Dude Perfect, one of the top YouTube group of creators with over 60M followers, has outdone itself with its latest video. The group is known for unique viral videos and also for their continuous support of the men and women in the US Military. The group of 5 former college roommates from Texas A&M partnered with the Air Force recently to play a few games using the mighty C-17. They called it a competition. The prize for this game using a $200 million dollar airlifter? A janky Pontiac Aztec. Heh! The full video is linked at the bottom of this story.
First up, Darts from a C-17
Dude Perfect prepping to drop darts from a dartboard. Image: Dude Perfect Video screenshot.
The guys from Dude Perfect came along on a C-17 training mission at Altus AFB. There they saw what it takes to plan and launch a C-17 airdrop mission. Pretty standard, right? From that point on, the mission became anything but standard. First up was a friendly game of darts. These weren’t any darts though, these were oversized metal darts that were about the size of a broomstick with weighted tails. Once the crew was over the drop zone, they gave the green light for a drop. The first drop was way too late. The darts missed by quite a few feet. The second drop was better but still wide of the dart board…er, target. The last drop, we’ll you’ll have to see for yourself.
Next up, Dude Perfect plays golf from a C-17
After a short intermission , the crew then set up for another drop. Below was an oversized golf green. The Dude Perfect crew then teed off with an oversized golf club and volleyballs that acted as golf balls. None of the balls were hit very close to the target. You might say that they shanked their balls into the rough. Once they landed, they played out the hole.
Final Challenge: Dropping 1000 basketballs 1,000 feet above the basket from a C-17
The final challenge was the most impressive visually at least. They set up on a final pass to drop 1,000 basketballs over a number of basketball goals set up on the drop zone. In order to determine if a ball went into the basket, they taped each net. They also set up a number of cameras to watch the action. While the drop was visually impressive, no balls actually hit their, um, target.
Altus AFB C-17. Image: Jerry Gunner from Lincoln, UK, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
All and all, it was impressive to see the airdrop abilities of the C-17. Behind this social media outreach effort was significant airdrop planning, route coordination, and skill necessary by the airdrop crew to arrive on target with such precision. Kudos to the 58th Airlift Squadron at Altus AFB for their effort.
Over the past decade, airline safety presentations have mostly moved from live demonstrations to video. As a ploy to make people pay attention to the videos, airlines have introduced more zany versions. From fashionable videos like Air France, to Virgin America’s catchy pre-flight video, these creative shorts definitely had their day. Some airlines continue to have unique videos to this day.
Take a look at a few of the trendsetters:
Virgin America Safety Video
This video kicked off a trend that many airlines adopted. Virgin America’s diddy was so popular that people sung the song on Virgin America’s last flight back in 2018.
Air France Safety Video
The Air France safety video from 2015 has a focus on fashion as well as buckling your seat belt.
American Airlines Safety Video
The American Airlines video seems to be a Virgin America-redux with less dancing but very little focus on an in-aircraft safety presentation. Instead, much of the demonstration takes place on a soundstage.
Emirates Continues To Buck The Trend
Emirates has never really been part of this trend though. They have always kept their videos professional. Emirates introduced a much more straight forward and formal safety video. This video clearly demonstrates how to operate safety equipment and how to find the nearest exit in case of evacuation. While some people might say that the new video is boring, conveying the important aspects of safety before a flight is a lifesaving endeavor. Incidents like the Japan Airlines evacuation last year show the importance of evacuating efficiently once the call to do so is given. Kudos to Emirates for keeping the focus where it should be.
The Boeing Sonic Cruiser, a concept aircraft that never left the drawing board, has been the subject of much speculation in the aviation industry. Proposed in the early 2000s, this futuristic design promised to revolutionize air travel with its ability to cruise at near-sonic speeds. However, the true motives behind Boeing’s promotion of this aircraft remain a topic of debate.
Sonic Cruiser Could Have Been A Strategic Head Fake
One prevailing theory suggests that the Sonic Cruiser was a strategic move by Boeing to distract its main competitor, Airbus, from Boeing’s 787 program. According to this perspective, Boeing may have knowingly promoted the Sonic Cruiser to encourage Airbus to invest heavily in the A380 superjumbo jet program. If true, this strategy appears to have been successful, as Airbus poured billions into the A380, which has since faced declining demand.
Boeing executives initially made bold claims about the Sonic Cruiser’s viability. Alan Mulally, Boeing’s commercial airline executive at the time, confidently stated that the aircraft could be built economically and would be the right choice for travelers worldwide. The company argued that customers would be willing to pay a premium for speed, though they provided no data to support this assertion.
Timing Was Questionable
However, the timing of the Sonic Cruiser’s proposal and subsequent cancellation raises questions. Boeing ended the project a few months after Airbus began production of the A380, shifting focus to the more fuel-efficient but slower 787 Dreamliner. This move coincided with the post-9/11 economic downturn in the airline industry, when cost-cutting and fuel efficiency became a priority for carriers.
Critics of the strategic distraction theory point out some inconsistencies. The Sonic Cruiser and A380 were designed for different market segments, making it unclear why one would directly influence the other. Additionally, Boeing’s later introduction of the 747-8, another large aircraft competing in the superjumbo market, seems to contradict the idea that Boeing believed this sector was doomed to fail.
Publicity Stunt? Sonic Cruiser Was The Ultimate Paper Airplane
Image of Boeing Sonic Cruiser. Image: Boeing
An alternative explanation is that the Sonic Cruiser was simply a publicity stunt to generate media attention for Boeing at a time when it was losing ground to Airbus. The reveal did generate significant interest. Even if much of the attention was negative. Aviation fans lauded the unique design but many industry analysts panned the excessive fuel usage and questioned whether a jet could truly be efficient in the upper transonic region of flight.
Ultimately, the true reasons behind Boeing’s proposal of the paper airplane remain unclear. Both Boeing and Airbus executives never commented on the matter. Whether it was a cunning strategic move, a genuine attempt at innovation, or a marketing ploy, the Sonic Cruiser undeniably left its mark on the industry’s history without ever becoming more than marketing fodder and a few unique models in aviation enthusiasts collections.
Ok, we’ll admit it, the photo might look like click-bait. But I don’t know any other way to describe this video than miraculous. The pilot and passengers in the Cessna are very lucky to have survived this incident.
It appears that the Cessna was attempting a mountain crossing in the Colorado Rockies. When they determined that they could not gain enough altitude to cross the ridge, the aircraft made an abrupt turn and appeared to stall. Somehow though, they were able to regain control of the aircraft just feet above the ground. It highlights the importance of every pilot fully understanding the effects of aircraft performance and density altitude and only flying in areas where there is a viable escape option.
Account from the eye witness on the Cessna’s Flight
Jason Dunn posted the following video and pictures on Facebook this past week. In describing the incident, Jason said, “Crazy thing happened today while hiking up to Devil’s Thumb in Grand County. While sitting in the saddle on the ridge at the top (the Continental Divide), a plane came up the valley from the opposite (Boulder) side. It was clear the plane was struggling trying to clear the saddle. It was coming straight at us, and as a former licensed pilot, I was worried it would go into an aerodynamic stall. Then it either did, or the pilot made a last ditch effort to turn the plane around in a dead end valley before crashing into the mountain (or us). My son was further up the ridge line and caught most of it on video. As you can see, he made it by less than a couple of feet. If anyone has connection to Boulder municipal airport, you might send. I’m guessing he was coming from there and would love to have the video.”
Mountain Crossings In Single Engine Aircraft Require Great Skill And Planning, Even Then Things Can Go Wrong
Flying any aircraft in mountainous terrain requires preparation and route study. Flying a single engine aircraft in mountainous terrain can be done safely but requires even more preparation and contingency planning. The reduced air density at higher elevations affects aircraft performance. This can severely limit the ability for an aircraft to climb or maneuver. Additionally, mountains have dynamic weather patterns that can change quickly. Every pilot who needs/wants to fly in mountainous terrain must carefully calculate performance with the actual payload and fuel. They also need to carefully observe the weather forecasts, and plot egress points in the event that the weather deteriorates unexpectedly. It is recommended that inexperienced pilots first fly with other pilots who are familiar with the terrain to gain confidence and experience.
Familiarity with terrain and divert options are vital. Routes with box canyons should be avoided as much as possible, particularly when the crossing altitude is anywhere close to operational limits of the aircraft for a set of weather and density altitude conditions.
The combination of technical flying skills, thorough preflight planning, and continuous situational awareness makes mountain crossings in single-engine aircraft one of the most challenging and respected feats in general aviation.
We’re just glad these folks were safe and lived to fly another day.
A KC-46 from the 22nd Air Refueling Wing accomplished something no 767 or KC-46 has ever done before. On June 29th, the jet took off from McConnell Air Force base and flew west. It landed 45 hours later back at McConnell completing an around the world journey.
Along the way, the Pegasus also air refueled various aircraft including the C-17 Globemaster III, multiple B-2 bombers, F-15E Strike Eagles, and an other KC-46.
How the KC-46 around the world trip was accomplished
In order to accomplish such a feat and join the likes of other aircraft that have accomplished a similar feat, the jet also needed to be refueled along the journey. Two KC-46 jets were sent to Guam in advance of the record setting flight. A KC-135 from McConnell was sent to RAF Mildenhall. An additional Stratotanker was sent to the Middle East. There were additional backup aircraft available in case of contingency.
A KC-46 refuels a C-17 Globemaster III. Photo: Boeing
Crew Flew a super-augmented 48 hour day!
In order to accomplish the mission, the KC-46 crew compliment consisted of 4 experienced pilots, two boom operators, a flight surgeon, and two flying crew chiefs. The crewmembers took shifts, alternating between operating the jet and resting as the jet continued around the world.
While this super-augmented 48-hour day might not become the norm, the article released by Air Mobility Command did seem to indicate that this could be an option available in the future for mission planners. Brig Gen Donahue, Director of Operation for Strategic and Nuclear Integration at Air Mobility Command said, “Not only is the duration of this sortie notable, but we are completing it with just two basic crews. Previously, three pilots were able to fly as an ‘augmented’ crew for up to 24 hours. Going forward, AMC is looking to have a crew of four pilots operating for up to 48 hours.”
Not the first aircraft to accomplish the feat
Flying around the world nonstop is still a fairly rare occurrence. The KC-46 is not the first aircraft to make the journey nonstop. Back in 1949, a B-50 named Lucky Lady II, made the first around the world trip non-stop in 94 hours. The Rutan Voyager also accomplished the feat in 1986 without any refueling.
KC-46 Flies Around The World Nonstop 6
Virgin’s Global Flyer also accomplished the feat in 2005 with Steve Fosset at the controls. He was the first person to circumnavigate the solo globe nonstop.
As we slog our way through midsummer heat and humidity, we often hear the question: How hot is too hot for airlines to operate?
It’s summertime, so you know it’s typically going to be hot this time of year. If you are living in parts of Southern California, Nevada, or Arizona, temperatures can get obscenely hot this time of year. High temperatures in the 100s (F) are common.
Just last year, in 2024, those areas saw temperatures soar even higher than usual. Palm Springs reached a new all-time record high of 124 degrees Fahrenheit or 51.1 degrees Celsius. Las Vegas topped out at 120 degrees Fahrenheit, breaking a record high for a city used to hot summers. When is it too hot for airlines to continue operations?
The answer lies in both aircraft and human performance
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) | IMAGE: Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash
Both aircraft and the people who support operations are affected by the heat. The aircraft itself is affected by increasing temperatures. Aircraft performance is affected by what pilots call density altitude. As air temperature increases, the density of the air decreases, which increases density altitude. Confused?
Density altitude is just a number, measured in feet. This means that an aircraft’s wing and engine performance are negatively affected because the aircraft performs as if it is operating at a higher altitude than the actual altitude (height above sea level) of the aircraft in which it is operating.
Due to the less dense air at the higher temperature, the wings generate less lift at the same airspeed than they would at a lower temperature or altitude. Aircraft engines are also less efficient at higher temperatures.
This translates into longer takeoff distances required for a given aircraft weight. The video below by YouTube creator Speedbird283 shows an Airbus A321 with a long (but totally safe) departure roll out of Phoenix during the summer.
It’s all about the density altitude
With such extreme operating temperatures, even modern airliners have limitations. The takeoff distance required increases as density altitude increases. This means that an airliner will need both a longer runway and a higher takeoff speed to carry a similar payload than if it were operating at an airport with a lower density altitude.
Planes are also limited by their max tire speed. In some cases, the aircraft could technically accelerate to a certain speed and liftoff in the required runway. However, it would exceed a limitation of the tire’s maximum speed meaning that the tire could destruct if operated at a higher ground speed than its limitation.
Prior to departure, operators also have to factor in climb performance after takeoff. Even if an aircraft can safely takeoff in the available runway distance, they have to be able to climb at a certain gradient to avoid terrain, buildings, and other obstacles. Even more limiting, regulations require that carriers ensure that aircraft can safely out climb obstacles after takeoff even if the aircraft loses an engine.
How do airlines adjust when it is so hot?
Two pilots in the cockpit | IMAGE: Photo by Rafael Cosquiere via pexels.com
Airlines have a multiple options to deal with aircraft performance issues. It starts with the airlines scheduling their most capable aircraft in areas where they are likely to encounter hot weather. That is why you will see plenty of 757s and less CRJ-200s at ‘high and hot’ airports like Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Palm Springs.
Airlines will also proactively adjust their schedule by season so that flights likely to have performance limitations(due to longer stage length, more payload) depart in the morning or evening when its cooler. If that is not possible, then airlines will be forced to reduce payload. They will typically defer less time-sensitive cargo first, followed by non-revenue passengers.
If performance limitations are still too great, the airline will seek volunteers to lessen the load. Less preferable, airlines will take off with less fuel by planning a fuel stop at an intermediate location. This option is least preferred because it disrupts the flying schedule. Delays induced by a fuel stop are an inconvenience for aircrews, schedulers, and passengers alike.
Heat can also affect landing performance. In ‘high and hot’ conditions, landing distances are lengthened as higher landing speeds are required for a given length. This results in longer brake cooling times that limit the speed at which an aircraft can be turned around for its next flight. In rare conditions, aircraft might not even be able to fly an approach to a runway because their performance in the event of a missed approach might be too limited.
It’s not just aircraft performance, people are affected by the heat too
We all know that high temperatures and humidity affect people, too. The heat negatively affects ramp personnel, provisioning, fuelers, and operations.
As the temperature rises, these workers must be given more frequent breaks to avoid heat stress and even heat stroke. And if you’ve ever mowed your yard on a hot day, you know that oppressive heat negatively affects how fast and efficiently you can complete the job. These breaks and delays must be factored into airline schedules as well.
Additionally, passenger comfort is also a concern. APUs and ground air do not cool as well in such high heat conditions. This can make aircraft passenger cabins unbearable even if the airplane itself can safely operate in the conditions.
Back to the original question, how hot is too hot for airlines?
Like most questions, the answer depends. A Boeing 737 can technically operate at temperatures as high as 54 degrees Celsius or 129 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the max fuel temperature is limited to 49 degrees Celsius. Additionally, many airlines only have performance information up to 50 degrees.
A Delta Connection CRJ-200, operated by Skywest Airlines, on the ramp at Elko Regional Airport (EKO) | IMAGE: Elko Regional Airport on Facebook
Smaller airlines like the/infamous CRJ-200 (you know…the Nickelback of the skies) are even more limited. They can only depart with a maximum temperature of ISA+35 degrees Celsius or around 118 degrees Fahrenheit.
The bottom line? When it gets hot, almost all people tasked with operating an airline become concerned and review aircraft performance, operations, and passenger comfort more closely. Who is already looking forward to cooler temperatures this fall?
When thinking about the fastest aircraft in history, the SR-71 top speed is always at the top of an avgeek’s mind. This long-range strategic reconnaissance aircraft, developed in the 1960s using slide rules, models, and wind tunnels, continues to captivate aviation enthusiasts, young and old, with its unparalleled speed and performance.
SR-71 Blackbird Top Speed: Breaking Records
The SR-71 Blackbird top speed set several records during its operational lifetime. On 28 July 1976, it achieved an absolute speed record for a jet-powered, air-breathing aircraft, reaching a staggering 2,193.167 mph. This record, showcasing the true SR-71 Blackbird top speed, still stands today.
Coast-to-Coast Demonstration of SR-71 Blackbird Top Speed
The SR-71 is located at the Udvar-Hazy Smithsonian Museum at Dulles International Airport. Image: Avgeekery
The SR-71 top speed allowed it to fly from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. in just 64 minutes and 20 seconds, averaging 2,144.8 mph! This journey usually takes about 5 hours and 30 minutes for most mere mortals! What’s even more impressive is that this feat was accomplished on its final mission, a fini-flight to the Smithsonian Museum at Dulles International Airport (IAD), where you can see it on display.
SR-71 Top Speed Untouchable Even In Combat
SR-71 at Sunset. Image: USAF
Despite numerous missions over hostile territory, no SR-71 was ever shot down by enemy fire. The SR-71 Blackbird top speed, combined with its ability to fly above 80,000 feet, made it nearly impossible for adversaries to shoot down. When enemy missiles were launched, the standard evasive action was simply to accelerate, showcasing the ability of the SR-71 Blackbird’s top speed.
Refueling Required to Achieve SR-71 Blackbird Top Speed
To achieve its remarkable top speed, the SR-71 needed aerial refueling shortly after takeoff. The aircraft’s fuel tanks leaked on the ground, allowing for thermal expansion at high temperatures during flight. This unique feature was crucial for the Blackbird to be able to achieve its long-distance spy missions.
Landing Speed Was High, Too
The SR-71 Top Speed: Incredible Records Still Stand 14
Even when landing, the SR-71 was faster than most jets on approach. Final approach was typically around 170 knots or about 195 mph. While not as fast as the Space Shuttle, it still required tires that could withstand the high speed and forces upon landing.
The SR-71 top speed made it a fan favorite. The jet was one of the few planes that could outrun its enemies. Its futuristic shape and materials set it apart from other jets of its era. Even today, it still looks futuristic. Over 60 years after it first took to the skies, it still holds some of the most distinguished aviation records. It’s a testament to the vision, creativity, and tenacity of Lockheed’s Skunk Works team from that era.
It’s a question I, and other pilots, have heard through the years. Early on in our flight training and aviation careers, situations arise that might be startling at first. But once we see that situation time and again (gusty winds, icy runways, an amber light on our panel indicating a malfunction) we no longer are startled and calmly take it in stride.
Being A Pilot Is More Than Just Hand Flying Skills
Besides just hand-flying skills, pilots learn about positive and negative behaviors and their effects in aviation. In addition to actual flying lessons, pilots are taught to avoid distractions and channelization, which is focusing on one item at the expense of many others. We strive not to fixate on any one instrument but to scan the cockpit continuously to ensure everything; our heading, altitude, airspeed, and the engine performance, remain as they should.
Throughout training, we learn to remain steady under pressure and not become distracted or a hothead. Crew members who tend to become overly excited, or “ping” during a flight are known as Pingers. One is such person was a KC-10 flight engineer with the last name of McClary. In our squadron, he was known as Scary McClary for his tendency to fly off the handle. One morning, I was taxiing the KC-10 onto the runway for takeoff. As I started to push the throttles up, Flight Engineer McClary started yelling, “Shit! Shit! Shit!”
I yanked the throttles to idle, whipped my head around and asked, “What’s wrong?!”
McClary yelled, “I dropped my damn pen!”
I couldn’t believe it. That was not the time or place for his meaningless outburst.
Read all of David Dale’s stories here in his new book:
Ok, So I might have lost my cool every once in a while
I’ll admit I’ve lost my cool occasionally, but for the most part friends remark about how even-keeled I remain in various situations. One particular time that I got upset was during Desert Storm as a KC-10 copilot during an air refueling mission. My job was to monitor up to four different radios simultaneously: VHF, UHF, and HF (Very High Frequency, Ultra High Frequency , and High Frequency, respectively). The KC-10 had two civilian-style VHF radios, which airliners use daily to talk to Air Traffic Control. One of our two radios was set to an emergency broadcast frequency, for potential critical information or an unscheduled air refueling request from a desperate fighter. The primary VHF radio enabled us to talk to the E-3 AWACS for traffic separation in the combat arena and a military UHF radio was used for air refueling purposes with our receiver aircraft.
During the combat operations the frequencies could be jammed or interfered with by the enemy. On this day, there was static and a loud squeal coming through my headset from the VHF and UHF frequencies. After over two hours of all this constant static and a piercing squeal in my headphones I finally yelled, “Goddamn these fucking radios!”
The cockpit got very quiet for a bit after that. Our flight engineer, Sgt. Mike McKittrick, told me after the flight, “I’ve never seen you get mad before.”
Compartmentalization is key in the cockpit
Southwest 737-700 image via BRIYYZ
Aviators try to compartmentalize our feelings during a flight. We are taught to leave our problems on the ground. Our job is to focus on the mission at hand and not be distracted by what may be going on with our family or friends back home. As we share stories with non-aviators, some may wonder about our feelings during a given situation. While we aren’t robots, we may tend to be a bit emotionally dead about concerns for others or whether a situation should make us freak out. Panic doesn’t do anybody any good.
Do I get nervous? Definitely. I don’t want to make a mistake or be the cause of an accident. But I remain focused on the mission.
At the end of the day, we are just mission oriented people
The military knows that there is a spectrum of focusing on the mission versus focusing on people. We have to balance which comes first; are we Mission-oriented, or People-oriented? I’m a Mission-oriented person, which may strike some as being callus. As the saying goes, there is a time and place for everything, and I joined the military to carry out their missions. Thankfully, I was surrounded by likeminded team members who enjoyed the satisfaction of getting the job done.
Denzel Washington in the movie Flight. Image: Flight, the movie
Hollywood likes to overdramatize any situation and depict emergencies with a lot of yelling and excitement. In reality, as the evening news plays the audio tapes from any aircraft incident, people are often struck at how calm the flight crew sounds over the radio. A lot of that is the result of our simulator training. We’ve seen these emergency situations before. Now we need to take the correct actions and hope we sound cool on the radios.
Air Force Plans To Retire The KC-10 Refueler Later This Year
Last week, maintenance airmen at Travis Air Force Base completed their final A-Check inspection. It marks the end of an era for the McDonnell Douglas made trijet. The Air Force plans to retire the fleet at the end of the fiscal year in September.
The weeklong inspection ensures that the aircraft is airworthy and operational. Over the course of the week, they looked over every system and made necessary repairs to address any wear and tear on the aircraft. Even with the aircraft retiring in a few months, the inspection is still required for airworthiness.
Final KC-10 Maintenance Check Completed as Retirement Looms 18
Mixed Feelings About Retirement
The KC-10 was first introduced into the Air Force fleet back in 1981. The jet has served the Air Force well during every conflict from Panama, Yugoslavia, Gulf War, Post 9/11 support, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
“It’s a bummer that the KC-10 is leaving,” said Senior Airman Thomas Mihalyi, 60th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron inspection section team member. “We are moving to a whole new era of aircraft. We have already done four or five A-checks on the KC-46, and we are all learning.”
The KC-46 will replace the KC-10 at Travis Air Force base. With only two engines, the converted and upgraded Boeing 767 will slip in to most of the KC-10 missions.
While the KC-46 Pegasus continues to grow in its mission capabilities, it has not yet earned the adulation that the KC-10 received during its 40 years of service. Over the course of its operation it received two nicknames from its crews, “Big Sexy” and “Gucci”. Big Sexy referring to its sleek lines and attractive profile, Gucci referring to its features and crew/passenger comforts that were unheard of in a refueler before its arrival.
One KC-10 Will Be Preserved
While most of the jets will be stored at Davis Monthan AFB, one lucky jet will be preserved at the National Museum of the Air Force near Dayton AFB in Ohio. The Travis-based jet was delivered to the museum this past April for a future exhibit.
Fokker was a Dutch aircraft manufacturing company in the 20th century. At one point, it was the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer. After 86 years, it ceased operations. How did one of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturing company in the 1920s and 1930s eventually fold? What lessons can we learn from it?
How Fokker Began
Fokker was founded in 1912 by Anthony Fokker, an aircraft engineer who was said to have worked in the aviation sector all his life and was at the time a twenty-year-old studying in Germany. After a successful but brief career of partnering with another aircraft engineer named Hugo Junkers, to build aircraft for the German Air Force during the First World War, Anthony Fokker returned to the Netherlands where he was from started his own aircraft company which he christened his last name – Fokker.
In no time, due to the innovative prowess of the company, the company extended beyond the Netherlands and soon had branches in the United States. Fokker continued to build aircraft for military purposes, some of which were used in the Second World War, but the company majorly built civil aircraft for commercial purposes.
Fokker experienced its most successful period in the 1920s and 1930s. It was at the time the largest aircraft manufacturing company in the world. The company was still succeeding when the founder, Anthony Fokker died after surgery for an infection.
After and during the Second World War, Fokker experienced certain setbacks and the company filed for bankruptcy before finally ceasing operations in 1996.
Initial Success aka – Fokker’s Golden Age
Fokker’s most successful period was in the 1920s and 1930s. It was at that time, the largest aircraft manufacturing company in the world, owning factories both in the Netherlands and in the United States.
The company made a lot of profit from producing military aircraft that were used by several countries in the First and Second World Wars. One of Fokker’s military aircraft, produced in 1935, was called Fokker D.XXI, a fighter aircraft
How Fokker's Aviation Empire Crumbled 21
Fokker also established itself as an aircraft manufacturing company that made regular technological innovations in the aviation industry. One such innovation was the Fokker F.VII Trimotor. It operated both as a passenger and cargo airport and was popular in the 1920s and 1930s.
The Fokker F.VII aircraft was also a huge achievement of Fokker in the 1920s and 1930s. It was a popular aircraft at the time and flew long-distance including transatlantic routes. Compared to its competitors at the time, the Fokker F.VII was more comfortable to travel in.
Another achievement of Fokker was surviving the death of its founder. When the founder of Fokker, Anthony Fokker died in 1939, he left behind a company that had grown to be renowned and maintained its position as a world-leading aircraft manufacturing company for some years after his death.
Fokker’s Many Challenges
Despite Fokker’s early achievements, the aircraft manufacturer had an equal number of challenges.
During World War II, Fokker faced severe challenges. Its factories in the Netherlands were taken over by the Germans, and production was forcibly redirected to serve German military needs. Some facilities were damaged by bombings during the war.
After the war, Fokker struggled to recover from these setbacks. However, the company managed to rebuild and adapt to the changing aviation landscape. In the 1950s and 1960s, Fokker found success with aircraft like the F27 Friendship and F28 Fellowship.
Fokker Turns a Corner
Fokker’s true renaissance came in the 1980s and early 1990s with the introduction of three new aircraft that represented a significant comeback attempt for the company:
1.) The Fokker 50, a turboprop airliner that was an updated version of the F27 Friendship. Fokker sold a total of 213 Fokker 50 aircraft.
How Fokker's Aviation Empire Crumbled 22
2.) The Fokker 100, a medium-sized jet airliner launched in 1988. It became quite popular with major airlines on regional routes, selling a total of 278 aircraft. (Seen below in a great video by Matt’s Aviation Channel.)
The Fokker 70, a shorter version of the Fokker 100, introduced in 1993. It was not nearly as successful as the Fokker 100, only selling 47.
For a time, it seemed that Fokker had successfully modernized its product line and secured its place in the evolving aviation industry.
However, despite this renaissance, Fokker faced mounting challenges. The development costs for the new aircraft were substantial, and the company struggled as the Fokker 100 sales trailed off. Additionally, the Fokker 70 sales never materialized, limited by the high cost of operation just as scope clauses in the United States limited operations. Additionally, Fokker faced intense competition from other aircraft manufacturers, especially larger companies with greater resources.
The company also went through multiple changes in ownership and restructuring attempts to stay afloat. These constant changes led to instability and uncertainty in the company’s direction. This turned off potential customers.
Fokker Folds
Ultimately, despite the success of its new aircraft models, Fokker’s financial struggles proved insurmountable. The combination of high development costs, tough competition, and changes in the aviation market led to the company’s bankruptcy in 1996.
While Fokker’s journey ended in 1996, the legacy of its later aircraft continues. The Fokker 50, 70, and 100 remained in service with various airlines for many years after the company’s demise, a testament to the quality and durability of Fokker’s final generation of aircraft.
Fokker’s assets were sold off. These assets included manufacturing facilities, aircraft designs, and intellectual property.
Fokker lives on today…sorta
Fokker’s demise had a significant negative impact on the Dutch aerospace industry. Its demise resulted in job losses for former employees and also caused a shift in the company’s aviation industry.
To this day, some Fokker aircraft are still in operation, primarily on niche routes in developing regions around the world.
There are many reasons why I feel fortunate to have grown up in the 80s and 90s.
We were the last generation to experience life without the Internet and social media. Today’s kids will never know what it’s like to spend the entire day outside – parents unaware of your whereabouts – only to come inside once the street lights turned on. Going out with friends meant great music, $1/gallon gas, and a Big Mac value meal that cost $2.59.
While all that was great, what stands out the most for this avgeek is the quality of planespotting back then. It didn’t matter if you were at a mid-size airport or a major hub – chances are, you’d see a varied display of metal. Gone are the days when something other than narrowbody Boeings and Airbuses dominated the skies.
That’s why I was thrilled to visit one of the world’s most amazing places to watch planes – the famous In-N-Out Burger near LAX. During a recent trip to California, I had some time to kill, and I just knew I had to visit this renowned avgeek paradise.
The LAX In-N-Out is Mere Feet from the End of Runway 24R
A Qantas A380-800 from Sydney (SYD) arriving at Los Angeles (LAX) on 22 June 2024 | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Nestled just a stone’s throw away from the eastern end of Runway 24R at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), this spot offers a level of planespotting that few places in the world can match.
I was excited to spend a few hours on a busy Saturday afternoon watching a neverending flow of jetliners of all sizes arriving and departing. In typical Southern California style, the weather was stunning. Sunny with a light westerly breeze, visibility over ten miles, and a temperature of 76 degrees F. Perfection! Off the western end of the airport property, I could make out the stubborn marine layer that had recently completed its daily retreat back to the Pacific after a cloudy morning.
Getting There
A Japan Airlines Boeing 787-9 from Osaka (KIX) lands at Los Angeles (LAX) on 22 June 2024 | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Getting to the LAX In-N-Out was relatively easy on a Saturday afternoon. Traffic wasn’t horrible, and I found a fantastic parking spot right in the restaurant lot.
You’ll find the restaurant at 9149 South Sepulveda Blvd. in Los Angeles. I approached from the south via the 405 and the 105, offering great views of the sprawling airfield. To my right were the cargo ramps for Korean Air, Singapore Airlines, FedEx, Lufthansa, Delta Air Lines, DHL, China Airlines, and Air France. The 105 led me to Highway 1, which then took me underneath Runways 25L and 25R – the two southernmost runways at LAX. (Sidenote: If you were to continue straight on the 105, it turns into E. Imperial Ave. Clutters Park is on the southwest side of LAX along E. Imperial Ave. in El Segundo. It is another excellent spot to watch planes with an unobstructed airfield view. It can get crowded, so be sure to secure your spot early in the day!)
Enjoy a Burger and Unbelievable Views
A British Airways Boeing 777-300ER on short final for Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
After I found my premium parking spot, I scoped out the landscape while my wife ordered us lunch (a Double Double for me – no mustard – and a Diet Coke). The restaurant was packed. But I wasn’t interested in being inside. Outside, there is ample seating, including bench seats and umbrellas. We secured a seat and enjoyed our lunch while watching the planes land. However, I wanted to be even closer to the action. Across W. 92nd St. from the In-N-Out is a nicely maintained city park full of grass, sidewalks, and beautiful trees. Best of all, you get unimaginably close views of arriving aircraft as they are mere seconds from touching down.
The LAX In-N-Out and the city park across W.92nd St. next to Runway 24R | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
A Diverse List of Arrivals
One of the things that I love about this particular spot is the diversity of equipment that LAX receives. It is truly a sight to behold. Sure, airports like Hartsfield, DFW, and O’Hare are consistently busy and have many spotting opportunities. But the quality of metal you see coming into LAX simply cannot be surpassed.
From narrowbody Boeing 737s and Airbus A220s to massive behemoths such as Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s, I am pretty sure I saw every type of equipment in the three hours I spent here.
The most frequent visitors were Delta and Southwest narrowbodies. However, peppered between WN and DL arrivals were heavies from the world over. Some of the arrivals included:
Singapore Airlines | Boeing 777-300ER | Origin: Tokyo Narita (NRT)
A Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER from Tokyo Narita (NRT) landing at Los Angeles (LAX) | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Air France | Boeing 777-300ER | Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG)
An Air France Boeing 777-300ER from Paris (CDG) landing at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
American Airlines | Boeing 787-8 | Tokyo Haneda (HND)
An American Airlines Boeing 787-9 from Tokyo Haneda (HND) on short final for Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
British Airways | Boeing 777-300ER | London Heathrow (LHR)
A British Airways Boeing 777-300ER from London Heathrow (LHR) on short final to Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Lufthansa | Boeing 747-8 | Frankfurt (FRA)
A Lufthansa Boeing 747-8 from Frankfurt (FRA) lands at LAX on 22 June 2024 | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Qatar Airways | Airbus A350-1000 | Doha (DOH)
A Qatar Airways A350-1000 from Doha (DOH) moments from touchdown at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
SAS | Airbus A350-900 | Copenhagen (CPH)
An SAS Airbus A350-1000 from Copenhagen (CPH) on short final to Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Qantas | Airbus A380-800 | Sydney (SYD)
A Qantas Airbus A380-800 from Sydney (SYD) on short final to LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
LOT Polish Airlines | Boeing 787-9 | Warsaw (WAW)
A LOT Polish Airlines Boeing 787-9 from Warsaw (WAW) seconds from landing at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Norse Atlantic | Boeing 787-9 | London Gatwick (LGW)
A Norse Atlantic Boeing 787-9 from London Gatwick (LGW) on short final to Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
American Airlines | Boeing 777-300ER | London Heathrow (LHR)
An American Airlines Boeing 777-300ER from London Heathrow (LHR) on short final to Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Virgin Atlantic | Boeing 787-9 | London Heathrow (LHR)
A Virgin Atlantic Boeing 787-9 from London Heathrow (LHR) lands at LAX on 22 June 2024 | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Emirates | Airbus A380-800 | Dubai (DXB)
An Emirates Airbus A380-800 from Dubai (DXB) on short final to Runway 24R at LAX on 22 June 2024 | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
Calling it a Day
A WestJet Boeing 737-8 MAX from Toronto Pearson (YYZ) lands at Los Angeles (LAX) on 22 June 2024 | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
As plane after plane flew in, it was hard to know when to call it a day. Further complicating my decision, my flight tracking app showed hours upon hours of scheduled heavy arrivals, which I would love to see. It was indeed a conundrum for the ages.
My wife, who had returned to the car for a snooze by now, said we could hang out here all day if I wanted. However, I knew this was wifespeak for “I don’t want to stay too long.”
Despite visually confirming several heavies on the downwind for 24R, I had to bite the bullet and walk back to the car.
As I did so, I felt grateful for the opportunity to cross such a significant item off of my avgeek bucket list. Spending an afternoon gawking over these beautiful engineering marvels is 100% my idea of a good time. I was especially thankful (and I may have gotten a tear in my eye) to see the ever-more-rare Queen of the Skies—the Boeing 747. That aircraft represents everything I love about aviation and takes me back to a nostalgic longing for a time when the world was just…simpler.
A Lufthansa Boeing 747-8 seconds away from touchdown on Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
The Best Time to Visit the LAX In-N-Out
To make the most of your planespotting experience, timing can be crucial. Here are some tips to help you plan your visit:
Peak Hours: LAX is one of the busiest airports in the world, with a constant flow of aircraft. However, peak hours for activity typically occur in the late morning and early afternoon. During these times, you can expect to see various aircraft types, from small regional jets (a rarity nowadays) to massive international airliners.
Arrive Early: Arriving early can help you secure a good spot, especially during peak hours when the area can get crowded.
Weather Conditions: Clear skies and good weather enhance the viewing experience. Southern California is known for its sunny climate, but it’s always a good idea to check the weather forecast before heading out. Luckily, the prevailing westerlies coming off the Pacific are pretty consistent, thus ensuring the almost constant use of Runway 24R. However, if there is an easterly breeze, consider visiting Clutters Park.
Special Events: Occasionally, LAX hosts special events or receives visits from rare or unique aircraft. Keeping an eye on aviation forums and social media can help you stay informed about upcoming events that might interest you.
A Word About Photography
A photographer takes photos of an approaching Airbus A380 at LAX on 22 June 2024 | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
For those interested in photography, be aware that it is a challenge to capture the perfect shot here because you are simply too close to the aircraft. That said, it is not impossible.
Equipment: A good DSLR or mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens will allow you to capture detailed shots of planes as they take off and land. However, even a smartphone can yield impressive results with the proper technique (I shot all the photos seen here on an iPhone 15).
Angles and Composition: Experiment with different angles and compositions to create dynamic and interesting photos. The low altitude of the planes provides a unique perspective, and the iconic In-N-Out sign can add a distinctive element to your shots. Unfortunately, backlighting is an issue for most of the day. You may need to play around with your settings or during editing for the proper lighting.
Timing: Patience is key. Wait for the right moment when the plane is perfectly aligned with the runway or the background to capture the most dramatic images.
Planespotting at the LAX In-N-Out is a Must-Do Experience for Every Avgeek
An American Airlines Boeing 777-300ER approaching Runway 24R at LAX | IMAGE: Dave Hartland
As a kid, I remember visiting airports around me, including Cleveland Hopkins (CLE), Buffalo-Niagara International (BUF), Pittsburgh International (PIT), and Toronto Pearson (YYZ). It wasn’t unusual to see all sorts of varied equipment types at those airports, especially at Pearson. But as fleets have become more vanilla in the new century – particularly post-COVID – planespotting just isn’t what it used to be.
At the LAX In-N-Out Burger, it is. It is like stepping back in time when planespotting used to be something glorious.
So, if whiffing jet fuel and enjoying the thunderous roar of jet engines while ingesting a delicious Double Double sounds like a fantastic way to spend a sunny SoCal afternoon, do yourself a favor and do it. It is a sensory experience unlike any other, and I firmly believe that no avgeek should go to their grave without having had this experience.
In the 1960s, the development of high-performance reconnaissance cameras offered greater resolution, but at a price.
Many of these systems were large and heavy, and the current high-altitude spyplane of the time, the first-generation variants of the Lockheed U-2, were unable to carry them. One of the premier recon optical systems developed at this time was the General Dynamics HIAC-1- a long-range, oblique camera with a focal length of 66 inches that allowed stand-off reconnaissance from high altitudes.
Artist rendition of RF-4X in flight. Image via General Dynamics
First camera attempts were too heavy
The first examples of HIAC-1 were heavy- the prototype camera system weighed over 3,500 lbs, much more than any other camera system in use at the time (excepting the very big Boston Camera carried by the B-36 and C-97 in the 1950s that weighed 3 tons and had a focal length of 240 inches). The only aircraft in the USAF inventory that could carry the HIAC-1 was the RB-57F, a modification of the Martin B-57 Canberra.
In 1962, General Dynamics in Fort Worth, Texas, had the contract to maintain the RB-57D fleet, which suffered from wing spar fatigue. Since General Dynamics had acquired quite a bit of experience in working on the long-span RB-57Ds, they were asked by the Air Force for an evolved version of the D that could fly higher, carry a heavier load (like the HIAC-1), and not have the same wing spar problems that plagued the RB-57D.
The RB-57F was the result- with a longer wing, more powerful TF33 turbofan engines, and auxiliary J60 turbojets, it was what the USAF needed until the later generation of U-2 spyplanes entered service. In fact, NASA still uses three RB-57Fs today.
Over the course of the RB-57F’s operational career, Israel had repeatedly requested to obtain the RB-57F and the HIAC-1 for its own reconnaissance needs. Still, the requests were always denied by the US State Department and the Defense Department because the technology used in the RB-57F would upset the strategic balance in the Middle East.
However, a compromise was reached- by 1971, the HIAC-1 had been steadily improved and lightened to the point that it weighed just under 1,500 lbs, and that a pod-mounted HIAC-1 carried by the McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom, already in the Israeli inventory, would be permissible.
RF-4X mockup. Image via General Dynamics
Improvements were slow but sure
Also developed by General Dynamics, the pod-mounted HIAC-1 was designated G-139 and underwent an intensive flight test program with a USAF RF-4C aircraft and the first G-139 pods were delivered to Israel in October 1971.
The Israelis found the G-139/HIAC-1 system useful as it allowed the Phantoms to get imagery of Egyptian defenses along the Suez Canal without having to enter the SAM umbrella. But there was a significant issue: the pod was still a heavy store, and it generated a significant amount of drag- it limited the Phantoms to a maximum speed of Mach 1.5 and a maximum altitude just under 50,000 feet, not to mention the challenge of handling a G-139-laden F-4E at high altitude.
As a result, the special projects division of General Dynamics began work in January 1972 on ways to improve the F-4E’s performance to offset the burden of carrying the pod.
Overview of the modifications to make the Phantom Mach 3-capable.
The first improvements came with getting the most out of the Phantom’s J79 engines. Engineers found that the Phantom’s intakes were limiting the performance possible from the J79. A new inlet was designed that was not only larger than the standard F-4 inlet, but it featured a new shape that better managed the airflow to the engines with a series of new variable-geometry ramps. The standard Phantom inlet did have a variable geometry ramp. Still, it was much simpler than the General Dynamics design, which featured a large bypass door downstream from the inlet to help manage the internal shockwaves that helped slow the air down before reaching the engines.
Aerodynamic improvements made through testing
A series of vortex generators down the inlet also helped improve engine performance. The second improvement was based on 1950s research done by NASA’s predecessor agency, NACA, called pre-compressor cooling (PCC). PCC was a form of water injection, but used the water to cool the inlet air before it reached the engines. By reducing the inlet air temperature, it increased the mass of the air, akin to taking off on a cold day- engine air flow and thereby thrust would be increased. At high altitudes, PCC would boost engine performance starting at Mach 1.4 as the inlet air started to heat up due to friction.
USAF RF-4C with the large G-139 pod.
General Electric, the manufacturer of the J79, was less than enthused about General Dynamics’ work on PCC, but did provide some consultations. Work had already been done with PCC on another of General Dynamics’ products, the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, but it was never incorporated into the design. In addition, the USAF’s Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee had tested PCC in engine test cells with both the J57 and J75 engines.
One J75 engine was run at maximum afterburner for 40 hours with PCC! It had also been looked at by Vought for the aborted F8U-3 Crusader III design (though never flown), and McDonnell had used a rudimentary PCC system in 1962 to break several world speed records with the pre-production F-4 Phantom.
Based on all this body of work, General Dynamics refined the PCC system so that the water droplets were very fine at 10 microns to cool the air without having any pooling of water in the engine. Two large water tanks were installed on external blisters along the sides of the F-4E, each blister with three tanks. Each blister could carry 2,500 lbs of demineralized water- since the interior of the Phantom was pretty packed as it was, scabbing these blisters on the fuselage eased the modification and engineering process.
More Refinements became the F-4X
General Dynamics’ modifications led to this version of the Phantom being unofficially designated the F-4X- at this point still carrying the large G-139/HIAC-1 pod underneath on the centerline station. With Israeli funding supplementing internal corporate, work on the F-4X continued through 1972 and refinements to the PCC system and inlets led to a calculated increase in the J79 thrust at high altitude well over 150 percent!
On 12 April 1973, the company formally submitted the F-4X proposal to the USAF. The USAF then provided additional funding for more work. The USAF was using the podded HIAC-1 system for stand-off reconnaissance in Korea and encountered the same issues the Israelis were having using standard Phantoms with the large camera pod.
The following year, the design was further refined, but with the Israelis continuing to have misgivings about using the HIAC-1 in a pod, the design leap was made to incorporate the HIAC-1 into F-4X’s nose. With the latest HIAC-1 versions getting even lighter than the 1,500 lb version used in the G-139 pod, integrating the camera into the nose improved performance by eliminating the drag-inducing pod.
GD wind tunnel model of the RF-4X.
The F-4 Speed Demon Was Born
Designated RF-4X, this version of the Phantom was now capable of cruising at Mach 2.4 at high altitude with burst capability to Mach 3.2. This level of performance now began to alarm the US State Department- up to this point Mach 3+ aircraft we
It was the sole purview of the United States and the Soviet Union, and in some diplomatic circles, there were concerns about the Israelis integrating nuclear weapons delivery with the RF-4X. General Dynamics removed the AN/APQ-120 radar from the nose to allay the State Department’s concerns, which would now only house the HIAC-1 and its associated environmental control systems. Permission to sell the RF-4X to the Israelis was approved, and in November 1974, an Israeli F-4E was flown to General Dynamics in Fort Worth for a mock-up study.
For five months, engineers used the F-4E as the basis of a full-scale mock-up created with cardboard and tape- both the Mach 3 intakes and the PCC water tanks were mocked up on the Phantom on one side, as well as the modified nose housing for the HIAC-1 camera.
Israeli F-4E with the PCC and intake mock-up on one side.
F-4X Could Have Been Faster Than An F-15
By 1975 several factors were now working against the RF-4X, the biggest of which was time. The Israeli Air Force wanted the system as soon as possible but it was clear that the integration of the camera, intakes and PCC system was going to take more time than originally estimated.
With the McDonnell Douglas F-15 winding up its flight test program and soon to become operational in the following year to replace the Phantom in USAF service, it was politically unpalatable to keep funding the RF-4X, which offered a level of performance that exceeded that of the Eagle in some flight regimes.
The USAF insisted upon further studies of the PCC system even though there were already nearly 20 years of data on pre-compressor cooling, some of which was done by the USAF itself. Compounded with the engineering delays, Israel and the RF-4X proponents in the USAF lost interest, and it was quietly canceled later that year.
Canceled!
Despite the cancellation of the RF-4X, General Dynamics did continue work on just the nose-mounted HIAC-1 component of the design for Israel. Three F-4E Phantoms were modified as F-4E(S) aircraft and delivered to the Israeli Air Force from late 1975 to early 1976. It turned out that the Israelis were unable to fund the RF-4X in its entirety and were only able to afford the HIAC-1 component.
As a result, the three F-4E(S) aircraft had standard J79 engines. In IDF service, the HIAC-1 was code-named “Shablul”, the Hebrew word for “snail”. The first operational flights began in 1976, with the aircraft capable of flying at 60,000 feet at Mach 1.9. The pilot and systems officer wore full pressure suits from the David Clark Company, which also made the pressure suits used by USAF U-2 and SR-71 crews and Space Shuttle crews.
Many of the missions flown remain classified, but it is known that Iraq was a frequent target through the 1980s. One of the aircraft is now on public display at the Israeli Air Force Museum.
Source/Photos:Israeli Phantoms- The ‘Kurnass’ in IDF/AF Service 1989 Until Today by Andreas Klein and Shlomo Aloni. Double Ugly Books/AirDOC, 2009, p44-70.
