AFB, the 6512th Test Squadron of the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, the 131st Fighter Wing of the Missouri Air National Guard in St. Louis, and the 125th Fighter Wing of the Florida Air National Guard.”
In 2007, 22 years after the mission, Staff Sgt. Aaron Hartley with the Florida Air National Guard 125th Fighter Wing, Detachment 1, was tasked with putting together a lithograph for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) F-15 Alert Detachment at Homestead Air Reserve Base.
Major General Wilbert D. “Doug” Pearson Jr. Photo: USAF
“I was researching the history of the jets to see which one was the ‘coolest’ and had the most history, so I contacted historians from the Boeing Company, Edwards AFB and the Air Force Historical Research Society at Maxwell AFB, Ala.,” he said.
That’s when he learned that the 125th FW had the historic jet, and so he reached out to the retired Maj. Gen. Pearson about it, who by that time had moved on to vice president of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Integrated Test Force.
Retired Major General Doug Pearson (left) and Capt. Todd Pearson (right) joke around before Captain Pearson took off on the Celestial Eagle remembrance flight Sept. 13, 2007. Photo: USAF
His son, then Capt. Todd Pearson, was an active-duty F-15 pilot at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho.
So naturally, the idea of a Celestial Eagle remembrance flight piloted by Captain Pearson was born.
“Celestial Eagle” was painted on the nose of 76-0084, and the captain’s name was painted on the side of the cockpit. He even wore the same circular patch on his left shoulder that his father wore on that same day 22 years earlier, and they performed the pre-flight walk around the aircraft together.
Capt. Todd Pearson performs pre-flight checks on an F-15A at the Florida Air National Guard 125th Fighter Wing located at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Fla., during the Celestial Eagle Remembrance Flight on Sept. 13, 2007. Captain Pearsons father, retired Maj. Gen. Doug Pearson, flew the exact same F-15 22 years prior while accomplishing the first successful satellite kill by an aircraft launched missile in history. Credit: USAF
“I thought it was a great idea,” Captain Pearson said regarding the remembrance flight. “I’ve always been an aviation ‘buff,’ and I’ve wanted to fly eagles since I was three because my dad flew them. The flight was a significant event in military aviation history, and I’m glad that I’ve been able to be a part of this 22 years later.”
The historic jet retired to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center “Boneyard” at Davis Monthan AFB in 2009, when the 125th FW transitioned to the F-15C/D.
– Follow Mike Killian on Instagram and Facebook, @MikeKillianPhotography .
Alvin “Tex” Johnston was born in Admire, Kansas in August of 1914. He took his first flight in 1925, at the age of eleven, when a barnstormer landed near his home. On that day, he decided that he would become a pilot. After flight training, he soloed his first flight at the age of 15.
In his adult years, he dropped out of college before completing his engineering courses. Then Tex Johnston worked for Bell Aircraft and Boeing as a test pilot. He is famous for his Boeing 707 and B-52 test flights. He was also a flight instructor in the Civilian Pilot Training Program, and the U.S. Army Air Corps Ferry Command.
Johnston was known for his larger than life personality. He received the nickname “Tex” because of the stetson hat and cowboy boots he liked to wear. But Johnston is even better known for executing a barrel roll maneuver with a Boeing 367-80–the Boeing 707 prototype…a giant airliner!
Check out these other great stories about the Boeing 707 on our site:
The Footage of Tex Johnston Rolling The Jet Is A Sight To Behold
This video footage shows scenes from the 1955 Seafair and Gold Cup in Seattle. Bill Allen had invited representatives of the Aircraft Industries Association to the event and Tex delivered with that famous barrel roll.
As this video shows, the whole stunt was filmed, and Tex was called into the office of his supervisor. When his boss asked him what he thought he was doing rolling his plane in the air, Tex replied, “I’m selling airplanes.” With a witty reply, his job was saved.
The Boeing 707 went on to be a very successful airliner and derivatives were selected to be air refueling tankers for US and allied forces.
The quirky and eccentric Silver Airways faces real questions about its strategy after its latest round of route cuts.
The Hollywood, Fla.-based airline, known for its distinctive fuchsia livery, white flamingo logo, and unique routes, is an eccentric player in the U.S. airline industry. As an all-turboprop regional carrier, Silver Airways focuses on intra-Florida service and service between Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean.
However, beneath its flashy and tropical exterior, there are growing signs that the airline might be facing significant financial challenges. From operational inconsistencies to highly publicized legal spats, the question arises: is Silver Airways in trouble?
One Airline’s Bankruptcy Leads to the Birth of Another
A Gulfstream International Airways Embraer 120 lands at KMIA on 31 August 2005 | IMAGE: Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Founded in 2011, Silver Airways emerged from the remnants of Gulfstream International Airlines, which filed for bankruptcy in 2010. At the time of bankruptcy, the Dania Beach, Fla.-based carrier operated as a Continental Connection carrier with a fleet of 21 Beechcraft 1900D turboprops.
Following the bankruptcy, Chicago-based investment company Victory Park Capital bought Gulfstream’s assets and relaunched the airline as Silver Airways.
The newly rebranded carrier began operations as a Continental Connection codeshare partner on 15 December 2011 with a single 34-seat Saab 340 aircraft–one of six it had on order at the time. Throughout the rest of 2011 and 2012, Silver bolstered its footprint in Florida and the Bahamas and operated Essential Air Service (EAS) routes in Montana and the Mid-Atlantic.
Silver Airways’ EAS Operations and the Continental/United Merger
A Silver Airways Beechcraft 1900D in United Express Colors at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) on 22 May 2012 | IMAGE: André Du-pont (Mexico Air Spotters) (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
Picking up where Gulfstream left off, Silver took over EAS operations at Billings-Logan International Airport (BIL) in Montana using Beechcraft 1900s. Back east, Silver also operated B1900 EAS flights out of Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE).
Following Continental’s merger with United Airlines on 01 April 2012, Silver became a United Express carrier.
During the second half of 2012, Silver Airways commenced EAS operations out of Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) using Saab 340s. This service connected smaller communities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia to the United Airlines network. Silver also launched flights from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) to destinations in Mississippi and Alabama.
Silver’s Montana operation wound down by late 2013 following the expiration of the EAS federal contract. Those B1900s would reposition to CLE, where they continued EAS operations with United Express to smaller communities in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest. However, Silver’s CLE operation would also end in early 2014 following United’s announcement that it would dehub CLE.
Meanwhile, Silver Airways was also expanding its footprint in Florida and the Bahamas. Its growing fleet of 12 Saab 340s provided service to destinations such as Gainesville Regional Airport (GNV), Orlando International Airport (MCO), Jacksonville International Airport (JAX), and Tampa International Airport (TPA). The carrier also moved its maintenance facilities from Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) to Gainesville.
Silver reached a major milestone in 2014 when it became an independent airline.
An Independent Silver Airways
A Silver Airways Saab 340B+ | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
With Silver’s newfound independence, the carrier continued its growth strategy throughout the mid-2010s. The airline bolstered its route system throughout Florida and the Bahamas, creating a robust intra-Florida network.
Airline officials announced the establishment of a new maintenance headquarters at MCO in 2015.
In 2016, the federal government approved Silver to provide service between five Florida cities and nine Cuban cities. However, service to Cuba ended in April 2017 after just eight months.
In 2017, the carrier announced the purchase of 20 ATR -600 series turboprops, with options for up to 30 more. The order included 16 smaller 46-seat ATR 42-600s and four larger 70-seat ATR 72-600s. These additions would significantly increase Silver’s capacity as it continued adding routes.
Silver Brings ATR Aircraft Back to U.S. Skies
A Silver Airways ATR 42-600 lifts off | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Silver’s ATR order marked the first time in 25 years that a new ATR aircraft would operate in the United States. It also made Silver the first U.S. ATR 72-600 operator.
Growth continued in 2018 when Silver Airways acquired Seaborne Airlines, based in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Seaborne provided intra-Caribbean service from its hub at San Juan’s Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (SJU) with a fleet of 15-seat de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter seaplanes and eight Saab 340s.
A Seaborne Airlines de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter seaplane | IMAGE: Seaborne Airlines (Silver Airways) on Facebook
In July 2018, Silver again became an EAS contractor, this time out of Boston Logan International Airport (BOS). The carrier provided seasonal service to the summertime tourist mecca of Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport (BHB) in Maine. This route, operated for two summers with a Saab 340, ended upon the expiration of the EAS federal contract in 2020.
As the 2010s faded into the sunset, it was a time of renewal and optimism at Silver, which–at the time–billed itself as “America’s leading independent regional airline.”
Silver Airways’ first ATR 42-600 joined the fleet in early 2019. Its first revenue flight occurred on 22 April between FLL and Key West (EYW). The carrier took delivery of its first ATR 72-600 in late 2019, with its first revenue flight operating between TPA and Pensacola (PNS) on 23 November.
A Silver Airways ATR 42-600 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
A New Decade: Covid Thwarts Expansion Plans
A trio of Silver Airways ATR aircraft await passengers at San Juan (SJU) | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
At the dawn of the new decade, Silver Airways was experiencing robust expansion. The arrival of additional aircraft enabled the expansion of Silver’s Caribbean operations out of SJU. However, all expansion plans were put on hold as COVID-19 decimated the airline industry. Additional expansion plans, including new service from Charleston International Airport (CHS) in South Carolina to MCO, TPA, and FLL, were delayed until late 2020.
In 2021, Silver once again dipped its toes into something new. This time, it was a partnership with cargo carrier Amazon Prime Air. Using five Silver-operated ATR 72-500F freighters, Amazon based the aircraft out of Perot Field Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) in Texas. From its AFW base, Silver Airways operated flights to cities such as Albuquerque, N.M. (ABQ), Des Moines, Iowa (DSM), Wichita, Kan. (ICT)., and Omaha, Neb. (OMA) on behalf of Amazon Prime Air. However, Silver and Amazon abruptly parted ways in July 2023, less than two years after the partnership began.
In September 2022, Silver operated its final Saab 340 flight, thus making it an exclusively ATR -600 series operator.
The final Silver Airways Saab 340B+ revenue flight at Saint Croix, USVI (STX) on 04 September 2022 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Silver Airways Today
A Silver Airways ATR 72-600 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
As of September 2024, Silver Airways operates a fleet of 14 ATR -600 series aircraft, including eight 46-seat 42s and six 70-seat 72s. However, according to FlightAware data, two aircraft–one 42 and one 72–are currently parked at MCO. The 42, N705SV, last operated more than three months ago. The 72, N401SV, was ferried to MCO on 30 August. It is unclear if that aircraft has been parked or is simply undergoing maintenance.
It’s worth noting, however, that the carrier is in the beginning stages of a relatively significant route shakeup. As first reported by AeroRoutes last week, Silver plans to eliminate eight routes between now and early 2025. Two of the route cuts have already taken place. These cuts will also lead to the closure of four stations, including:
Governors Harbour Airport, Bahamas
GHB
Service ended 17 Aug 2024
Gainesville Regional Airport, Florida
GNV
Service ends 06 Oct 2024
Palm Beach International Airport, Florida
PBI
Service ends 06 Oct 2024
Cibao International Airport | Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic
STI
Service ends 27 Oct 2024
By the end of October, Silver will have just 20 destinations
The Silver Airways route map, not reflecting its most recent cuts | IMAGE: flysilver.com
Once these cuts take effect, Silver will be left with just 20 destinations across Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean, including:
Florida
Pensacola (PNS)
Tallahassee (TLH)
Orlando (MCO)
Tampa (TPA)
Fort Lauderdale (FLL)
Key West (EYW)
The Bahamas
Freeport | Grand Bahama International Airport (FPO)
Bimini | South Bimini Airport (BIM)
Nassau | Lynden Pindling International Airport (NAS)
Georgetown | Exuma International Airport (GGT)
North Eleuthera | North Eleuthera Airport (ELH)
Marsh Harbour | Leonard M. Thompson International Airport (MHH)
The Caribbean
San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJU) | Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport
Tortola, British Virgin Islands (EIS) | Terrance B. Lettsome Airport
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (STT) | Cyril E. King Airport*
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (STX) | Henry E. Rohlsen Airport*
Anguilla (AXA) | Anguilla-Clayton J. Lloyd Airport
St. Maarten (SXM) | Princess Juliana International Airport
St. Kitts, St. Kitts and Nevis | Robert L. Bradshaw International Airport
Dominica (DOM) | Douglas-Charles Airport
*In addition to Silver Airlines service to SJU, subsidiary Seaborne Airlines operates Twin Otter seaplane service between STT and STX
There have been significant route cuts over the last year, too
A Silver Airways ATR 72-600 waits for departure as an A-10 Warthog lands at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
These cuts follow significant cuts over the last year, including Huntsville, Ala. (HSV), Jacksonville, Fla. (JAX), New Orleans (MSY), and Savannah (SAV). Additional cuts over the last year include Providenciales, Turks and Caicos (PLS), Antigua, Antigua and Barbuda (ANU), La Romana, Dominican Republic (LRM), and Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic (POP).
Silver Airways also axed service to Greensboro, NC (GSO), Greenville-Spartansburg, SC (GSP), and Nashville (BNA) in 2023 after only four months. Announced service to Fort Myers (RSW) ended before it even began.
However, not all the news is bad, as Silver announced on 04 September that it intends to increase the frequency of flights out of TPA. The changes include daily flights to NAS, twice-daily flights to TLH, and thrice-daily flights to EYW. The additional TPA flights begin on 07 October, one day after the GNV and PBI station closures.
Silver Airways has a codeshare agreement with United Airlines and JetBlue.
Is Silver Airways in Financial Trouble?
A Silver Airways ATR 42-600 | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Silver Airways’ quirks and flightiness have long been part of its eccentricity. They have carved out a niche capitalizing on their uniqueness. However, recent developments like the abrupt route cuts and station closures announced last month suggest that the airline may be in deeper trouble than it lets on.
The airline is notorious for operational inconsistencies. Passengers complain of frequent delays and cancellations. Additionally, the carrier endured an embarrassing public saga in April 2023 when it was on the cusp of eviction from FLL due to non-payment of rent and other airport services totaling over $1.4 million. However, both sides struck an eleventh-hour deal, allowing the carrier to remain at FLL.
The airline’s shrinking route network is one of the most telling signs of financial distress. Over the past few years, Silver Airways has retreated from many routes, focusing instead on core routes within Florida, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean. This reduction could be a strategic move to streamline operations, but it could also indicate that the airline is struggling to maintain its previous level of service.
The Competition Heats Up
IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
Other factors going against Silver Airways include its fleet of turboprop aircraft. Competitors like Breeze Airways operate brand-new Airbus A220 jets, including an intra-Florida route between PNS and TPA. At the same time, Silver is an exclusively turboprop carrier–something passengers no longer care for. Additionally, Brightline–Florida’s new state-of-the-art high-speed rail system–can whisk passengers between Orlando and Fort Lauderdale in less than three hours.
The uncertainty surrounding Silver Airways’ financial stability raises concerns about its long-term viability. The carrier is presumably well-funded by Philadelphia-based Versa Capital Management, which has a majority stake in Silver Airways. Still, for passengers booking flights months in advance, the possibility that Silver Airways could face further service reductions is a genuine and valid concern. Regardless of how well-funded they are, no influx of money can save a carrier with no passengers.
While the airline has not made any public statements about its financial situation, the signs of distress–along with some high-profile financial snafus–are enough to give potential customers pause.
Silver Airways Must Adapt to its Challenges
A Silver Airways ATR 72-600 at FLL | IMAGE: Silver Airways on Facebook
The future of Silver Airways remains uncertain. While the airline has survived in a highly competitive industry for over a decade, the growing signs of financial distress suggest it may be facing the most challenging moment of its short history. If the carrier is struggling financially, it must make significant changes to ensure its survival.
One possibility is that Silver could seek a merger or partnership with a larger airline. A partnership would provide the financial backing needed to stabilize operations, potentially leading to the expansion of its route network. However, merging with a larger carrier could also mean losing some of the quirky charm that has defined Silver Airways since the beginning. And let’s not even think about navigating the gauntlet of pilot unions and contracts.
Downsizing further is an option and would allow the carrier to focus on a smaller number of profitable routes and reduce overhead costs. This strategy could help Silver Airways stay afloat in the short term. However, it would also limit its growth potential and reduce its presence in the market.
A recent comment by a user on an airliners.net forum laid bare some sobering information about the carrier, saying:
“The 3M [Silver Airways IATA code] operation at SJU is so low at this point that crews are getting sent to do Florida flying to cover MCO and TPA because there’s no use for them down here. If 3M doesn’t get it together, they’re bound to lose this turf war (if it can be called that). And as for Florida, it’s sad when you have to draw down your own main base. Unfortunately, the current state of the company is something that I felt coming while I was with them; I jumped as soon as I had the opportunity, and now I see first-hand what I avoided and what my ex-colleagues are now going through.”
Oof.
Ultimately, Silver Airways’s fate will depend on its ability to adapt to its challenges. Let’s hope it turns things around quickly before the trust of its customers erodes even further.
Most all large airports have 3 dimensional routes that aircraft follow to get into position to land. The first part is the Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) and the final leg is the Instrument Approach. STARS can be hundreds of miles long and allow a predictable sequencing process for both ATC and aircraft.
Approaches have many variations, using radios or Global Positioning Systems to align the aircraft into position to land in all weather conditions. On both STARS and Instrument Approaches, there are waypoints that require a 5-letter designation. Given so many airports, so many waypoints, and the humor or passion of the person naming the waypoints, there are some funny and interesting name sequences.
Here are 3 STARS and 2 Approaches that I have flown multiple times.
#5 – NIIXX 1 Arrival into Denver
As a lover of music – who can resist this sequencing?
Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#4 – SCBBY 2 Arrival into Ontario, CA
Paying homage to Saturday morning cartoons (completely dating my childhood), the Scooby 2 Arrival into Ontario is always fun!
Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#3 – JJEDI 2 Arrival into Atlanta
Not the only Star Wars fanatics around – thanks to the namer of these waypoints!
Millenium Falcon, Skywalker, Ewoks, Planet Hoth, Leiea, Lando, Xwing, Tie Fighter, New Hope, Death star, Wookie, Boba Fett, Chewie, and Jedi! Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#2 – RNAV to Runway 16 at Portsmouth, NH
More Saturday cartoons! Apparently those cartoons influenced a bunch of us!!!
I tawt I saw a puddy tat, i did, i did! Note: NOT FOR NAVIGATION. FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
#1 – RNAV to Runway 1 Right in Kansas City
Had to give props to an extremely familiar city and near home! Well, and who doesn’t love Barbeque?
Not for navigation. For illustrative purposes only.
That just scratches the surface of awesome naming for those of us slipping the surly bonds of earth for a living!!!
Do you have any favorite arrivals or instrument approaches?
Note: Do not utilize any of these approach plates for navigation. They are shared for illustrative purposes only.
Earlier this morning, a Delta A350’s wing collided with the tail of a CRJ-900 on a taxiway at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta Georgia.
At approximately 10:00 am local time, Delta Flight 295 was taxing out for it’s scheduled flight to Tokyo, Japan. During the taxi, its wing tip stuck another Delta aircraft. Delta Flight 5526, an Endeavor operated jet, sustained damage as the horizontal and vertical stabilizer were sheered off.
Runway Collision At Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta Involved Two Different Delta Aircraft
Flight 5526 was reported to have had 56 passengers plus the crew on board at the time of the collision.
Delta Airbus A350 Snaps Off Tail Of CRJ-900 at Atlanta Airport 61
Delta Flight 295 was an Airbus 350, the largest aircraft that Delta Air Lines currently operates. Flight 295 was carrying 221 passengers plus the crew. Fortunately no injuries are reported at this time.
PHOTO TAKEN BY CBS NEWS HELICOPTER AND POSTED ON YOUTUBE
Delta flight 295 was able to return to the gate area under its own power. However Delta Flight 5526 was unable to do so due to the severity of the damage it obtained during the Collison. All 56 passengers aboard the regional jet were bussed back to the terminal from the taxiway.
At 10:07AM, two aircraft made contact at the intersection of taxiways E and H on the north airfield. No injuries are reported. Passengers from one aircraft are being bussed to concourse B; the other aircraft taxied on its own power to its gate. There is minimal impact to ops.
It was a long summer for Boeing and NASA. The company’s Starliner returned to Earth last night without issue, but also without its crew, following a troubled test mission.
NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams launched on June 5 aboard Starliner for the agency’s Boeing Crewed Flight Test. It was the first ever crewed flight of the spacecraft, but it soon began experiencing helium leaks and thruster problems en route to the International Space Station (ISS).
After 2 months of testing and analyzing data, NASA decided to return the capsule to Earth without the crew as a safety precaution. Engineers figured out the cause of the problems in the service module, but were not confident that they could predict when the issues may occur again.
Following undocking last night, the Starliner performed a textbook return to Earth. It flew nominally towards White Sands, NM through deorbit, reentry and landing. No further thruster problems were observed.
Now what?
post flight press conference
Starliner will now will ship to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, where Boeing has processing facilities for the capsule. Engineers will inspect and process it, and review all mission-related data, before charting a path forward.
NASA does not necessarily require a redo of the mission either. It depends on what objectives were achieved, and why some were not. However, public perception alone makes another flight test seem like a wise decision. NASA has not said yet whether they will or won’t demand another flight test.
This was Starliner’s third flight test in space
THE FIRST UNCREWED ORBITAL FLIGHT TEST OF STARLINER (OFT-1). THE MISSION ENDED SOON AFTER FOR TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND WAS RETURNED TO EARTH SAFELY (MIKE KILLIAN PHOTOS / AMERICASPACE.COM)
This was the third orbital test of a Starliner. The first back in Dec 2019 didn’t go well at all. Shortly after it achieved orbit Starliner suffered an automated timing issue. Flight controllers called off ISS docking, and put Starliner in a stable orbit to save other critical flight test objectives. It returned to Earth two days later.
NASA wasn’t convinced, so Boeing offered to do it again at their own expense. A joint NASA/Boeing Independent Review Team found three principal anomalies—two software coding errors and an unexpected loss of Space-to-Ground Communications. They ordered over 80 recommendations for testing and simulation, Change Board documentation and safety culture, before the redo could launch.
BOEING ENGINEERS WORKING IN STARLINER (MIKE KILLIAN PHOTO / AMERICASPACE.COM)
Leading up to that second launch, more issues popped up. While on the launch pad, some valves linked to Starliner’s abort and maneuvering thrusters failed to open, leading to a scrub.
Boeing decided to replace the OFT-2 Service Module with one previously slated for the CFT mission. The OFT-2 service module is what just flew the CFT mission with thruster problems.
MIKE KILLIAN PHOTO / AMERICASPACE.COM
OFT-2 finally launched in May 2022, and while some minor issues were encountered, the mission met its remaining test objectives from OFT-1, and was a success.
Crew will return home with SpaceX on Crew-9 mission
SpaceX has been launching NASA astronauts to the ISS now for some time, and they are scheduled to launch the next as early as Sep 24.
The mission, Crew-9, was originally supposed to send four new astronauts to the ISS, replacing others so they can come home.
Now, they will only launch with two, leaving two seats open for Butch and Suni to finally come home. That mission will return to Earth in Feb 2025.
Nasa photo
In the meantime, Butch and Suni have been staying busy on the ISS, assisting the Expedition 71 crew with research, maintenance and other tasks. We’re sure they don’t mind an extended trip in space.
The T-46 was the aircraft that was—and then wasn’t—the Air Force’s next primary jet trainer!
The T-37 entered service with the USAF in 1957 and served through 2009. Each pilot trainee logged approximately 90 hours in the T-37, with about a third of that time spent solo. Did you know that the T-37 served much longer than originally planned?
In 1981, the Air Force began looking for its Next Generation Trainer (NGT), a new primary jet trainer to replace the T-37. The final proposers included Cessna, Fairchild-Republic, and Gulfstream.
Cessna began with an upgraded aircraft design based on the T-37 and eventually moved to a whole new design. Only a mockup was produced. Similarly, Gulfstream proposed a design based on their single-engine business jet, the “Peregrine.”
Two Fairchild T-46s in formation
The T-46 proposed by Fairchild included side-by-side seating, shoulder-level wings, a twin tail, ejection seats, pressurization, and two turbofan engines. Fairchild contracted the Rutan Aircraft Factory (RAF) to build a 62% flying-scale aircraft, the Model RAF 73 NGT, which Burt Rutan test flew.
Based on the performance of the demonstrator aircraft, the Air Force awarded the contract for Fairchild’s T-46 Eaglet in 1982, placing an order for two prototypes with options for 54 additional aircraft. The proposed total number of new trainers was to be 650.
A bottle or two of champagne were probably uncorked that day at the factory, especially since this meant that Fairchild Republic would be able to stay in business!
After several delays, the first aircraft flew in October 1985. During the period from contract award to the first flight, the cost of the aircraft had doubled, from $1.5 million to $3 million. Add to that, the fact that the 1985 Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act mandated spending cuts across the board. Consequently, the Secretary of the Air Force canceled the Fairchild contract. Attempts by Congress to reinstate the funding for the contract failed.
How do you put the cork back in the bottle?
At this point, three aircraft had been completed. Within a year, the whole project had been scrapped, and the Fairchild Republic factory on Long Island was closed. In 1995, the Air Force selected the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) single-engine, turboprop, tandem-seat, Beechcraft T-6 Texan II, also used by the US Navy flight training program.
DAYTON, Ohio — Fairchild T-46A is currently in storage at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo)
All three aircraft, as well as the Rutan RAF 73 NGT, have survived. One T-46 is on display at the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards Air Force Base, California, and a second can be seen at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG)—often called The Boneyard—on “Celebrity Row” during the AMARG bus tour from the Pima Air Museum, Arizona. The third was last reported as under restoration at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The Model 73 NGT Flight Demonstrator can be seen at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, Garden City, New York.
The T-6 Texan eventually replaced the T-37 Tweet. Today it is the primary SUPT trainer at all Navy and Air Force pilot training bases.
Prior to 1952, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) had sponsored a progressive series of experimental aircraft—the X-planes—that had achieved speeds approaching the speed of sound (Mach 1) to Mach 3.2. The next step would be an aircraft capable of flight beyond the Earth’s atmosphere and speeds in excess of Mach 5—hypersonic flight. In 1954, the NACA selected North American to develop three X-15 hypersonic aircraft.
The X-15 research aircraft was developed to determine the effects of hypersonic conditions on aero-thermodynamics, aerodynamics, structures, flight controls, and the physiological aspects of high-speed, high-altitude flight.
Note: In 1958 before the first flight of the X-15, the NACA was absorbed into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
The Aircraft
The X-15 was a small rocket-powered aircraft, 50 feet long with a wingspan of 22 feet. It had a conventional fuselage, but an unusual wedge-shaped vertical tail, thin stubby wings, and unique side fairings that extended along the fuselage. The X-15 weighed about 14,000 pounds empty and approximately 34,000 pounds at launch. Because the lower vertical tail extended below the landing skids, a part of the lower vertical tail was jettisoned before landing and recovered by a parachute.
X-15 Under the Wing of NB-52 on takeoff
During its first powered flights, the X-15 used two un-throttled XLR-11 engines, producing a combined thrust of 16,380 lb. With no throttles, engine power was set on the ground before each flight. The intended Thiokol XLR-99 rocket engine, which was not available at the beginning of the X-15’s flight program, produced up to 60,000 pounds of thrust and could be controlled by the pilot.
Depending on the mission and engine throttle setting, the rocket engine provided thrust for the first 80 to 120 seconds of flight. The remainder of a normal 10-11-minute flight was unpowered and ended with a glide to a 200-mile-per-hour landing. One X-15, rebuilt and lengthened after an accident, also had external tanks for additional fuel. These tanks provided about 60 seconds of additional engine burn. and were used on the aircraft’s Mach 6.7 flight.
The X-15 cockpit was cramped but functional.
Because of the rapid fuel consumption, the X-15 was air-launched from under the wing of a B-52 aircraft at 45,000 feet at a speed of about 500 miles per hour. In 1958, B-52 Stratofortress aircraft NB-52B, S/N52-008 “Balls 8,” and its sister ship, NB-52A, S/N52-0003, “The High and the Mighty,” were modified for the mission of launching the X-15.
Three aircraft were built and delivered to NASA. During a ground test later in the program, the number two X-15, with Scott Crossfield in the cockpit, experienced a serious explosion just behind the cockpit. Crossfield was not seriously hurt, and the aircraft was rebuilt and lengthened by 28 inches to provide added space for fuel and designated X-15A-2.
The X-15A-2 was also modified to carry and test a supersonic ramjet engine. Although the engine was flown as a dummy, it was never powered or tested.
The airframe manufacturer was North American Rockwell, Inc. Thiokol Chemical Corp. manufactured the rocket engine. The program was a joint NASA-USAF-USN effort.
For flight in the Earth’s atmosphere, the X-15 used conventional aerodynamic controls. The controls consisted of the rudder on the vertical stabilizers to control yaw. The canted horizontal stabilizers controlled both pitch (when operated in unison) and roll (when moved differentially by lateral movements of the control stick). For flight outside of the Earth’s atmosphere, i.e., in “space,” the X-15 used eight thrust rockets; four on the nose of the aircraft to control pitch and yaw, and four on the wings for roll control.
The Program
X-15 Number 1 Landing on a Dry Lakebed Runway
In 1955, Scott Crossfield left the NACA to become the chief engineering test pilot for North American, where he played a major role in the design and development of the X-15. The X-15 was an entirely new and unproven design, and flight operations were considered extremely hazardous. It was Crossfield’s job to demonstrate its airworthiness at speeds up to Mach 3 (2290 mph).
A total of 12 pilots participated in the X-15 program: five from NASA, five from the Air Force, one from the Navy, and one, Crossfield, from North American. Among these pilots were two future astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Joe Engle.
Pilots generally flew one of two flight profiles: (1) a speed profile that called for the pilot to maintain a level altitude until time for descent to a landing, or (2) a high-altitude flight plan that required maintaining a steep rate of climb until reaching altitude and then descending—these flights were eventually recognized as flights into space and that the pilots as astronauts.
NASA’s X-15 hypersonic research program lasted nearly 10 years and set the unofficial world speed and altitude records of 4,520 mph (Mach 6.7) and 354,200 feet. Information gathered during the program contributed directly to science and technologies used on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo piloted spaceflight programs, as well as the Space Shuttle program.
Scott Crossfield made the first unpowered flight (8 June 1959) and the first powered flight. The X-15’s last flight was on 24 October 1968. The three X-15s flew a total of 199 powered flights. A 200th flight was scheduled, but due to weather and technical difficulties, it was delayed and eventually canceled, ending the program. All X-15 flight operations originated from what is now the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center on Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
In the course of its flight research, the X-15’s pilots and instrumentation yielded data for more than 765 research reports. Dryden’s Chief Scientist Ken Iliff and his wife, aerospace research engineer Mary Shafer, wrote, “The [X-15] aircraft returned benchmark hypersonic data for aircraft performance, stability and control, materials, shock interaction, hypersonic turbulent boundary layer, skin friction, reaction control jets, aerodynamic heating, and heat transfer.”
The total cost of the X-15 program, including development of the three aircraft, was about $300 million. Although the X-15 had its share of emergency landings and accidents, only two resulted in serious injuries or death. On 9 November 1962, after the engine failed, pilot Jack McKay landed at Mud Lake, NV. The landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft flipped onto its back. McKay recovered sufficiently to fly again.
On 15 November 1967, Michael Adams, flying the number three aircraft on his seventh flight, entered a spin from which he recovered, but could not bring the aircraft out of an inverted dive due to control problems. He died in the resultant crash, and the aircraft was destroyed.
As the partial list of accomplishments suggests, the X-15 brilliantly achieved its basic purpose of supporting piloted hypersonic flight within and outside the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, it carried out the “explorations to separate the real from the imagined problems and to make known the overlooked and the unexpected problems” that Hugh Dryden had called for in 1956 when the X-15 was still in the design and development phase.
Crossfield cited the X-15 as one of the few aircraft that caused grown men to cry upon its retirement.
The X-15 Today
Of the three X-15 aircraft built, aircraft number 1 is on display in the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., and aircraft number 2 is part of the research and development display at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
